Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 17:15 UTC
Legal

Called the Partnership for American Innovation, the group warned that steps to stop the PAEs could also hurt truly innovative companies.

Companies signing on to the effort so far are Apple Inc., DuPont, Ford Motor Co., General Electric, IBM Corp, Microsoft Corp and Pfizer Inc.

[...]

In particular, the group would oppose efforts to make software or biotechnology unpatentable.

Google, Cisco and other supporters of efforts to curb frivolous patent litigation from PAEs, often termed "patent trolls," supported a bill that easily passed the U.S. House of Representatives in December.

Software patents are destructive and hinder innovation. Apple, Microsoft, and the other members are actively lobbying to limit innovation in the technology industry. This, in turn, will harm the American economy, and cost the American people tens of thousands of jobs.

It's easy to sound like a politician.

Thread beginning with comment 586123
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

I know what the difference is. Yes I noted that there are problems. But there has to be protection too if someone actually has something unique. I also noted that trying to be a patent troll should be illegal.

To me it should be the same as a physical device. The problem with software patents is the people granting the software patents don't seem to know what software is and they are not using the same kind of reasoning behind the patents as physical patents.

One thing that SHOULD be patentable (note for 10 years) is the shape of cars so that you don't have Toyota making the Prius and then Honda coming out with a care that looks too much the same. It was bull**** then and it is still that there should be a "hybrid shape". I the same is true with the physical looks of cell phones and the look and way the OS and software looks on cell phones. Each OS should be obviously unique so that, without seeing a brand you should be able to pick out which company created it.

Copying is laziness.

Reply Parent Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Yes I noted that there are problems. But there has to be protection too if someone actually has something unique.


Has to be? The basis of the patent law is encouraging innovation by giving limited time monopoly to those who claim the invention. Or how it's otherwise put "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". If the tool (giving the monopoly) defeats the purpose (promotion of progress), then one should question whether that thing should be patentable in the first place. There is no such thing as a blank "there has to be a protection because I own the idea".

Copying (or rather reusing) is not laziness. It's building on existing ideas to go further instead of reinventing the whole thing from scratch - i.e. it's progress. Or you think each browser had to use its own UI methodology instead of tabs for example, because Opera used them first or something the like? No, thanks. Such ideas should not be patentable.

Edited 2014-04-03 22:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You went from saying it's not patents, it's specifically software patents to making an argument against all patents: that is, in your view, I can't see how a physical, mechanical patent is any different from hindering "innovation" (based on your views) than a software patent. So... is it just software patents or all patents?

Reply Parent Score: 2

ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

I know what the difference is. Yes I noted that there are problems.

One of such problems is software patents. The valid software patent is yet to be issued – if possible at all. Given the abuse ratio, the software patents are net loss, and no viable solution was ever proposed.

One thing that SHOULD be patentable (note for 10 years) is the shape of cars [...] I the same is true with the physical looks of cell phones and the look and way the OS and software looks on cell phones. Each OS should be obviously unique so that, without seeing a brand you should be able to pick out which company created it.

Why? You propose to limit customers' choice by making impossible for companies to improve on others' mistakes. Adopting such measure would massively hurt everyone except producers of most trendy goods, who would be allowed to capitalize on their success by lowering costs by lowering quality. Huge net loss.

Reply Parent Score: 3