Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 22:12 UTC
Microsoft "One of Microsoft's hottest new profit centers is a smartphone platform you've definitely heard of: Android. Google's Linux-based mobile operating system is a favorite target for Microsoft's patent attorneys, who are suing numerous Android vendors and just today announced that another manufacturer has agreed to write checks to Microsoft every time it ships an Android device. Microsoft's latest target is Wistron Corp., which has signed a patent agreement 'that provides broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio for Wistron's tablets, mobile phones, e-readers and other consumer devices running the Android or Chrome platform', Microsoft announced." That's the reality we live in, folks. This is at least as criminal - if not more so - than Microsoft's monopoly abuse late last century. After the Nortel crap, it's completely left the black helicopter camp for me: Microsoft, Apple, and several others are working together to fight Android the only way they know how: with underhand mafia tactics. Absolutely sickening. Hey Anonymous, are you listening? YES I WENT THERE.
Thread beginning with comment 479672
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 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Patents are patents"
ourcomputerbloke
Member since:
2011-05-12

Nice underhanded insult.


Wow, talk about having a huge chip on your shoulder.

It wasn't intended as an insult but the fact that you took it as one, and still didn't answer the question while obviously voting the comment down, should tell many of the readers here a story.

The reason its not obvious to anyone who hasn't written anything significant is that there are many ways to achieve the same or similar end result in software and hardware for that matter, so it's quite reasonable to expect that someone can copy a concept (patent) without ever infringing on copyright.

News just happens, software doesn't, so your example of news tells me that you have no concept of what is involved in developing then coding a software concept, and therefore the R&D that goes into large projects. Again, not designed as an insult, just the truth, but take it as you will.

Reply Parent Score: -4

RE[5]: Patents are patents
by andydread on Wed 6th Jul 2011 01:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Patents are patents"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

"Nice underhanded insult.


Wow, talk about having a huge chip on your shoulder.

It wasn't intended as an insult but the fact that you took it as one, and still didn't answer the question while obviously voting the comment down, should tell many of the readers here a story.

The reason its not obvious to anyone who hasn't written anything significant is that there are many ways to achieve the same or similar end result in software and hardware for that matter, so it's quite reasonable to expect that someone can copy a concept (patent) without ever infringing on copyright.

News just happens, software doesn't, so your example of news tells me that you have no concept of what is involved in developing then coding a software concept, and therefore the R&D that goes into large projects. Again, not designed as an insult, just the truth, but take it as you will.
"

How about books? Books don't just happen? What about if I wrote a book with the concept of..I don't know.. a love story and patented that concept? What about patent on a book about space wars? No one would be able to write a love story without the threat of facing my lawyers. Likewise a story about wars in space. get it. If I write software that moves .mp3 files from my downloads folder to my music folder I should't be able to patent that and stop others from writing better implementations/methods of that concept. Patent novel inventions not software. Software is already protected by copyright.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: Patents are patents
by r_a_trip on Wed 6th Jul 2011 10:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Patents are patents"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

so it's quite reasonable to expect that someone can copy a concept (patent) without ever infringing on copyright.

Yes. And that is how it should be. Patents are there in the first place to get the inventor to divulge his secrets to society, so that society as a whole may benefit. It's not that patents are around to give out state granted monopolies with a "right to profit". Yes, society gives you a limited time in which they accept the trade off of not having healthy competition in exchange for something valuable, namely the secrets to your specific implementation of an idea.

Second, patents by definition should be about the specific implementation, not the underlying idea. If all conceivable derivatives/implementations of an idea are blocked for 20 years, this just does immense harm to society, which foots the bill for making another fat cat, who will most of the time sit on his/her hiney printing money with the state granted, overly broad monopoly. This concept of harm to society as a whole has unfortunately been lost in countries with software patents, which are more and more falling (failing?) into the idea patent category. (I'm not against wealth, but Deity Damnit, work hard for it, just like everybody else. No legal shenanigans and gaming of the system to get there.)

While the question wasn't posed to me and some people will not be willing to accept my little, nifty programs for Office automation as something significant, I'll answer it anyways. I don't consider my brainfarts something that needs patent protection. Basically any monkey with half a brain and some logic abilities could do what I do. I also accept that there are a lot of people, equally as bright as me, who can't do what I do. That doesn't make my programs something special. The value of the program isn't in the programming behind it, what counts is the output.

If an idea is SO SIMPLE that anyone with a programming language and a compiler/interpreter can take notice of it and through sheer gruntwork and time can independently crank out a competing implementation, there wasn't much to protect to begin with. Brains are a dime a dozen and ideas are even cheaper. Don't overvalue the product, just because it took a lot of time to put together. With software,once done, the marginal costs sinks to near zero anyways.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Patents are patents
by JAlexoid on Wed 6th Jul 2011 16:55 in reply to "RE[5]: Patents are patents"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

+1

A person that knows why patents have been created in the first place. To combat guilds from keeping trade secrets...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Patents are patents
by Silent_Seer on Thu 7th Jul 2011 12:07 in reply to "RE[4]: Patents are patents"
Silent_Seer Member since:
2007-04-06

Just why are patents on math bad? (notice, I said math, not just software) Math can be implemented both in hardware or software. Here's why (I am referring you to an earlier comment I made):

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?413284

Advances will still happen without patents on math just like they happened before. Only difference is that you won't be making them, universities and research institutions, supported by gov funds, will.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Patents are patents
by lemur2 on Thu 7th Jul 2011 23:29 in reply to "RE[5]: Patents are patents"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Just why are patents on math bad? (notice, I said math, not just software) Math can be implemented both in hardware or software.


Math is "discovered", not "invented". Patents are awarded for "new methods", not "new discoveries".

Discoveries belong to everyone ... like the oxygen in the atmosphere.

Reply Parent Score: 2