Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 15th May 2004 08:23 UTC
It is when I read articles like this that I have "my blood all going up to my head" (that's a Greek saying for people that get angry). So apparently, Apple is trying to patent "transparent windows that do a certain action after fading away". While I don't personally find this "innovation/invention" patentable, it's fine with me: Apple is doing the best it can to secure its business (maybe I would do the same if I had shareholders on my back).
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
I am constantly disappointed in the debate over patentability of software by the following on the side of the F/OSS community:
1. software has been patentable in one form or another since the 1980's (vicom - EU, diamond - US), although admittedly business methods much later (SSB / PBS). I've seen little _quantifiable evidence_ of how the "30,000 illegal software patents" (to quote the FFII website) have prevented Linux, BSD(family), mysql, OpenOffice, etc from becoming the success they are? If patents were really causing an _actual_ problem: F/OSS would not taking the world by storm as it currently is.
2. the 2000 call for GNU patent examples by richard stallman, lists a mere few patents that caused problems for GNU/etc development: this is not a substantial level to argue that the progress of F/OSS has been hampered. Please provide _actual substantive evidence_ (other than FUD) of how _actual software patents_ have impinged upon the success of open source software?
3. with regard to "future consequences": inevitably there will be some technology blocked from use by patents, but _equally_ the innovation and inventiveness of F/OSS can produce the new technologies _first_ and by the mere fact of disclosing them is creating prior art that blocks anyone else from patenting. Thus, F/OSS can wage a competition against those that use patents in return. F/OSS seems to want complete "free beer" and absolution from any liabilities and responsibilities other than "cutting code".
4. with regard to the fear that patents are going to read upon developments: all patent documents and searching systems at the EPO, USPTO and elsewhere are freely available to all comers at no cost, so F/OSS just has to learn how to use them. F/OSS tends to believe that all it needs to do is adhere to copyright issues (i.e. GPL/BSD licenses) and it's free to create as it pleases - if only the rest of society had this choice in creating other works (e.g. there are legal, liability and other issues bound up against anything else one does: publications can get cause you to be held accountable for defamation, product liability laws cover electronic and other goods, anti competitive activity could just as well apply to a F/OSS consortium as it could to a commercial one, etc).
5. many people make money working in commercial companies producing closed source software - a monthly paycheck to feed the children, pay for their education, etc - and the good patents can actually give a substantial commercial value that helps continue to bring rewards for the risk taken to try and make the invention happen. I say "good patents", because yes - like it is suggested, there are those that abuse the system - but abusers of systems exist everywhere, that's a social problem, not a problem of the system itself (other than the lack of safeguards or the costs/etc that make it easier for the abuser) - software patents shouldn't go away, the system needs to be fixed to reduce the levels of abuse, but fundamentally, there are tangible benefits to the wellbeing of many people and their families that are a direct result of the use of patents.