Originally Posted by thenuge26
(Post 973536)
Yep. Except that today WITH IP protection, the same thing happens, because if you are working out of your garage you probably can't afford a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
|
Well that's easy. Get rid of all software and business process patents. Software and business processes are BY DEFINITION algorithms. Algorithms are math, and math is not patentable. Software is already protected by copyright.
Unfortunately it's not very realistic. |
How do you feel that those changes would effect the business landscape. What would be the consequences both good and bad in your view?
|
On the software side, it would undoubtedly be better. Something like 67% of software patents are filed by hardware companies, like HP, IBM, Motorola, etc. They employ about 6% of programmers.
More of my thoughts here, fully cited for you. That is almost 3 years old now, and I wrote it in 3 days while pulling all-nighters (oh college), so I can't guarantee it's quality. |
"...Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured."
-Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 13 Aug. 1813 |
Yay Newegg! I buy things from them even when they're a little more expensive because of the top-notch customer service.
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 973526)
The seemingly simple solution to the mess above is to reform the patent office to raise the bar of what is and isn't patentable.
http://www.expectsomuch.com/wp-conte...Congress-2.jpg But I digress. IIRC, the patent officers are paid bonuses based on how many patents they go through, and denying a patent takes longer than approving one. I think fixing that would fix a lot of problems. I can't find the article I was reading about it, it was a former US Patent examiner's tell all about the horrors of the system. |
I saw one bill in r/watchingcongress that was interesting: H.R. 442: To provide that a former Member of Congress or former Congressional employee who receives compensation as a lobbyist shall not be eligible for retirement benefits or certain other Federal benefits.
Too bad it will never pass.
Originally Posted by TheScaryOne
I can't find the article I was reading about it, it was a former US Patent examiner's tell all about the horrors of the system.
|
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 973838)
"...Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured."
-Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 13 Aug. 1813 |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands