Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 21:38 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y The Google-Microsoft patent war of words is continuing. Yesterday, Google (rightfully so, in my book) accused Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle partaking in an organised patent attack against Android, instead of competing on merit, claiming that they bought up Novell's and Nortel's patents solely to attack Android and its device makers. Microsoft struck back, claiming Google was offered to join in on the bids for the Novell patents, but rejected the offer. Google has now responded to this accusation - and to make matters even more confusing, Microsoft responded back. A public shouting match between two powerful parties? Count me in!
Permalink for comment 483844
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: the origins of patents
by Bounty on Fri 5th Aug 2011 17:58 UTC in reply to "the origins of patents"
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

Patent law originally developed to protect physical inventions which typically sold in very small numbers and were very expensive to develop.

It took John Harrison more than 20 years and around a million dollars in today's currency to develop his H5 marine chronometer in the 18th century. [Luckily the British government funded his work through bounties.]
A few were sold each year at a price equivalent to about $100,000.

Now a programmer can develop some code in a relatively short time and sell a 100 million copies in a year.

Why should the programmer get the same period of patent protection for trivial idea as someone who spends a decade or and millions of dollars?

Software patents are acceptable if non-trivial and granted for a very short period eg 2-3 years to recover costs.


I'd say 5 years, but otherwise yes. Also, I think the patent office should limit the number of patents a coorporation can submit in a year, while also being much more pessimistic when evaluating patents. For example notifications on computers are not new, and certainly obvious.

Reply Parent Score: 2