Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Tue 6th Oct 2009 21:43 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
The patent wars rage on. Eolas, a company that before won US$585 million from Microsoft in 2003 in a suit that challenged the use of ActiveX and AJAX, is now after twenty-three separate companies allegedly because their precious patent was spoiled by all of them.
Thread beginning with comment 388022
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[3]: Always confused about software patents...
by galvanash on Wed 7th Oct 2009 19:01
in reply to "RE[2]: Always confused about software patents..."
Member since:2006-01-25
1. Copyright is one aspect. But it doesn't protect someone from copying your idea, which is the point of a patent.
Thats the problem with your point of view on this. Patents do not and are not supposed to protect ideas. Patently law specifically _disallows_ patenting of an idea. You can only patent inventions. The issue boils down to whether you consider software an idea or an invention. That gets fuzzy - there is a legal definition of invention and its applicability to software is debatable imo.
Regardless, I agree there is a problem with patents overall, not just software. But software particularly seems to amplify the problem.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-10
1. Copyright is one aspect. But it doesn't protect someone from copying your idea, which is the point of a patent. I wouldn't agree with the statement that software is artistic expression. It's design like any other field of engineering.
2/3 - You seem to be hung up on this notion of physical versus software. I just don't see the difference. Let us suppose a smart phone manufacturer comes up new keyboard design. The keys are triangular and they're arranged in a different manner. Does it matter if the keyboard is physical or implemented virtually? The innovation is the layout and design.
Now suppose Microsoft comes up with this new layout, does it matter if all they sell is the OS that contains this new layout?
The fact the the reproduction costs are 0 would actually support software patents. Since the costs are 0, the innovator doesn't have much protection from startup costs... things that typically delay other companies.
4. Yeah, most software patents are obvious to people in software... and most patents in mechanical or electrical or chemical engineering are obvious to those people in the same way.
The main difference is how accessible and new software is. If as many people played with chemistry as played with software, everyone would be infringing on chemical engineering patents and crying about it the same.
My brother works in chemical research... same problems... obvious overly broad patents that any competent person in the field thinks of, but first to get there gets the prize
Which is why I say the problem is not software patents. The problem is patents in general. I don't know how to resolve the issue as you start of with complex technical terms then run that through legal obfuscation... and you expect patent examiners to sift through all that? It's not happening.