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 447717
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by rubberneck
by tomcat on Sat 30th Oct 2010 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by rubberneck"
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Bite you tongue, son. You might want to read up on the history of software patents in the US, and how the US Supreme Court was decidedly against them for much of the latter half of the 20th century.


It's foolhardy to take the opinion of the Supreme Court at any given point in history as a defacto interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The USSC often gets things wrong. Many of our citizens weren't considered "full persons" because of their ethnicity or sex for the greater part of our heritage.

The Court didn't understand that software -- even if it isn't manifested as a physical device -- is still machinery. They saw software primarily as an abstract concept -- or a series of steps or a process -- which was fundamentally wrong. In its purest sense, software IS machinery.

And there's nothing peculiar about software that would warrant excluding it from patent protection. The fact that you might blunder into my invention with the use of an editor and a compiler is no different than if you built a similar machine in your garage.

So, get off my lawn.

It wasn't until the '90s that patents on software became accepted, mostly due to a string of three rulings...


But that wasn't the first time that software patents were validated. Try Diamond v. Diehr in 1981. From that point on, the writing was on the wall.

Please, don't act all arrogant because I'm not an American.


Uh, I'm arrogant ... because I'm arrogant. Not because you're from the Netherlands.

I'm pretty well-versed in these matters, and me not being an American does not mean I don't understand how this stuff works.


Being well-versed doesn't mean your opinion is correct. If anything, people who argue against software patent protection are more luddites holding pitchforks than anything else.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by rubberneck
by TheGZeus on Sat 30th Oct 2010 03:37 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by rubberneck"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

If software is machinery, then so are maths, poetry and novels.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Comment by rubberneck
by Neolander on Sat 30th Oct 2010 06:00 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by rubberneck"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Cooking, too, is a very algorithmic task, so if algorithms can be patented, cooking should be too no ?

Imagine a world where the cops could catch you if you're cooking something looking like an iChili or some MS Pasta Human Mouth Edition Upgraded Plus Embedded Compact without paying monthly fees...

Edited 2010-10-30 06:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by rubberneck
by Icaria on Sat 30th Oct 2010 07:55 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by rubberneck"
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

software -- even if it isn't manifested as a physical device -- is still machinery
Non-physical machines: binary spiritualism.


(Patent pending).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Comment by rubberneck
by TheGZeus on Sat 30th Oct 2010 12:32 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by rubberneck"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

That's beautiful.

Reply Parent Score: 1