Comments on: Software Patents and Legally Required Greed http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/08/02/software-patents-and-legally-required-greed/ apparently much happier in person Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:39:21 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Sami Khan http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/08/02/software-patents-and-legally-required-greed/#comment-82189 Sami Khan Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 512512122#comment-82189 Comment trackback: <a href="http://www.samikhan.org/2006/08/03/blackboards-patents">Blackboard's Patents</a> Comment trackback: Blackboard’s Patents

]]> By: Peter http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/08/02/software-patents-and-legally-required-greed/#comment-82205 Peter Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 512512122#comment-82205 <p>Current patent law, especially with regards to technologies like this, needs to be changed.  It just seems like the people granting patents don't even understand what they're granting. (OK - I know it's not that bad, but still)</p><p>Take the recent patent Friendster was granted on various aspects of social networking (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/07/friendster-awarded-patent-on-social-networking/)</p><p>The patent is obviously too general and too far reaching.  Read further down, and you'll find a commenter who did some searching and found loads of similar "conceptual" patents granted, including one for Xerox, who owns a patent that covers electronic bulletin boards.</p><p>Thankfully, most of these companies have not chosen to act on enforcing these patents, probably because they're worried about the bad publicity/legal costs that would come from ligitation.  Though IANAL, that's my take on it.  As you said, once shareholders start tightening the vice grips, all bets are off.</p><p>Take the recent story about RIM and all of their patent nightmares, thanks to one greedy company down in the US.  The original intent of patents was to protect innovation - if people copy your idea, then there's no incentive to innovate.  However, today patent laws are being used for the <span style="font-weight: bold">exact opposite</span> purpose. <br /></p> Current patent law, especially with regards to technologies like this, needs to be changed.  It just seems like the people granting patents don't even understand what they're granting. (OK – I know it's not that bad, but still)

Take the recent patent Friendster was granted on various aspects of social networking (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/07/friendster-awarded-patent-on-social-networking/)

The patent is obviously too general and too far reaching.  Read further down, and you'll find a commenter who did some searching and found loads of similar "conceptual" patents granted, including one for Xerox, who owns a patent that covers electronic bulletin boards.

Thankfully, most of these companies have not chosen to act on enforcing these patents, probably because they're worried about the bad publicity/legal costs that would come from ligitation.  Though IANAL, that's my take on it.  As you said, once shareholders start tightening the vice grips, all bets are off.

Take the recent story about RIM and all of their patent nightmares, thanks to one greedy company down in the US.  The original intent of patents was to protect innovation – if people copy your idea, then there's no incentive to innovate.  However, today patent laws are being used for the exact opposite purpose.

]]> By: John Mayer http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/08/02/software-patents-and-legally-required-greed/#comment-82206 John Mayer Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 512512122#comment-82206 <p><em>"...So... Who's the best candidate to be handed the patent? IMS? IEEE? Creative Commons? UN?..."</em></p><p>That's easy.  Educause.  </p><p>...but it's too late for that.  They have already sued and so have announced their intentions.  </p> "…So… Who's the best candidate to be handed the patent? IMS? IEEE? Creative Commons? UN?…"

That's easy.  Educause.  

…but it's too late for that.  They have already sued and so have announced their intentions.  

]]> By: dnorman http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/08/02/software-patents-and-legally-required-greed/#comment-82207 dnorman Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 512512122#comment-82207 right. and the couldn't go back to their shareholders with a "Karma Restoration Plan" either :-) right. and the couldn’t go back to their shareholders with a “Karma Restoration Plan” either :-)

]]> By: sean http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/08/02/software-patents-and-legally-required-greed/#comment-82398 sean Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 512512122#comment-82398 As much as I don't like the idea of patents on ideas, it appears that the process of accumulating patent arsenals is just "doing business" for many companies. Is it possible that open source communities need to consider this as a cost of doing business? Is an open source license enough to ensure that your product is safe from a flawed patent system? As much as I don’t like the idea of patents on ideas, it appears that the process of accumulating patent arsenals is just “doing business” for many companies. Is it possible that open source communities need to consider this as a cost of doing business? Is an open source license enough to ensure that your product is safe from a flawed patent system?

]]>