Linked by weildish on Sat 24th Jan 2009 22:44 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 345442
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[5]: Beautiful system - they're not the first
by _txf_ on Sun 25th Jan 2009 22:45
in reply to "RE[4]: Beautiful system - they're not the first"
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Horribly out of date, but with which the company (a bunch of dinosaurs) are going to use as a hammer against anyone remotely touching similar aspects.
RE[5]: Beautiful system - they're not the first
by gustl on Tue 27th Jan 2009 14:04
in reply to "RE[4]: Beautiful system - they're not the first"
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.
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:
2005-08-12
[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