What's the issue? Oh, you think we don't need patents in the software industry. It's not fair that Apple works hard a PAYS employees money to make software, how is fair the Google can come in and just steal the direct code for that piece of software? How is that fair? Tell me. There wild be no competition, it wouldn't even be a true American business. It would be just like the government owning all businesses and having only one business per Field of work. Give me 10 legitimate reasons why that is fair. Then I will even CONSIDER agreeing with you.
Coming from a Java developer here, he is right. How long does it take to get a medicine just right, effective, or safe for human consumption? 10, 15 years at least? Whereas we can have a new software or upgrade done in a year to 2 years... 5 at most? Plus, in most cases (I say most, because there are exceptions) when a developer makes a mistake, the costs are low to fix the system and/or repair the data. It is usually just a function of time and money - all monetary. A pharmaceutical has to worry about physically impairing/killing actual people.
I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
So you are incapable of looking past someones position of power to see that their words are wrong? Let's accept your assertion that he is a great man. Does that mean he can't be wrong? Are you too small to think for yourself? Think what you want about software patents, the Judge's comments clearly show a complete lack of understanding of software development. I know he was speaking extemporaneously. He may actually have some good points -- based in law. He did not make any of them in the interview.
Coming from a Java developer here, he is right. How long does it take to get a medicine just right, effective, or safe for human consumption? 10, 15 years at least? Whereas we can have a new software or upgrade done in a year to 2 years... 5 at most? Plus, in most cases (I say most, because there are exceptions) when a developer makes a mistake, the costs are low to fix the system and/or repair the data. It is usually just a function of time and money - all monetary. A pharmaceutical has to worry about physically impairing/killing actual people.
The comparison he made was completely unfair.
Posner's comments amount to a big fat middle finger to developers.
Yes, his past scholarship and jurisprudence are stunningly impressive, and have had wide impact.
But when he starts to make silly statements like these, one has to wonder if he is approaching his sell-by date.....
It would be more productive to wonder at his intent. Note that Posner was speaking - voluntarily - to Reuters. Ask yourself what his purpose might be in making such a seemingly outrageous statement. Consider the uses of hyperbole as a rhetorical device in a culture of mass media and little journalism. Ponder the perspective of a long and distinguished life on the bench, having seen much and been impressed by little, and having become gruesomely and humorously aware of the ludicrous seriousness with which the henchmen of the egregiously rich regard themselves.
And finally, remember that for anyone to speak through the media, that person must first manipulate the media into carrying a message, and try to encode the message in such a way that its content will survive manipulation by the medium itself.
Some of the performers in the circus know they're performing in a circus and some don't, but we must never, ever forget we're watching one.
The judge does not have a good understanding of software engineering.
Soft Engineering is every bit as patentable as hardware.
The fact that a single person can engineer very advanced and large scale software without help from manufacturing does not make it less patentable or less important.
This judge may know law but he needs to get a clue about software engineering.
Coming from a Java developer here, he is right. How long does it take to get a medicine just right, effective, or safe for human consumption? 10, 15 years at least? Whereas we can have a new software or upgrade done in a year to 2 years... 5 at most? Plus, in most cases (I say most, because there are exceptions) when a developer makes a mistake, the costs are low to fix the system and/or repair the data. It is usually just a function of time and money - all monetary. A pharmaceutical has to worry about physically impairing/killing actual people.
So we should only patent things that can kill people? People spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing complex applications. Is that not worthy of protection? All patents aren't based on 15 years of research.. Watch shark tank. There is a lady getting a patent on cutting a whole in a bath towel. Does that kill people? Did it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop? Was she the first one to think to patent it? Good for her. Why should it be different for software.
And what about Apple? They spent a pretty penny too on developing their phone and other devices. They built all sorts of expensive test chambers etc. And along comes other companies trying to release their own generic versions of Apple's innovation.
That's very different - Apple is protected by trademark and copyright laws. Other companies can't sell phones with the Apple logo on them, or with iOS installed on them. They can't call their phones iPhones, or even jPhones or iFones. They can't even write code that would emulate an iPhone and make it so that iPhone apps are used. Even design patents (which are separate from software patents) protect the appearance of the devices - see the Galaxy Tab injunction, for example.
For pharma though, you can't copyright chemical compounds. So you spend $500 million testing and developing a drug, and as soon as you release it, the guy down the street can just sell a generic version of the same pill for a fraction of the cost. So pharma needs patents, otherwise nobody will front the half billion dollars needed to bring a drug to market.
In contrast, with software patents, the barrier is much lower. If you gave a touchscreen to 100 designers, and asked them to come up with a way to unlock it, I bet more than a few of them would come up with "swiping across the screen in a pattern." And it would cost them a lot less than half a billion dollars. Here's where trademarks come in - companies can't have the text "Slide to unlock" or the same appearance as the Apple unlock screen.
What it comes down to is that software patents lack specificity. A pharma patent is for a specific chemical compound, the equivalent software patent would be "A method and apparatus for preventing illness using a variety of configurations of chemical compounds." And that hurts innovation a lot. If a drug company discovers and patents a way to stop headaches, it doesn't mean that they should have a monopoly on all headache prevention drugs, but in the software patent world, they would.
So we should only patent things that can kill people? People spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing complex applications. Is that not worthy of protection? All patents aren't based on 15 years of research.. Watch shark tank. There is a lady getting a patent on cutting a whole in a bath towel. Does that kill people? Did it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop? Was she the first one to think to patent it? Good for her. Why should it be different for software.
The judge recognizes software patents are broken (taken to the extreme) and wants to do away with it entirely. No, what I'm getting at is the patent system is broken, and is not a good fit for software. There needs to be a system, just not the current patent system. (And I don't have any idea what it should look like)
Posner is a "great man", obviously. He's educated and a leader in his field. So were the participants at the Wannsee Conference (distinguished lawyers, legal scholars, legislators.) But that's for a different thread.
JUDICIAL INCOMPETENCE is nothing new. Misconduct is nothing new, either.
Posner is an incompetent, activist judge. He should never have taken this case. He has basically admitted to not have done his job and should be removed with prejudice.
That's very different - Apple is protected by trademark and copyright laws.
They cover entirely different things. You can't cover patentable items with a copyright or trademark or vice versa.
Copyright:
"The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."
Patent:
"A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time. "
Trademark:
"A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer. "
They're entirely unrelated and people suggesting that one can substitute for the other simply don't understand IP.
The judge recognizes software patents are broken (taken to the extreme) and wants to do away with it entirely.
yes. software patents are broken. it is quite possible that someone has independently developed some clever algorithm to solve a particular problem. an algorithm is derived from an abstract idea. i doubt there's a patent law that protects, outright, abstract ideas as it relates to software applications.
He may or may not be right, but he's in the wrong branch of government to fix it. I hope he keeps that in mind. To many judges think they can legislate from the bench.
I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
I love it. You're jumping right into the middle of the "circle jerk". Sounds like someone is looking to get a sticky face.
yes. software patents are broken. it is quite possible that someone has independently developed some clever algorithm to solve a particular problem. an algorithm is derived from an abstract idea. i doubt there's a patent law that protects, outright, abstract ideas as it relates to software applications.
Whether software patents are broken or not, they are the law of the land. His job is to enforce the law.
Furthermore, patent law does not protect abstract ideas (software or not). It is expected to protect inventions or IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas. You can't patent an idea.
Comments
What's the issue? Oh, you think we don't need patents in the software industry. It's not fair that Apple works hard a PAYS employees money to make software, how is fair the Google can come in and just steal the direct code for that piece of software? How is that fair? Tell me. There wild be no competition, it wouldn't even be a true American business. It would be just like the government owning all businesses and having only one business per Field of work. Give me 10 legitimate reasons why that is fair. Then I will even CONSIDER agreeing with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Interesting.
Coming from a Java developer here, he is right. How long does it take to get a medicine just right, effective, or safe for human consumption? 10, 15 years at least? Whereas we can have a new software or upgrade done in a year to 2 years... 5 at most? Plus, in most cases (I say most, because there are exceptions) when a developer makes a mistake, the costs are low to fix the system and/or repair the data. It is usually just a function of time and money - all monetary. A pharmaceutical has to worry about physically impairing/killing actual people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
So you are incapable of looking past someones position of power to see that their words are wrong? Let's accept your assertion that he is a great man. Does that mean he can't be wrong? Are you too small to think for yourself? Think what you want about software patents, the Judge's comments clearly show a complete lack of understanding of software development. I know he was speaking extemporaneously. He may actually have some good points -- based in law. He did not make any of them in the interview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
Coming from a Java developer here, he is right. How long does it take to get a medicine just right, effective, or safe for human consumption? 10, 15 years at least? Whereas we can have a new software or upgrade done in a year to 2 years... 5 at most? Plus, in most cases (I say most, because there are exceptions) when a developer makes a mistake, the costs are low to fix the system and/or repair the data. It is usually just a function of time and money - all monetary. A pharmaceutical has to worry about physically impairing/killing actual people.
The comparison he made was completely unfair.
Posner's comments amount to a big fat middle finger to developers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Yes, his past scholarship and jurisprudence are stunningly impressive, and have had wide impact.
But when he starts to make silly statements like these, one has to wonder if he is approaching his sell-by date.....
It would be more productive to wonder at his intent. Note that Posner was speaking - voluntarily - to Reuters. Ask yourself what his purpose might be in making such a seemingly outrageous statement. Consider the uses of hyperbole as a rhetorical device in a culture of mass media and little journalism. Ponder the perspective of a long and distinguished life on the bench, having seen much and been impressed by little, and having become gruesomely and humorously aware of the ludicrous seriousness with which the henchmen of the egregiously rich regard themselves.
And finally, remember that for anyone to speak through the media, that person must first manipulate the media into carrying a message, and try to encode the message in such a way that its content will survive manipulation by the medium itself.
Some of the performers in the circus know they're performing in a circus and some don't, but we must never, ever forget we're watching one.
The judge does not have a good understanding of software engineering.
Soft Engineering is every bit as patentable as hardware.
The fact that a single person can engineer very advanced and large scale software without help from manufacturing does not make it less patentable or less important.
This judge may know law but he needs to get a clue about software engineering.
Time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
Coming from a Java developer here, he is right. How long does it take to get a medicine just right, effective, or safe for human consumption? 10, 15 years at least? Whereas we can have a new software or upgrade done in a year to 2 years... 5 at most? Plus, in most cases (I say most, because there are exceptions) when a developer makes a mistake, the costs are low to fix the system and/or repair the data. It is usually just a function of time and money - all monetary. A pharmaceutical has to worry about physically impairing/killing actual people.
So we should only patent things that can kill people? People spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing complex applications. Is that not worthy of protection? All patents aren't based on 15 years of research.. Watch shark tank. There is a lady getting a patent on cutting a whole in a bath towel. Does that kill people? Did it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop? Was she the first one to think to patent it? Good for her. Why should it be different for software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
And what about Apple? They spent a pretty penny too on developing their phone and other devices. They built all sorts of expensive test chambers etc. And along comes other companies trying to release their own generic versions of Apple's innovation.
That's very different - Apple is protected by trademark and copyright laws. Other companies can't sell phones with the Apple logo on them, or with iOS installed on them. They can't call their phones iPhones, or even jPhones or iFones. They can't even write code that would emulate an iPhone and make it so that iPhone apps are used. Even design patents (which are separate from software patents) protect the appearance of the devices - see the Galaxy Tab injunction, for example.
For pharma though, you can't copyright chemical compounds. So you spend $500 million testing and developing a drug, and as soon as you release it, the guy down the street can just sell a generic version of the same pill for a fraction of the cost. So pharma needs patents, otherwise nobody will front the half billion dollars needed to bring a drug to market.
In contrast, with software patents, the barrier is much lower. If you gave a touchscreen to 100 designers, and asked them to come up with a way to unlock it, I bet more than a few of them would come up with "swiping across the screen in a pattern." And it would cost them a lot less than half a billion dollars. Here's where trademarks come in - companies can't have the text "Slide to unlock" or the same appearance as the Apple unlock screen.
What it comes down to is that software patents lack specificity. A pharma patent is for a specific chemical compound, the equivalent software patent would be "A method and apparatus for preventing illness using a variety of configurations of chemical compounds." And that hurts innovation a lot. If a drug company discovers and patents a way to stop headaches, it doesn't mean that they should have a monopoly on all headache prevention drugs, but in the software patent world, they would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
So we should only patent things that can kill people? People spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing complex applications. Is that not worthy of protection? All patents aren't based on 15 years of research.. Watch shark tank. There is a lady getting a patent on cutting a whole in a bath towel. Does that kill people? Did it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop? Was she the first one to think to patent it? Good for her. Why should it be different for software.
The judge recognizes software patents are broken (taken to the extreme) and wants to do away with it entirely. No, what I'm getting at is the patent system is broken, and is not a good fit for software. There needs to be a system, just not the current patent system. (And I don't have any idea what it should look like)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Posner is a "great man", obviously. He's educated and a leader in his field. So were the participants at the Wannsee Conference (distinguished lawyers, legal scholars, legislators.) But that's for a different thread.JUDICIAL INCOMPETENCE is nothing new. Misconduct is nothing new, either.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/12/when-judges-are-racist/
why the straw man argument? i don't think the article you quoted refers to Posner at all.
Copyrights never expire. Ever. People whine about patents and monopolies… companies would have a permanent monopoly with copyrights.
Posner is an incompetent, activist judge. He should never have taken this case. He has basically admitted to not have done his job and should be removed with prejudice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72
why the straw man argument? i don't think the article you quoted refers to Posner at all.
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't need to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I don't understand why people [wouldn't] want software copywritten instead of patented.
Copyrights never expire. Ever. People whine about patents and monopolies… companies would have a permanent monopoly with copyrights.
??? Are you serious ???
Software companies want copyrights and patents.
Look what copyright law got Oracle in its suit against Google over java: Google was busted for copying 9 lines of original java code.
They cover entirely different things. You can't cover patentable items with a copyright or trademark or vice versa.
Copyright:
"The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."
Patent:
"A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time. "
Trademark:
"A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer. "
They're entirely unrelated and people suggesting that one can substitute for the other simply don't understand IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
The judge recognizes software patents are broken (taken to the extreme) and wants to do away with it entirely.
yes. software patents are broken. it is quite possible that someone has independently developed some clever algorithm to solve a particular problem. an algorithm is derived from an abstract idea. i doubt there's a patent law that protects, outright, abstract ideas as it relates to software applications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias
Copyright is totally ineffective for ideas or fact embedded in the words or symbols.
..and there you have it. Ineffective for ideas...
He may or may not be right, but he's in the wrong branch of government to fix it. I hope he keeps that in mind. To many judges think they can legislate from the bench.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
I love it. You're jumping right into the middle of the "circle jerk". Sounds like someone is looking to get a sticky face.
Whether software patents are broken or not, they are the law of the land. His job is to enforce the law.
Furthermore, patent law does not protect abstract ideas (software or not). It is expected to protect inventions or IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas. You can't patent an idea.