Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Oct 2010 18:02 UTC, submitted by viator
Legal If you can't compete, litigate. This train of thought has been quite prevalent among major technology companies as of late, most notably by Apple and Microsoft, who both cannot compete with Android on merit, so they have to resort to patent lawsuits and FUD. Both Asustek and Acer have revealed that Microsoft plans to impose royalty fees upon the two Taiwanese hardware makers to prevent them from shipping Android and/or Chrome OS devices.
Thread beginning with comment 447644
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Anti-competitive?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 29th Oct 2010 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Anti-competitive?"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

You're approaching it with a biased perspective and are automatically assuming that these patents are absurd


Yes.

Because they're software patents. Ergo, they are absurd.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Anti-competitive?
by kristoph on Fri 29th Oct 2010 18:52 in reply to "RE[3]: Anti-competitive?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Why are software patents any more absurd then hardware patents, drug patents, DNA related patents, etc?

The only real difference is the cost of implementation and testing, not the relevant intellectual challenge.

Or for that matter, how is it any less absurd then, say, 100+ year copyright on Disney cartoons, laws against witchcraft, laws against sodomy (involving consenting adults), etc, etc, etc.

Every country has lots of absurd laws. You may like some and you may not like some others but lambasting companies for working within the law to maximize their profits (which is their whole goal in life) hardly makes sense.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Anti-competitive?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 29th Oct 2010 20:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Anti-competitive?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why are software patents any more absurd then hardware patents, drug patents, DNA related patents, etc?


Because software is written, in a language. It's math. It's already protected by copyright. Why are patents needed? Software patents are not patents on products - they're a patent on an idea, not an implementation.

For the very same reason, you cannot patent the concept or artificial lighting. You can, however, patent a new type of lightbulb that lasts longer and uses less electricity.

Software patents are no different than CNN patenting their report on a news event, and then suing the BBC for patent infringement because they report on the same story. If this sounds ridiculous to you, but you still support software patents, then you're a hypocrite. It's the EXACT same thing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Anti-competitive?
by TheGZeus on Fri 29th Oct 2010 20:42 in reply to "RE[4]: Anti-competitive?"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Anything but hardware patents are absurd.
It's an actual product that exists and can be commercially sold, or be built by an individual.

The rest can be handled with either copyright, or should not be restricted.
Drugs? It's a chemical result, keep the method a trade secret. People die because they can't afford life-saving drugs, these companies rake in massive profits. I don't think they need patents.
DNA? That's a chemical structure that occurs naturally, and could easily occur randomly, and often is randomly created in nature, discovered, then patented. Those patents restrict cancer research. People die. That's evil.

Reply Parent Score: 2