Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 22:12 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 479667
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.
RE[4]: Patents are patents
by ourcomputerbloke on Wed 6th Jul 2011 00:28
in reply to "RE[3]: Patents are patents"
I’ve written a lot of commercial software and still do not understand the idea of software patents. Do I have to search USPTO patent library any time I’m going to implement an algorithm or UI element and then pay for it?
If I'm designing a new gadget to do anything specific do I have to search USPTO patent library to make sure I'm not infringing on someone's patent? Of course, so why should it be any different for software?
And by the same token should a company who is buying components from another company who already has a patent license to produce that hardware have to pay another license for the use of that same patent? Why is that not double-dipping?
RE[4]: Patents are patents
by Flatland_Spider on Wed 6th Jul 2011 00:48
in reply to "RE[3]: Patents are patents"




Member since:
2011-07-05
I’ve written a lot of commercial software and still do not understand the idea of software patents. Do I have to search USPTO patent library any time I’m going to implement an algorithm or UI element and then pay for it?
If so, then it’s probably time to quit programming, because we are inventing bicycles every day.