Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:37 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 510639
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.
Well, it's not like you could create an OS from scratch that could seriously compete in today's market without a shitload of funding anyway. Joe Coder and a group of his friends are not going to build something that rivals Windows or OSX in their spare time.
It wasn't long ago humanity believed we couldn't learn more about physics. If there's something we know for sure it's that we never know for sure what we may come up with in the future. Any limitations put upon our own innovative capacity should always be carefully considered. For our own good.
30 years ago it might've been possible, but the tech has gotten immensely more complicated since then. Even Linux wouldn't be where it is today without the financial backing of large companies.
When you seek funding from VCs and business angels you have to look at potential costs. This will only make it harder to get that funding.
Look, I'm not saying that patents are a good thing, or that someone shouldn't be able to create something and put it out in the wild with an investment of $0, but most things cost money to get off the ground.
Just because most people are poor doesn't mean more people should be. It's not logical to make things worse because they are bad.
Seriously... if you have a good idea, you can probably get somebody with a lot of cash to invest in it.
It always take more than just a good idea. Putting more limitations on potential upstarts will be costly. Sure, it may be a minor inconvenience on the whole but it still isn't worth the costs IMO. It's simply too little benefit for a too high price.
And anyway, this is a patent on a specific codec - not exactly the same thing as patenting 'swipe to unlock'.
Just because it's a codec doesn't mean it should be patentable. I have yet to see any clear and confirmed evidence that software patents have increased software innovations, or that lack of software patents hinder software innovations. It is not logical to impose mechanisms which have clear costs but unproven benefits.
It wasn't long ago humanity believed we couldn't learn more about physics. If there's something we know for sure it's that we never know for sure what we may come up with in the future. Any limitations put upon our own innovative capacity should always be carefully considered. For our own good.
Hey, I'm not saying building a competitive OS from scratch can't be done, just that you're gonna need an army of developers to pull it off, and probably working full-time.





Member since:
2005-11-13
Well, it's not like you could create an OS from scratch that could seriously compete in today's market without a shitload of funding anyway. Joe Coder and a group of his friends are not going to build something that rivals Windows or OSX in their spare time.
30 years ago it might've been possible, but the tech has gotten immensely more complicated since then. Even Linux wouldn't be where it is today without the financial backing of large companies.
Look, I'm not saying that patents are a good thing, or that someone shouldn't be able to create something and put it out in the wild with an investment of $0, but most things cost money to get off the ground. Seriously... if you have a good idea, you can probably get somebody with a lot of cash to invest in it. And anyway, this is a patent on a specific codec - not exactly the same thing as patenting 'swipe to unlock'.