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 477258
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 15th Jun 2011 12:43 UTC 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[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th Jun 2011 00:11 in reply to "RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Here's the fun part on why patents a needed. If you buy a book with a copyrighted drawing(and all of them are copyrighted BTW) there is nothing in copyright preventing you from making products based on that drawing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th Jun 2011 00:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

How about being a professional(as in being paid to do their work) software developer for the last 14 years and working The Big software? Does that meet your criteria? Maybe add to that, actually working on patents that have been filed and granted by USPTO.

And I still know that software patents are absurd. Software design is very much generic in all software and is based on too much prior art, that it must not be patented.
Today, software differs only in particular algorithms, everything else has been done over and over(talking about software design).
The last truly innovative patent I personally reviewed, was a case of "Mmm... I remembered that formula from mathematical analysis courses in the university. It was created to solve my problem, so I used it and here's the patent application"

Reply Parent Score: 3