that is completely specious
a) copyright law protects expression. If the expression is unique you have copyright. The only material issue with respect to prior cultural artifacts is - have you plagiarized them in which case you don't get copyright.
b) patent law is much more explicit that prior art is directly relevant. You can't get a patent if it can be demonstrated there is prior art and your contribution is not novel and even if you get it because no-one detected the prior art at the time anyone can litigate to get the patent recinded.
This argument is fallacious.
a) of course they don't create in a vacuum. nothing is so created. so reductio ad absurdum nothing can be created.
b) copyright does not protect the ideas - some of which, or precursors of which were indeed floating around - but the expression. And the expression was not floating around. 'Catcher in the Rye' was indeed written in a time and place but it didn't just fall off a tree.
"Three-quarters of the D&B firms had no patents and were not seeking them. Because the D&B firms are, we believe, typical of the population of software startup firms in the U.S., their responses may be representative of patenting rates among software startups generally. It is, in fact, possible that the overall percentage of software startup patenting is lower than this, insofar as patent holders may have been more likely than other software entrepreneurs to take time to fill out a Berkeley Patent Survey."
What the article does not point out is that a perfectly plausible reason why 3/4 of these firms had no patents and were not seeking them was because they haven't actually invented anything. The standard for a patent is novelty and many many many firms don't actually have anything novel. they are a more or less imaginative rehash of the previous art.
The patent system exists to provide incentives to innovate. The fact that many people don't innovate doesn't mean that patents are no incentive for those who do.
I am amused to read so many articles which have so little respect for intellectual property. Apparently IP has, in the eyes of many, no value at all. And software IP less than no value. I find this to be flat out silly. The idea that it is impossible to invent something in software is absurd. It may be hard. Meaningful important such inventions may not be common. But it is perfectly possible.
On the post: Authors Do Not Create Content In A Vacuum... So It's Too Bad Copyright Often Pretends They Do
Re: Re:
a) copyright law protects expression. If the expression is unique you have copyright. The only material issue with respect to prior cultural artifacts is - have you plagiarized them in which case you don't get copyright.
b) patent law is much more explicit that prior art is directly relevant. You can't get a patent if it can be demonstrated there is prior art and your contribution is not novel and even if you get it because no-one detected the prior art at the time anyone can litigate to get the patent recinded.
giving what you call a monopoly proves nothing.
On the post: Authors Do Not Create Content In A Vacuum... So It's Too Bad Copyright Often Pretends They Do
Re:
On the post: Authors Do Not Create Content In A Vacuum... So It's Too Bad Copyright Often Pretends They Do
a) of course they don't create in a vacuum. nothing is so created. so reductio ad absurdum nothing can be created.
b) copyright does not protect the ideas - some of which, or precursors of which were indeed floating around - but the expression. And the expression was not floating around. 'Catcher in the Rye' was indeed written in a time and place but it didn't just fall off a tree.
On the post: Software Firms Overwhelmingly Against Patents
software patents
"Three-quarters of the D&B firms had no patents and were not seeking them. Because the D&B firms are, we believe, typical of the population of software startup firms in the U.S., their responses may be representative of patenting rates among software startups generally. It is, in fact, possible that the overall percentage of software startup patenting is lower than this, insofar as patent holders may have been more likely than other software entrepreneurs to take time to fill out a Berkeley Patent Survey."
What the article does not point out is that a perfectly plausible reason why 3/4 of these firms had no patents and were not seeking them was because they haven't actually invented anything. The standard for a patent is novelty and many many many firms don't actually have anything novel. they are a more or less imaginative rehash of the previous art.
The patent system exists to provide incentives to innovate. The fact that many people don't innovate doesn't mean that patents are no incentive for those who do.
I am amused to read so many articles which have so little respect for intellectual property. Apparently IP has, in the eyes of many, no value at all. And software IP less than no value. I find this to be flat out silly. The idea that it is impossible to invent something in software is absurd. It may be hard. Meaningful important such inventions may not be common. But it is perfectly possible.
Next >>