|
Posted by timothy (21% noise) View
An anonymous reader writes “Ross Gittins at the Sydney Morning Herald has published an interesting insider view of software patents. This kind of thing is starting to be a hot issue down here with the US-Australia Free Trade deal about to be ratified and bring our intellectual property laws in line with Micros^D^D^D^D^D^D^D America’s.”
|
|
Follow the lead of the anonymous author! - by YankeeInExile (Score: 2) Thread
This article brings up a point I have been thinking about for a long time: The OSS/FS community is losing sight of the trees for the forest with regard to software patentability.
We need to fight the patent war on two fronts - the first front: Lobby to make software patents more difficult to obtain.
And the second front, equally important: Until the rules change in our favor, we need to build up a portfolio of patents, to share and trade with our friends (which anyone in business will tell you is the true purpose of a patent).
Instead of screeching to the heavans, Software Patents Are EEEEEEEEEVIL, the movement would be better served by gaming the system. If a portfolio of patents is what is needed to keep Free Software Free, then so be it - put our minds to making the application and examination system as easy as possible, and assign patents to some organization (a role that would be well served by FSF if they could stop their jihad.
For the record, I do not think that software patents are intrinsically evil. I believe in my heart-of-hearts that algorithms are just as much an invention as a better mousetrap, and I disagree with the article author’s assertion that the copyright protection granted to an implementation is sufficient protection for this inventive process.
Plus, you forget that one of the Principles of Free Software, transparency, is fundament in the patent process. The wisdom of the patent system is, In exchange for exclusive right-to-use on your invention, for a limited time, you must fully disclose that same invention.
I am seriously concerned that the patent process may suffer the same slow creep in the meaning of limited time that has happened surrounding copyright, but that is a separate problem for another posting.
|
|
As bad as software patents are… - by Sheetrock (Score: 3, Insightful) Thread
It does make sense to standardize on one set of intellectual property laws internationally.
It gets really confusing to try to figure out the different times at which copyright expires across different countries, or to know where your intellectual property is already protected and where you have to jump through additional hoops.
Settling on an international standard that is mutually agreed upon strengthens the companies within those nations because they don’t have to cope with several sets of rules. Like the standardization on the Euro, it reduces complexity and ultimately is a good thing.
|
|
I’ll say it again… - by Sebby (Score: 3, Insightful) Thread
Until we see the Patent Office being sued by someone/company that suffered financially or otherwise because of a bogus patent that the PTO granted, we won’t see any significant changes to the way things work now. After a lawsuit or two they might finally get the hint to stop granting such bogus patents and maybe even (gasp!) start reviewing past ones once they realize those might become a liability.
And for those that say such lawsuits would be a burden on the taxpayers, well, I’d say these bogus patent infrigment cases are taking away needed resources to convict criminals.
And besides, the taxpayers might finally take action once they see the PTO’s bogus-patent-granting actions is raising their taxes, instead of only bitching and whining all the time.
|
|
Poster has the wrong idea - by Anonymous Coward (Score: 3, Insightful) Thread
…and bring our intellectual property laws in line with Micros^D^D^D^D^D^D^D America’s
No. NO. Don’t you EVEN fucking blame Microsoft for this mess. Blame the WIPO for having the idea, and Bill Clinton for whoring the United States into compliance.
|
|
“Re:Nothing for you to see here.” The answer is 42 - by Animaether (Score: 3, Funny) Thread
I got the same message - then wondered if it occurred more often.
So I turned to google :
site:slashdot.org “nothing for you to see here”
There are a total of… 42 …results.
The answer to everything, indeed.
|
[
