Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2012 23:07 UTC
Legal Since I want to get this out of my system: here's a set of proposals to fix (okay, replace) the current failing patent system. No lengthy diatribe or introduction, just a raw list.
Thread beginning with comment 525660
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by yokem55
by viton on Fri 6th Jul 2012 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by yokem55"
viton
Member since:
2005-08-09

then I cannot protect my methodologies
And why should you do it?

Just write the codecs/apps and sell it.

Do not disclose "methodologies" if you fear clones.
If it so trivial that even children could reimplement it,
then your methodologies worth nothing.

Edited 2012-07-06 18:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by yokem55
by tomcat on Sat 7th Jul 2012 15:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by yokem55"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

then I cannot protect my methodologies
And why should you do it?

Just write the codecs/apps and sell it.

Do not disclose "methodologies" if you fear clones.
If it so trivial that even children could reimplement it,
then your methodologies worth nothing.


This is what is known as a trade secret. Essentially, the formula behind "Coke". It is often the most effective way to protect an idea; however, keeping a secret doesn't protect you against reverse engineering or intentional reproduction. Which is why a lot of companies prefer patents.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by yokem55
by viton on Sun 8th Jul 2012 14:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by yokem55"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

however, keeping a secret doesn't protect you against reverse engineering or intentional reproduction.


So what? Apple intentionally reproduced the cell phone.
With this logic cell phones should only be produced by Motorola.

And anyone who has the similar idea and/or implementation will infringe "your" invention. You should not forbid people to THINK and DO.

WebM codec is free and open. Despite of all attempts of nasty patent trolls to shoot it down.

Reverse engineering is typically done to support your files/hardware on other platforms, that you do not support.

As I said, there are too many people but too few unique things.
Compression patents are basically math + trivial things for anyone familiar with this field or tried to THINK.
These people built their inventions on the shoulders of all mathematicians and early computer pioneers. Is it fair?
They should invent their own mathematic, physics and their computers from scratch then.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by yokem55
by amadensor on Mon 9th Jul 2012 14:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by yokem55"
amadensor Member since:
2006-04-10



Do not disclose "methodologies" if you fear clones.
If it so trivial that even children could reimplement it,
then your methodologies worth nothing.


Actually, being simple to implement is exactly what makes them brilliant. If it is something simple to implement, but still novel, then it is even more valuable than if it is very complex. It can be simple to implement without being obvious.

I am not saying that software patents are good, or that our current system is even close to functional. I am saying that these are the things we need to consider as we fix it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by yokem55
by zima on Wed 11th Jul 2012 00:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by yokem55"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Do not disclose "methodologies" if you fear clones.
If it so trivial that even children could reimplement it,
then your methodologies worth nothing.

Hello decompilation? (hence essentially forcing people into wasting time to obfuscate code)

If it's trivial to reimplement, but yet nobody implemented it before in the first place, maybe it was really hard to come up with / genius.

Reply Parent Score: 2