Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 31st Oct 2006 21:10 UTC
"The simple question 'what's wrong with software patents?' stirs up controversy and divides the IT industry into two camps like no other. Every group has their own ideology about software patents. Those who don't like them claim that they are anti-competitive, that they are tools used by industry giants to crush free and open software, that they are bad for innovation, that they are monopolies. Those who like them claim that they are simply units of intellectual property, to be traded like any other commodity."
Thread beginning with comment 177802
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Thieves hate patents.
by CowMan on Thu 2nd Nov 2006 03:49
in reply to "RE[6]: Thieves hate patents."
Member since:2006-09-26
Specifications, yes, but the depth required of patent documents is rarely sufficient (excluding simple devices) to be considered blueprints, atleast from what I've seen skipping through the US & Canadian online patent files. They're operationally sufficient, but often require an indepth knowledge of their given field - that is, above and beyond blueprint reading skills - for anything near actual construction; or even maintainance.
Patents for "real things" have seemingly served the world quite well, it's too bad that hasn't carried over to IP cleanly.
RE[8]: Thieves hate patents.
by Johann Chua on Fri 3rd Nov 2006 12:05
in reply to "RE[7]: Thieves hate patents."
Member since:2005-07-22
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-04-20
For something to be patented, one of the requirements is that the design documents (specifications, blueprints, manufacturing instructions and so forth) are to be made available*. Anyone can ask the patents office to view this information, even if the manufacturer doesn't provide it themselves. This is for the reason that people need to be able to know exactly what is being patented so they can 1)avoid infringing it, and 2) consider licencing an existing patent rather than re-inventing the wheel so to speak.
If software is to be patented, one requirement must be that the source code is available at the patents office.
Personally, I don't think either existing patent or copyright laws adequately cover software - it is in a IP class of its own, and should be treated accordingly.
*If they don't want to patent the invention, they can put it under the umbrella of trade secrecy.
Edited 2006-11-02 02:47