Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Jun 2011 06:31 UTC
Legal Well, the first of the big patent litigations is over. Since this one involves Apple, the big winner is obviously the highly innovative company from Cupertiono, right? The company from which all others copy, right? Well, no, not exactly. The big winner is Nokia.
Thread beginning with comment 477255
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by kittynipples on Wed 15th Jun 2011 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Freaking Hypocrite!"
kittynipples
Member since:
2006-08-02

Nokia filed with HARDWARE patents. Apple filed with SOFTWARE patents. Software patents = bad. Hardware patents (generally) good. Simply, huh?


If an inventor comes up with some "new or novel" way of doing something, please explain what is the real difference between it being implemented in software or in hardware as far as patentability is concerned?

Using your kindergarten logic: Inventing a new algorithm to increase video compression by x3 is not patentable, but inventing a new type of drill bit design that can drill through a material x3 more efficiently should be? I guess so, since software patents = bad, hardware patents = good.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 15th Jun 2011 12:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If an inventor comes up with some "new or novel" way of doing something, please explain what is the real difference between it being implemented in software or in hardware as far as patentability is concerned?


Software is written, and source code is protected by copyright.

Hardware is designed and constructed, and is protected by patents.

Both are artificial, government-granted monopolies. There is ZERO reason why software should be covered by BOTH copyright and patents. You can't patent the contents of a book, now, can you?

This is all pretty basic stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Neolander on Wed 15th Jun 2011 12:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Both are artificial, government-granted monopolies. There is ZERO reason why software should be covered by BOTH copyright and patents. You can't patent the contents of a book, now, can you?

Even if there are technical drawings of patented hardware in it ?

Edited 2011-06-15 12:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by kittynipples on Wed 15th Jun 2011 13:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Anybody who considers themselves a professional software developer will tell you that software is designed also.

You are confusing the design of something with the copying of bits. The patent protects the design, copyright protects the bits.

But maybe your dogmatic view is too basic to understand the distinction.

Reply Parent Score: 1