Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th May 2011 21:29 UTC, submitted by teigetje
Thread beginning with comment 475277
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.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-12-04
"I can safely tell anyone without a doubt, that I have infringed on that patent in 2001, before it was filed. Why did I infringe on it? Because I had the same requirements as the person that decided to patent it."
That's the problem with software patents isn't it! It's absurd that we have patents on software where the patent holder has clearly spent more resources on lawyers than on developers for the "invention".
Note that prior art is grounds to invalidate a patent. Obtaining and defending patents is also an expensive exercise, and it is unwise to spend so much to obtain something that won't survive its first challenge.
I can personally say that I've never been involved in filing a patent where I knew the idea was not original, and I've avoided things where I've suspected the idea might not be original, simply because it doesn't make business sense to pursue.