"Mid November, Steve Ballmer said 'Linux uses our intellectual property' and Microsoft wanted to 'get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation.' Many people didn't understand what he really meant, among them the LXer editors. Therefore, LXer sent an Open Letter to the Waggener Edstrom Rapid Response team, and two weeks later, the answers are in (no pun intended). Check the full story for the answers a Microsoft Spokesperson gave us, which hopefully can answer some of our questions."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-11
//If hardware patents were like software patents, the first bicycle maker would have gotten a patent for "a device which transports a person using wheels and a frame", and the auto industry would have been paying him royalties for that basic concept for the past 100 years...//
Another example that people might be able to relate to is a patent for an "electric light". For a hardware invention patent such as that, it is necessary on the patent to describe how the "electric light" invention works. In the case of the original electric light, that method was to take a thin resistive wire, place it inside a sealed globe filled with inert gas, and pass a current through the wire so that it became white hot and emitted light.
So then the patent for "electric light" really becomes a patent for an incandescent light. This allows another inventor to make a competing product by coming up with a "flourescent electric light". The new device does the same thing effectively as the original electric light (it uses electricity to produce light), but it does not use the method described in the original patent, and so does not violate the original patent.
Similarly for "headache tablet". Panadol should be able to patent a specific formula for paracetmol, but that patent should not prevent someone else making Aspirin, Tylenol or Nurofen.
It should be possible to do the same with any patent. That is, it should be possible to achieve the same thing in a different way, and so not violate the original patent. If it is not possible because the patent claims "all methods of doing <whatever>", then the patent is too broad and should be invalidated.
Also, if a patent describes only what and not how something is done, then that patent too should be invalidated. It should not be possible to patent a "network server protocol" without describing exactly how that protocol works, in the same way that it should not be possible to patent "antigravity machine" without describing exactly how it worked.
Edited 2006-12-11 23:34
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:
2005-07-12
Software patents are different from most other patents because they tend to describe a general method for doing something, while other types of patents tend to describe a specific implementation.
If hardware patents were like software patents, the first bicycle maker would have gotten a patent for "a device which transports a person using wheels and a frame", and the auto industry would have been paying him royalties for that basic concept for the past 100 years...