To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Except I'm not going to spend the money to *think* of the idea if I know someone else can just come along and steal it from me. Instead, I'm gonna sit back, let you spend the money to think of the idea, and then steal it from you, copy it, and undercut your prices on a competing product because my costs to develop it were lower since I let you do half the work. Do you think that's fair? Because that is what happens if there is no patent protection.
Edited 2011-07-06 00:32 UTC
Except firms are forced to innovate when there is an absence of patents, like in the fashion industry. A design cannot be patented, so the fashion industry invests heavily in creativity.
Let's not pretend some company could wave a magic wand and produce something like the iPhone without software patents. My Android phone tries, but it's not on the same level. Software is an art form, and some people will never be masters.
The exact opposite is true. In the absence of patents, firms won't innovate because they cannot protect their investment in innovation. Instead, they will sit back and wait for someone else to spend the money on innovation and then copy it. Only problem is that you end up with deadlock, because no one wants to spend the money to innovate. They want to take the "wait and see" approach instead, and then copy whatever good ideas come along.
A design cannot be patented? Tell that to Apple, who has successfully won multiple patent lawsuits based on design.
They do? Is that why there are so many cheap knockoffs of expensive fashion designs out there?
Android does a pretty good job at being an iPhone knockoff actually. Enough so that Apple is suing some Android phone manufacturers of course. If Apple's track record on suing because of design copying is any indication, Apple will most likely win.
So you are implying what? That Google's engineers and designers are not masters?
Software has copyright.
Hardware has patents.
When a hardware patent is applied for a schematic. A very specific schematic is provided. Bonus of that is that it's possible to create another non-infringing product that relies on the same physics principles. With software and business process patents it's basically impossible.
The more a software patent is specific, the more it's obvious that it's plain mathematics. That is why software patents end up incomprehensible broad texts.
That's not always true. Hardware patents can as big of a hornet's nest as software patents when non-legit patents are granted. See IBM v. Sun Microsystems. IBM nearly put Sun out of business because of a bogus hardware patent on RISC processor technology that was so generic it basically said "If you make it simpler, it will go faster".





Member since:
2008-12-09
Are you against patents in general? Can't basically any patentable idea be reduced to math? You say that it's illegal to patent math, but what about the patents on RSA (for example)?
I agree with the people saying that it's bogus to take an existing idea with lots of prior art, rephrase it to use computers, and apply for a patent. However I'm not completely convinced that denying someone a chance to recoup their investment in a new technology is a good way to encourage progress in a field.