Amen John. The ignorance shown here by those wishing to do away with the only effective process for protecting the innovation and creativity of the little guy is breath taking.
Bunch of open source hippy whine-bags. "Everything should be free!"
Yeh that freetard Dan Bricklin, creator of the spreadsheet never sold a piece of software in his life.
There's a perfectly good way of protecting the IP of the little guy in software, it's called copyright. Last I checked there was no patent on Plants vs Zombies.
Perhaps you should file for a patent, if you can create something original enough to deserve one, and then preach about it.
Yeh, what we need is for the millions of software engineers around the world to stop wasting time writing code and just write patents, because that's how innovation happens people!
There's a perfectly good way of protecting the IP of the little guy in software, it's called copyright. Last I checked there was no patent on Plants vs Zombies.
Lotus 1-2-3, by 1995 was destroyed and non-existent by Windows Office. Yes, that guy didn't seem to do much after, now did he?
The same guy who without NeXT would have never seen Improv come to light, attempted to port it to Windows and never could do what the NeXT Operating System provided for him to do.
It might have had to do with the fact that NeXT's top Objective-C Gurus did the heavy lifting in the first place.
So if I can't get patent protection to keep others from copying my ideas, what exactly would be my incentive to invent anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded
Uhmm, "Being First to Market"?
Being first to market doesn't protect you from being ripped off:
read about the Dyson versus Hoover case, Mr. Dyson came up with and was first to market with the cyclonic vacuum cleaner only for the larger, older Hoover company to blatantly rip him off.
It was patent law that stopped Hoover from getting away with it.
Amen John. The ignorance shown here by those wishing to do away with the only effective process for protecting the innovation and creativity of the little guy is breath taking.
Bunch of open source hippy whine-bags. "Everything should be free!"
Sadly, these days the "little guy" is usually called "John Lodsys"
Added: I really hope we could find a middle ground for protecting the innovators without feeding the patent trolls. Idealistic, I know, but one can dream...
Lotus 1-2-3, by 1995 was destroyed and non-existent by Windows Office. Yes, that guy didn't seem to do much after, now did he?
He didn't make Lotus, he made Visicalc. If there had been a patent on the spreadsheet neither Lotus nor Excel would ever have been created. It's irrelevant how much he did after, he's a successful software innovator who has taken a public stance against software patents, he's hardly the only one.
Quote:
It might have had to do with the fact that NeXT's top Objective-C Gurus did the heavy lifting in the first place.
Objective-C is a great example of a technology that was created almost entirely from parts borrowed from other places. A modified C compiler with smalltalk-like dynamic binding. Smalltalk itself copies heavily from LISP, actually when you get down to it almost every modern language borrows heavily from LISP.
Being first to market doesn't protect you from being ripped off:
read about the Dyson versus Hoover case, Mr. Dyson came up with and was first to market with the cyclonic vacuum cleaner only for the larger, older Hoover company to blatantly rip him off.
It was patent law that stopped Hoover from getting away with it.
We're talking about software patents, is the Dyson vacuum a computer program? No. Neither is his hand dryer or his counter rotating washing machine. Patents may work well in other problem domains, but we accept that there are areas where they are not applicable, many developers contend that software mostly comes into that category.
To be honest I really do agree with Google. The software patent system is really sad. And not even just for the reasons Google has stated for the reasons that Google has stated. For example apple was recently sued for its playlist technowledgy and they lost. It gets worst the company is sueing apple once more this time for the use of the playlist technowledgy in ios. Like it or not this system is a joke. Yeah android riped off of some people, but hell everyone has ripped off of someone even apple.
That is what the system is about. If you create something you should be able to protect it. You made the investment. The reasons they have patents is either they paid to acquire someone else's work or they made the investments themselves. Google just wants free access to anyway they can sell ads and your information to make money for themselves. They don't care about you one bit. Remember how they protect their only creation, the algorithm they use for search. If they believe in their form of open competition, they should make it openly available to their competitors and see how long they last.
The have sued those who they felt were getting close.
That is what the system is about. If you create something you should be able to protect it. You made the investment.
But that isn't what the patent system is about at all. There's no need to create anything, there's no need to even create a design that is directly implementable. Read the Patent that Personal Audio are using (successfully thus far) against Apple. It describes nothing more than a music player with a modifiable playlist.
The only investment that is needed for a software patent is the cost of getting the patent and the cost of litigation.
I'm sorry but Google would be singing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. They wouldn't be whining, they'd he hiring more lawyers to go after everyone - not asking for reform. So, do I feel bad for them.. honestly, no. They system was set up to allow this stuff to happen (whether that be a good thing or a bad thing) and just because they didn't bid high enough doesn't mean that I feel a tiny bit bad for them.
I'm sorry but Google would be singing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. They wouldn't be whining, they'd he hiring more lawyers to go after everyone - not asking for reform. So, do I feel bad for them.. honestly, no. They system was set up to allow this stuff to happen (whether that be a good thing or a bad thing) and just because they didn't bid high enough doesn't mean that I feel a tiny bit bad for them.
Then don't feel bad for them, feel bad for people like this
Software patents are bad for the industry, Google may be opposing them for selfish reasons or it may be opposing them for selfless reasons - it doesn't matter. What matter is the law should be changed and software patents in future ought not to be granted.
Even with such a change existing patents would have to be accepted as it would be an unfair burden to retroactively cancel them all - so even if Google was able to get a change in the law it would have no effect on the outcome of the Nortel auction.
I wonder how Google would feel about "sharing" their patented search and indexing algorithms?
Google's search and indexing algorithms are trade secrets (like the Coca cola recipe), not patents. Google being able to keep them under wraps for this long using only NDAs and the like shows that a weakened patent system would still be workable in terms of rewarding innovators, provided trademark laws got a tweak to compensate.
During an interview on Monday, Google Senior Vice President and General Counsel Kent Walker opened up about the company's loss to Apple in the Nortel patent auction, calling for patent reform in the U.S. as he characterized patents as "government-granted monopolies" that block innovation.
Why do you care? You're just going to copy the intellectual property without permission, anyway.
Not patented by Google though. Page-rank was developed by Page & Brin while they were still at Stanford, and so Stanford is assigned the patent. Naturally enough in order to commercialize it, Google had to license the patent from Stanford which they did. The patent certainly helped Google get venture funding, but afaik neither Stanford nor Google has never sued anybody for infringing it.
I'm not even sure Google could sue for infringement, I think it would have to be Stanford, though Google could possibly sue Stanford and force them to sue an infringer.
I hear this a lot but I have yet to hear anyone have a good argument for *why* patents don't fulfil the "original intention." It seems to me that they clearly protect the inventor of a device or process and only do so for a reasonable amount of time.
Patenting 1-click shopping and getting 'protection' for 17 years is not innovation. Software and business methods should not be patentable in the same way as basic research.
As much as I love Apple, very little they do should be covered by patents-- most should be dealt with as copyright and trademark/trade dress.
Patents at issue are generally vague, marginally innovative at best, and often little more than math or an algorithm. The 'innovations' should never have been granted a patent. Unfortunately the system rewards serial filets and the lawyers.
AMEN. Although it sounds like sour grapes, patents are truly the downfall of this nation's innovative core at the moment. If we look at the original intention of patents and how copyright law works, etc. we can see that what we have today is indeed a bastardization of what our nation once was. Elimination of patents would help science, medicine and technology in absolutely amazing ways. Yes, there'd be some very upset people and granted I have deep ties within the patent office, yet it is something that must come to an end for real progress.
I tend to disagree here... I would say it is more due to the judicial system being a corrupt bastardization of what it once was. Look what happened to Apple, they weren't even allowed to show proof or work in that last case they lost.
Patents only guarantee that someone can't copy your work, it does not restrict anyone else from creating something similar. If a patent holder feels their IP was stolen then they can sue someone. It's up to the defendant to prove that they did all their own work in coming up with their idea / product. Unfortunately it seems that the courts are a bit naive when it comes to software patents.
Comments
Amen John. The ignorance shown here by those wishing to do away with the only effective process for protecting the innovation and creativity of the little guy is breath taking.
Bunch of open source hippy whine-bags. "Everything should be free!"
Yeh that freetard Dan Bricklin, creator of the spreadsheet never sold a piece of software in his life.
Oh wait, that's right he did.
http://www.bricklin.com/patentsandsoftware.htm
There's a perfectly good way of protecting the IP of the little guy in software, it's called copyright. Last I checked there was no patent on Plants vs Zombies.
Perhaps you should file for a patent, if you can create something original enough to deserve one, and then preach about it.
Yeh, what we need is for the millions of software engineers around the world to stop wasting time writing code and just write patents, because that's how innovation happens people!
Or maybe not.
Yeh that freetard Dan Bricklin, creator of the spreadsheet never sold a piece of software in his life.
Oh wait, that's right he did.
http://www.bricklin.com/patentsandsoftware.htm
There's a perfectly good way of protecting the IP of the little guy in software, it's called copyright. Last I checked there was no patent on Plants vs Zombies.
Lotus 1-2-3, by 1995 was destroyed and non-existent by Windows Office. Yes, that guy didn't seem to do much after, now did he?
The same guy who without NeXT would have never seen Improv come to light, attempted to port it to Windows and never could do what the NeXT Operating System provided for him to do.
It might have had to do with the fact that NeXT's top Objective-C Gurus did the heavy lifting in the first place.
So if I can't get patent protection to keep others from copying my ideas, what exactly would be my incentive to invent anything?
Uhmm, "Being First to Market"?
Being first to market doesn't protect you from being ripped off:
read about the Dyson versus Hoover case, Mr. Dyson came up with and was first to market with the cyclonic vacuum cleaner only for the larger, older Hoover company to blatantly rip him off.
It was patent law that stopped Hoover from getting away with it.
James Dyson spent years fighting Hoover. Now he intends to clean up
also
Enforcing IP Rights
Amen John. The ignorance shown here by those wishing to do away with the only effective process for protecting the innovation and creativity of the little guy is breath taking.
Bunch of open source hippy whine-bags. "Everything should be free!"
Sadly, these days the "little guy" is usually called "John Lodsys"
Added: I really hope we could find a middle ground for protecting the innovators without feeding the patent trolls. Idealistic, I know, but one can dream...
Lotus 1-2-3, by 1995 was destroyed and non-existent by Windows Office. Yes, that guy didn't seem to do much after, now did he?
He didn't make Lotus, he made Visicalc. If there had been a patent on the spreadsheet neither Lotus nor Excel would ever have been created. It's irrelevant how much he did after, he's a successful software innovator who has taken a public stance against software patents, he's hardly the only one.
It might have had to do with the fact that NeXT's top Objective-C Gurus did the heavy lifting in the first place.
Objective-C is a great example of a technology that was created almost entirely from parts borrowed from other places. A modified C compiler with smalltalk-like dynamic binding. Smalltalk itself copies heavily from LISP, actually when you get down to it almost every modern language borrows heavily from LISP.
Being first to market doesn't protect you from being ripped off:
read about the Dyson versus Hoover case, Mr. Dyson came up with and was first to market with the cyclonic vacuum cleaner only for the larger, older Hoover company to blatantly rip him off.
It was patent law that stopped Hoover from getting away with it.
We're talking about software patents, is the Dyson vacuum a computer program? No. Neither is his hand dryer or his counter rotating washing machine. Patents may work well in other problem domains, but we accept that there are areas where they are not applicable, many developers contend that software mostly comes into that category.
To be honest I really do agree with Google. The software patent system is really sad. And not even just for the reasons Google has stated for the reasons that Google has stated. For example apple was recently sued for its playlist technowledgy and they lost. It gets worst the company is sueing apple once more this time for the use of the playlist technowledgy in ios. Like it or not this system is a joke. Yeah android riped off of some people, but hell everyone has ripped off of someone even apple.
That is what the system is about. If you create something you should be able to protect it. You made the investment. The reasons they have patents is either they paid to acquire someone else's work or they made the investments themselves. Google just wants free access to anyway they can sell ads and your information to make money for themselves. They don't care about you one bit. Remember how they protect their only creation, the algorithm they use for search. If they believe in their form of open competition, they should make it openly available to their competitors and see how long they last.
The have sued those who they felt were getting close.
That is what the system is about. If you create something you should be able to protect it. You made the investment.
But that isn't what the patent system is about at all. There's no need to create anything, there's no need to even create a design that is directly implementable. Read the Patent that Personal Audio are using (successfully thus far) against Apple. It describes nothing more than a music player with a modifiable playlist.
The only investment that is needed for a software patent is the cost of getting the patent and the cost of litigation.
Patents are government-granted monopolies . . . for a limited time. And only kind of.
Patents don't give you the right to produce and sell your invention, they merely allow you to exclude others from producing yours.
If the US Patent system has become a hindrance to innovation, don't blame the players that play by the rules -- blame the rule-makers.
Isnt that what Google is requesting? Have you not read the complete article?
I'm sorry but Google would be singing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. They wouldn't be whining, they'd he hiring more lawyers to go after everyone - not asking for reform. So, do I feel bad for them.. honestly, no. They system was set up to allow this stuff to happen (whether that be a good thing or a bad thing) and just because they didn't bid high enough doesn't mean that I feel a tiny bit bad for them.
Then don't feel bad for them, feel bad for people like this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...raw-us-patents
Software patents are bad for the industry, Google may be opposing them for selfish reasons or it may be opposing them for selfless reasons - it doesn't matter. What matter is the law should be changed and software patents in future ought not to be granted.
Even with such a change existing patents would have to be accepted as it would be an unfair burden to retroactively cancel them all - so even if Google was able to get a change in the law it would have no effect on the outcome of the Nortel auction.
I wonder how Google would feel about "sharing" their patented search and indexing algorithms?
Google's search and indexing algorithms are trade secrets (like the Coca cola recipe), not patents. Google being able to keep them under wraps for this long using only NDAs and the like shows that a weakened patent system would still be workable in terms of rewarding innovators, provided trademark laws got a tweak to compensate.
During an interview on Monday, Google Senior Vice President and General Counsel Kent Walker opened up about the company's loss to Apple in the Nortel patent auction, calling for patent reform in the U.S. as he characterized patents as "government-granted monopolies" that block innovation.
Why do you care? You're just going to copy the intellectual property without permission, anyway.
Google's search and indexing algorithms are trade secrets (like the Coca cola recipe), not patents.
They are said to change their search algorithms all of the time, but the original Pagerank system is patented, http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999
They are said to change their search algorithms all of the time, but the original Pagerank system is patented, http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999
Not patented by Google though. Page-rank was developed by Page & Brin while they were still at Stanford, and so Stanford is assigned the patent. Naturally enough in order to commercialize it, Google had to license the patent from Stanford which they did. The patent certainly helped Google get venture funding, but afaik neither Stanford nor Google has never sued anybody for infringing it.
I'm not even sure Google could sue for infringement, I think it would have to be Stanford, though Google could possibly sue Stanford and force them to sue an infringer.
I hear this a lot but I have yet to hear anyone have a good argument for *why* patents don't fulfil the "original intention." It seems to me that they clearly protect the inventor of a device or process and only do so for a reasonable amount of time.
Patenting 1-click shopping and getting 'protection' for 17 years is not innovation. Software and business methods should not be patentable in the same way as basic research.
As much as I love Apple, very little they do should be covered by patents-- most should be dealt with as copyright and trademark/trade dress.
Patents at issue are generally vague, marginally innovative at best, and often little more than math or an algorithm. The 'innovations' should never have been granted a patent. Unfortunately the system rewards serial filets and the lawyers.
AMEN. Although it sounds like sour grapes, patents are truly the downfall of this nation's innovative core at the moment. If we look at the original intention of patents and how copyright law works, etc. we can see that what we have today is indeed a bastardization of what our nation once was. Elimination of patents would help science, medicine and technology in absolutely amazing ways. Yes, there'd be some very upset people and granted I have deep ties within the patent office, yet it is something that must come to an end for real progress.
I tend to disagree here... I would say it is more due to the judicial system being a corrupt bastardization of what it once was. Look what happened to Apple, they weren't even allowed to show proof or work in that last case they lost.
Patents only guarantee that someone can't copy your work, it does not restrict anyone else from creating something similar. If a patent holder feels their IP was stolen then they can sue someone. It's up to the defendant to prove that they did all their own work in coming up with their idea / product. Unfortunately it seems that the courts are a bit naive when it comes to software patents.