To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
[quote]"Invented", eh? Even the user interface domain is stuffed full of prior art.[/quote]
You're just making statements that have no validity, as you're just guessing.
Patents are a very important component in enforcement of the right to retain IP. Your denial of that doesn't negate the fact of it.
You apparently don't know the difference between a copyright and a patent. Look it up and then come back here.
Edited 2009-01-25 20:26 UTC
Unfortunately, many interface patents are hideously vague. One of my faves is this one:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wv5-AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,181,690
Horribly out of date, but with which the company (a bunch of dinosaurs) are going to use as a hammer against anyone remotely touching similar aspects.
What is IP?
It is a artificial term which sums up things like trademarks, patents, copyrights, creator's rights, ... .
And it is a murky territory nowadays.
Whereas patents are necessary for pharmaceutic innovation (long development times, long testing times, high development costs), patents in areas like mechanical engineering are less useful as a tool to foster innovation.
For software, ideas are vast, the development costs are close to zero, obtaining a software patent costs as much as the person who does the PTO paperwork costs. Consequently, software patents are not worth protecting. Nobody would protect a single one dollar bill, whereas Fort Knox with all it's gold is heavily guarded.
Patents are a tool to make people and companies innovate, despite high costs of innovation. if innovation does not cost much, patents are not needed, quite the contrary, they are a hindrance to innovation.




Member since:
2005-11-14
"Invented", eh? Even the user interface domain is stuffed full of prior art.
Everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame to last forever, but you actually need to keep up the hard work for that to happen.
If you're referring to the production of fake goods, there are a range of instruments other than patents which would deal with that problem adequately. And by using "ip" you're deliberately blurring the issues. Many people who advocate the abolition of patents in various fields don't advocate the abolition of copyright because copyright not only functions adequately as a "protection", but it's also completely clear when someone has infringed copyright: they've either acquired (and probably massaged) the work or they haven't. With patents, you can rediscover some technique and do all the hard work yourself and then be sued for treading on someone's turf.
And now that China's bureaucrats have discovered the easy money in "intellectual property", what has happened? A deluge of junk patents which will ultimately be used to stifle competition. In fact, they've even "innovated" in making new categories of junk patents. Welcome to the club, eh?