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've two quibbles with this kind of discussion:
1) Why are patents considered a moral issue? They aren't. They're a legal device to ensure inventors benefit from their inventions, and don't fall victim to ripoff artists. Are they granted in a perfect fashion? No. But that does not mean that patents involve a question of morality.
People who invent something can do whatever they want with it; they have no obligation to share it or give it away.
You can question, from a logical point of view, whether new software algorithms and code should be considered inventions. But that's not a moral issue.
2) Why the focus on U.S. patents and U.S. corporations? The world is full of wealthy corporations and just about every country has a patent office. Are, say. French patents any less "evil" than American patents?
The notion of sharing that underpins open source software is useful, but it takes a leap of imagination to project it on the real world as a moral precept.