Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2012 09:24 UTC
Legal The failing US patent system is getting ever more mainstream - The New York Times is running a long and details piece on the failings of the system, especially in relation to the technology industry most of us hold so dearly. Most of the stuff in there isn't new to us - but there's two things in the article I want to highlight.
Thread beginning with comment 537950
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: My two cents
by JoshuaS on Tue 9th Oct 2012 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My two cents"
JoshuaS
Member since:
2011-09-15

The inventor having a strangle hold on the product is the purpose of the system. Otherwise inventors and their investors will have a huge competitive disadvantage. For example, medicins take a lot of investment, but they are very cheap to reverse-engieer.

I think that we should just define a patentable idea as something which can be produced as a good or service. And only specifically that, deriative idea's are not included in the rights of the patent-holder. And a requirement for a patent should be that the holder actually produces the good or the service. Easy as that.

By abolishing the patent system entirely, many industries will stagnate because of the mear cost of innovation and small, innovatng bussinesses crushed by multi-nationals, because of their shear resources.

We must be careful what we wish for.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: My two cents
by Alfman on Tue 9th Oct 2012 15:16 in reply to "RE[4]: My two cents"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

JoshuaS,

"For example, medicins take a lot of investment, but they are very cheap to reverse-engieer."

"By abolishing the patent system entirely, many industries will stagnate because of the mear cost of innovation and small, innovatng bussinesses crushed by multi-nationals, because of their shear resources."

For the record, most software engineers are not calling for the general abolishment of the patent system in other fields like medicine, we're just saying that it shouldn't be applied to software, which is routinely derived simultaneously when multiple developers are given the same task to solve. Or when we're pressured to adopt a specific patented solution to be compatible with a defacto standard even though we'd really like to use non-infringing alternatives.

Edited 2012-10-09 15:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: My two cents
by JoshuaS on Tue 9th Oct 2012 20:10 in reply to "RE[5]: My two cents"
JoshuaS Member since:
2011-09-15

The main problem with software patents is that unknowledgable civil servants don't know they already had an algorithm for solving a square root in Mesopotamia thousands of years ago. The civil servants should be more knowledgable, that's all.

Suppose such a thing as an interface that could suit both the traditional desktop/laptop and tablet existed. That's not an obvious idea ( look at Windows 8 ) and requires you to hire a batch of creative developers. A software patent would have use here, because you're inventing a new software product, and not just telling your computer how to do things mathematicians have been doing for decades.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: My two cents
by Gullible Jones on Tue 9th Oct 2012 19:38 in reply to "RE[4]: My two cents"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Personally I'm for reform of the patent system, not abolition of it.

By abolishing the patent system entirely, many industries will stagnate because of the mear cost of innovation and small, innovatng bussinesses crushed by multi-nationals, because of their shear resources.


Wait, are you telling me this isn't happening already?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: My two cents
by JoshuaS on Tue 9th Oct 2012 20:13 in reply to "RE[5]: My two cents"
JoshuaS Member since:
2011-09-15

No. Just that the problem is merely that the patent offices are now running for profit by imbeciles who know nothing about the sciences and the history of inventions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: My two cents
by smashIt on Wed 10th Oct 2012 07:25 in reply to "RE[4]: My two cents"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

For example, medicins take a lot of investment, but they are very cheap to reverse-engieer.


not if you take into account that the pharma-industrie spends only a fraction of their income on research, and that more than 2/3 of all developed drugs are never put on the market

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: My two cents
by jared_wilkes on Wed 10th Oct 2012 16:11 in reply to "RE[5]: My two cents"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

The fact that 2/3s of the developed drugs don't make it to market is exactly the point.

Reply Parent Score: 2