Time To Abolish Software Patents?

Status
Not open for further replies.

praka123

left this forum longback
"Has the time come to abolish software patents? Fortune columnist Roger Parloff reports on a new campaign called End Software Patents, which he views as 'attempting to ride a wave of corporate and judicial disenchantment with aspects of the current patent system.' Ryan Paul of Ars Technica writes that the purpose of the campaign is to 'educate the public and encourage grass-roots patent reform activism in order to promote effective legislative solutions to the software patent problem.' The campaign site is informative and targets many types of readers, and it includes a scholarship contest with a top prize of $10,000.00. We've recently discussed the potential legal re-examination of software patents."

-via slashdot *yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/29/0344258

sametime,
RIAA faces lawsuits from artists


The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is facing the possibility of legal action from artists who claim to have received no money from the settlement of peer-to-peer cases.
The RIAA has negotiated settlements worth hundreds of millions of dollars from YouTube, Napster, Kazaa and others, but the artists whom the organisation has been so litigiously defending say that they have not seen a cent.
"Artist managers and lawyers have been wondering for months when their artists will see money from the copyright settlements and how it will be accounted for," John Branca, a lawyer who has represented Korn, Don Henley and The Rolling Stones, told the New York Post.
"Some of them are even talking about filing lawsuits if they don't get paid soon."
The record companies have protested that some payments have been made and that they are working out the best way to pass the money onto artists.
However, it has been years since some settlements and artists, and their managers, are getting concerned.
"They will play hide and seek, but eventually will be forced to pay something," Irving Azoff, talent manager for The Eagles told the paper.
"The record companies have even tried to credit unrecouped accounts. It's never easy for an artist to get paid their fair share."
*www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2210889/riaa-faces-lawsuits-artists
 

gxsaurav

You gave been GXified
Time To Abolish Software Patents

Ya, sure. Also abolish any innovation, technocracy & invention. :mad:

If I have innovated or invented something, I have all rights to protect it from getting copied by someone else for free. I used my brain to invent or innovate it, why should someone else make money out of it.

Software patents should be there, as they are right now. However the Patent granting methodology should change. Patents should not be granted on silly innovation like "Ability to show a video inside an IM Window" & patent should be granted for some years only not lifetime, depending on how effective the innovation is.
 
time to control marketing that involves lies.
but not time to abolish software patents.
if no patents exist, what credit can I get for my own software ?
patents are like certificates of achievement
plus they are income sources
 

vaithy

In the zone
In the first place Patents were given for protecting the innovators rights.. but this is not going to be indefinately.. indian law requires Seven years time as well as that the products is in use...which ever is less period..when the period is over other may use the products to innovate a new line of products. and the original innovator is already reaping the benefit of his innovations, so he is not at a loss..
But in USA the patent system is in total mess.. any body can file some sort of patent and forget about year when some body produce similiar products then they file a suit against them..U.K and India doesn't accept USA patent law as perfect.. Even in USA the justice Department is considering revamping their patent system, but powerful lobbyiest in Congress blocked it.. this is the main reason why the world is suffering so much..
 

NucleusKore

TheSaint
Hi praka123, long time no see

Patents should not be granted on silly innovation like "Ability to show a video inside an IM Window" & patent should be granted for some years only not lifetime, depending on how effective the innovation is.

Ok, but who is going to decide what's "silly" and how?
 

gxsaurav

You gave been GXified
Ok, but who is going to decide what's "silly" and how?

The patent court & judges who have proper knowledge about technology.

Right now, the same judges who grant patent for a washing machine's innovation grant patent for a Operating System innovation...this needs to change.
 

victor_rambo

हॉर्न ओके प्लीज़
As per my knowledge, patents are granted only for an non-obvious idea/IP. Innovators of many obvious products apply for patents. Eg: The email service provider Bluebottle.com. I agree that their method works completely but still the idea which they use is pretty obvious.

When a product is advertised as "Patent pending", most people subconsciously assume that it is patented by the innovator or that within short period of time the innovator will get this patent sanctioned. However, it is incorrect.
Advertisers know how precious the word "Patent" is few of them have exploited in politically correct but ethically incorrect way. Many already know that patents won't be sanctioned, but still they file for it so that they can asvertise as "Patent pending" and boost the image of the product.
 
OP
praka123

praka123

left this forum longback
well.nice to read ur opin's.but software patents essentially hinders innovations I think.also,if someone found a new idea/program which was already patented by someone in USA,it is called "patent infringement" wth?the developer is totally unknowing of what patent his idea was registered in USA :rolleyes:
the thing is,patents are poison for development hindering innovations.

there are even patent troll corporates and companies there who are bullying ,sueing unsuspecting companies esp OSS that they infringed original patents.

IMO,EULA's are already giving more thane enough protection for companies.but software patents on the other hand are used as a tool to blackmail/sue other competitors,Open Source companies etc.
definitely "NO" Software patents.

If u care to read "EULA",u'll leave the app ASAP! :D

this sites explains the thing:
*www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index.html
*groklaw.net/

The Basics

Copyright protects authors but doesn't hurt any honest person. Patents, in contrast, are 20-year monopolies that the government grants on broad and general ideas. Patents are potential weapons against all of us.

Click here if you don't know what a patent is, or to refresh your memory.

Software developers are perfectly protected without patents. Everyone who writes a computer program automatically owns the copyright in it. It's copyright law that made Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and the entire software industry so very big. It's the same legal concept that also protects books, music, movies, paintings, even architecture.

Many of the world's richest people owe their wealth to copyright law. Some examples are: Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer (Microsoft); Larry Ellison (Oracle); Hasso Plattner and the other founders of SAP; Paul McCartney (Beatles); JK Rowling (Harry Potter).

"The Company believes that existing copyright law and available trade secret protections, as opposed to patent law, are better suited to protecting computer software developments."
Oracle Corporation Patent Policy

If copyright is all that authors and publishers need, why do some additionally ask for patents? Because they have bad intentions that they try to conceal:

1. The patent professionals want more money and influence. Copyright is free, so you don't need patent offices and lawyers to obtain it. Those potentially make money on writing and processing patent applications, and on patent litigations. A fast-growing branch of the "patent mafia" specializes on squeezing money out of the innocent by alleging patent violations.

2. Some large corporations want a powerful weapon against small but innovative competitors, or against open-source software. What they dislike about copyright is that it only helps against criminals. They want a legal instrument with which they can harm honest people.

We still have the chance to prevent this! We must exercise our democratic rights. There are politicians that purposely support those bad intentions. There are others that haven't understood yet. On this website you'll find plenty of opportunities to influence political decisions and the public opinion.
*www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/basics/index.html
 
Last edited:

gxsaurav

You gave been GXified
but software patents essentially hinders innovations I think

You think wrong. If someone innovated something before you did like some taskbar or login screen then your innovation is not an innovation & you should not be allowed to make money out of it without paying the original author of patent.

if someone found a new idea/program which was already patented by someone in USA,it is called "patent infringement" wth?the developer is totally unknowing of what patent his idea was registered in USA :rolleyes:

The the developer should acknowledge the original author who patented the original idea, & come up with something better. The developer should find out or know whether his idea was already innovated by someone or not previously.

patents are poison for development hindering innovations.

Patent are one of the big reason for innovation. How many innovations do you see coming out of India or China in software section? Hardly any due to non-existent software patent rules here. In western countries people innovate in software because they know there idea will be with them only & they will be able to make money out of it, using which they can further develop the idea.

there are even patent troll corporates and companies there who are bullying ,sueing unsuspecting companies esp OSS that they infringed original patents.

If any company whether it is OSS or Closed source uses the patented idea of some other company, then the original company has all the rights to sue. It is not allowed for the second company to use the original idea of 1st company to make money if it is the innovation of 1st company, 2nd company should pay the first company as the original company came up with the idea first.

EULA's are already giving more thane enough protection for companies.

It seems to give problem to Pirates & OSS users only.

software patents on the other hand are used as a tool to blackmail/sue other competitors,Open Source companies etc.

Incorrectly portrayed. Is it wrong for me to charge money for the new herbal drug to reduce weight I invented? Just like that, is it wrong for say GXSoft to ask money & licensing fees from Microsoft if Microsoft wants to use something I invendted in software section?

Why don't you simply say that development of Linux is behind Windows or Mac OS X due to software patent only. Companies already innovated & patented what they innovated & due to these patents Linux is unable to come with some original idea or copy :D

Like I said above, software patent should be there but for some duration like 5 or 7 years.
 

NucleusKore

TheSaint
there are even patent troll corporates and companies there who are bullying ,sueing unsuspecting companies esp OSS that they infringed original patents.

One more thing, Open Source is at a disadvantage here. As the source code is openly available, they^ can go through it and sue OSS developers. What about the reverse happening? Is it easy to go through the source code of a closed source application and sue them if they use OSS components? I do not know, I am not a programmer or a hacker.
 

gxsaurav

You gave been GXified
Reverse Engineering is always tough. Many of the OSS programs are made using reverse engineering closed source applications.
 
OP
praka123

praka123

left this forum longback
^it is true reg drivers for various hardware in Linux as Proprietary Corps wont open specs :-|
 

NucleusKore

TheSaint
Yes Praka123, other than drivers, I am asking for examples of software like office or some media player, not a transducer, but something that runs on top of the OS
 
Reverse Engineering is always tough. Many of the OSS programs are made using reverse engineering closed source applications.
entirely wrong. only those programs that are forced to be made in a certain way, for example Wine, Opensource Decoders, etc are reverse engineered. Due to the legal problems ans pride issues, reverse engineering is the last ditch attempt by a programmer to make a program.
 

gxsaurav

You gave been GXified
For example?

entirely wrong. only those programs that are forced to be made in a certain way, for example Wine, Opensource Decoders, etc are reverse engineered.

If you care to read again, you will find the line where I have written "Many Software" not "All software". The ones you wrote are in the list of "Many program". You have answered yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom