A patent on the history of the American patent System: //By Richard Corsale all rights forfeit boolean rationalPatents = date //logic loop do{ if(!rationalPatents){ println("the big IP grab of 98 snowballed and were left with a system that's universally understood to be broken."); Litigation ++;
if(lawsAreMadeByThoseThatBenniFromBrokenSystem){
out>>"It's also been discovered that broken legal systems provides a nice living for attorneys, which end up making the laws (as stated above), which keep getting worse and worse because.."; Litigation *= Litigation;
} Innovation = (Innovation/Time)-Litigation; }else{ print("only Grant monopolies on exceptional inventions"); Innovation ++; } }while(true); //.. is an error, not a feature...
Right, Software is not patentable here either, the process is patentable as in, what the software does or how you interact with it. This is far worse than if they just let you patent a specific piece of software. As you can see, ownership of entire branches of science are common. The thing with the EU is that one nation would allow it, and it becomes an EPO patent. They are trying right now, to get a single hearing for alleged infringement across the entire EU. I was going to submit this one to TC, but it's 20 days old. I just forgot ... that's poor activism on my part.
My bad, I'm calling it a day for the posting... I did not RTFP before posting this :) Either way, just so you know, those referenced patents are enforceable through the WIPO courts, they could ban (though I dont know if they have yet) your software or site from all TRIPS participating / WTO / first world nations.
I'm pretty sure they are recognized throughout the EU?
here are just a few examples of EU issued patents
________________________________________________________
1. Webshop: Selling things over a network using a server, client and payment processor, or using a client and a server - EP803105, EP738446, EP1016014
2. Order by cell phone: Selling over a mobile phone network - EP1090494
There are no good process patents. Regardless of how you slice it, they're patents on concepts, not implementations. Dictating how something is done was never the intent of patents. They were intended to protect very specific implementations of physical devices. not what those devices do. Software implementation is already covered by ridiculously powerful international copyright laws.
Funny Software patents have been a shake since the 80's and when the .com boom of late 90's came about.. all sorts of irrational things started happening, Software patents are an artifact of the erroneous "idea economy".
Anyone that insinuates that patents were ever intended to cover technique is being disingenuous. I've been in the software industry since the early 90's, both as an engineer and as an independent software vendor. I have seen this nightmare unfold as the collective intellectual body of developers looked on with jaws agape. Software patents have been, since their inception, the single most encumbering element to technical advancement the industry has ever seen. When MS applauds the existence of these patents, it's not hard to see my point. WE developed the Internet, THEY took it from us.. Our ability to innovate and advance concepts that have been in place since punch cards. Then they placed it in the hands of the corporate gatekeeper. Oddly the companies that utilize these "vehicles of intellectual capitol" wind up in the hands of the major players. It truly is impossible to write any application thats of any use at all without opening your self up to vast liability.. I had hope for an explosion of technological advancement when I was young.. now I understand that the powers that be, can't have that. Disruptive technology undermines the enterprise by exploiting its biggest weakness - It's inability to react.
Exactly, I've been saying this from the get go. This is not a new tactic :) It's just a ploy to pony up a few disingenuous "compromises" on the last leg of the sprint. It works every time.
The politicians say "we stood up to them!" and everyone cheers. It's like the exemption for the blind thing.. a total farce.
"who is stupid enough to pay over the value for it"
You confuse value and cost. In the world of Software we know.. and have for sometime now, that The marginal production cost of software is zero. Zero is not the value of the software but it's understood to be between bupkis and some arbitrary number that people will pay. See the disconnect? Let me put it another way. Microsoft created an internal semi-secret policy that states, that if Linux were to gain significant market share that Windows would be given away free. They would rather loose the 200 or whatever dollars than the market share, which translates to sales of Office, Visual studio (which is also earmarked to become a loss leader in the event of a price war) and all of its other VALUE added products and services. This is understood to be good business, because they get "it". Customers are worth more than money. If you think about it another way, how much does it cost to acquire one customer? Right.. each customer that adopts early is a loss leader and margins improve over the long run. Now think about mindshare, it, on the other hand, is so much more expensive/illusive than customers, that it's not been quantified to date. I look at Google when I think Mindshare, I look at MS when I think customers.
The new economy (I hate that phrase) will be for mindshar, not customers. The exact same rules hold for music. Now do see what hes saying? The fact that people still have to pay for Windows and office is because MS beat down the competition through marketing, lobbying and FUD. Wait... maybe you have been paying attention .... :)
Just throwing this out there.. In the town which I live in one of the colleges here is having a guest speaker on Patent law. She's a patent attorney from Atlanta and one of the professors at the college had asked me why she, and all of the other speakers, who were unassociated, and from all corners of the country were registered to practice in Texas. I told her, and she thought that the concept of one district being so overwhelmingly favorable to patents no matter how bad was preposterous and insisted that there MUST be another reason. I cant wait to see what these Lawyers say about "problems with the patent system". Anyone care to guess?
I couldn't agree more. The story goes, that large cororation initially fought patents tooth and nail, right up to the bitter end. In the 70's though, they started to realize how they could manipulate the patent system and stifle innovation. If you think that large companies are pro-innovation you're mistaken. I know first hand, that they have massive contingencies for market change. Patent litigation is right up there with lobbying. Which everyone should know by the electric / hydrogen powered car thats not in their garage. I mean we paid car companies billions NOT to make, while the Oil companies bought up battery patents by the truck load.
At any rate, the problem is in litigation fees and disgusting "damage" awards. Couple that with default judgments and you see how much power were dealing with here.
On the post: But, Wait, Whoever Said That Twitter Would Save The World?
TEA!?!?!?!!!!
On the post: Patent Attorney Highlights How Intellectual Ventures Syphons Money Away From Innovation
Re: Patents are Legal Title to Invention
On the post: Patent Attorney Highlights How Intellectual Ventures Syphons Money Away From Innovation
//By Richard Corsale all rights forfeit
boolean rationalPatents = date //logic loop
do{
if(!rationalPatents){
println("the big IP grab of 98 snowballed and were left with a system that's universally understood to be broken.");
Litigation ++;
if(lawsAreMadeByThoseThatBenniFromBrokenSystem){ }
Innovation = (Innovation/Time)-Litigation;
}else{
print("only Grant monopolies on exceptional inventions"); Innovation ++;
}
}while(true);
//.. is an error, not a feature...
On the post: Google Fights Back And Wins Against Bogus Patent Lawsuit From Guy Who Couldn't Even Code His 'Invention'
On the post: VC Explains How Damaging Software Patents Can Be
Re: Re: Patents, Universities and Idiocracy
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=93174
On the post: VC Explains How Damaging Software Patents Can Be
Re: Re: Patents, Universities and Idiocracy
On the post: VC Explains How Damaging Software Patents Can Be
Re: Patents, Universities and Idiocracy
here are just a few examples of EU issued patents
________________________________________________________
1. Webshop: Selling things over a network using a server, client and payment processor, or using a client and a server - EP803105, EP738446, EP1016014
2. Order by cell phone: Selling over a mobile phone network - EP1090494
3. Shopping cart: Electronic shopping cart - EP807891
4. [CDs] [Films] [Books]: Tabbed palettes and restrict search - EP689133, EP1131752
5. Picture link: Preview window - EP537100
6. Get key via SMS: Sending key to decrypt bought data via mobile phone network - EP1374189
7. View film: Video streaming (segmented video on-demand) - EP633694
8. Copy protection: Encrypt file so it can only be played on authorised devices - EP1072143
9. Credit card: Pay with credit card on the Internet - EP779587
10. Adapt pages: Generate different web page depending on detected device - EP1320972
On the post: VC Explains How Damaging Software Patents Can Be
Re:
Funny Software patents have been a shake since the 80's and when the .com boom of late 90's came about.. all sorts of irrational things started happening, Software patents are an artifact of the erroneous "idea economy".
in 98... we got screwed..
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/patent/State_Street_Bank.html
On the post: VC Explains How Damaging Software Patents Can Be
Re: Re: On Idea patents...
On the post: Amazon Has To Pay Microsoft To Use Linux?
Re: You need to dig deeper
On the post: VC Explains How Damaging Software Patents Can Be
On Idea patents...
On the post: ACTA's Internet Chapter Leaks; And, Now We See How Sneaky The Negotiators Have Been
Re: Maybe this is like the EA DRM.
The politicians say "we stood up to them!" and everyone cheers. It's like the exemption for the blind thing.. a total farce.
On the post: ACTA's Internet Chapter Leaks; And, Now We See How Sneaky The Negotiators Have Been
Re: Re: All Censor Together Agreement
On the post: ACTA's Internet Chapter Leaks; And, Now We See How Sneaky The Negotiators Have Been
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: Re: Re: .kids
At the keyboard?
On the post: Cartoonist Hugh Macleod Gets To CwF+RtB In His Own Way
Esp #2
Nothing is more offensive than someone trying to fool you into buying or doing something. I'm amazed it works as well as it does..
On the post: Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space
Re:
You confuse value and cost. In the world of Software we know.. and have for sometime now, that The marginal production cost of software is zero. Zero is not the value of the software but it's understood to be between bupkis and some arbitrary number that people will pay. See the disconnect? Let me put it another way. Microsoft created an internal semi-secret policy that states, that if Linux were to gain significant market share that Windows would be given away free. They would rather loose the 200 or whatever dollars than the market share, which translates to sales of Office, Visual studio (which is also earmarked to become a loss leader in the event of a price war) and all of its other VALUE added products and services. This is understood to be good business, because they get "it". Customers are worth more than money. If you think about it another way, how much does it cost to acquire one customer? Right.. each customer that adopts early is a loss leader and margins improve over the long run. Now think about mindshare, it, on the other hand, is so much more expensive/illusive than customers, that it's not been quantified to date. I look at Google when I think Mindshare, I look at MS when I think customers.
The new economy (I hate that phrase) will be for mindshar, not customers. The exact same rules hold for music. Now do see what hes saying? The fact that people still have to pay for Windows and office is because MS beat down the competition through marketing, lobbying and FUD. Wait... maybe you have been paying attention .... :)
On the post: The Economist Notices That The Patent System Is Hindering Innovation And Needs To Be Fixed
On the post: The Economist Notices That The Patent System Is Hindering Innovation And Needs To Be Fixed
Re:
At any rate, the problem is in litigation fees and disgusting "damage" awards. Couple that with default judgments and you see how much power were dealing with here.
Next >>