Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 31st May 2011 22:20 UTC, submitted by john
Legal Well, I have to say this: Lodsys got some balls. After Apple threatening them with legal action, Lodsys has gone on the offensive, and has proceeded to sue third party iOS application developers. While Lodsys had first given developers 21 days to negotiate an agreement, due to Apple's legal threats, the company has now moved its litigation timing to an earlier date.
Permalink for comment 475418
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: For or against
by JAlexoid on Wed 1st Jun 2011 08:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: For or against"
Member since:

I agree that the gene therapy using specific chemical compounds should be patentable. Why? Simply because there are no other protections from copying that compound. And add to that the open door of finding another chemical compound to do have the same effect.

Software however already has copyright and software patents are either:
a) Exceptionally broad, that they don't describe what is done but describe the effects.
b) So narrow that they patent use of laws of nature in software. See my reference to implementation of physics engine.

If we go back 300 years back and apply the way the software patents are filed today, the steam engine patent would only include:
a) boiler
b) piston
c) explanation that a rod attached to a piston could push something

Or in an extreme it would patent the expansion of high pressure gas in a lower pressure environment.

PS: Yes, I'm a bit oversimplifying. But that is my experience from the field of US patents.

Edited 2011-06-01 08:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3