Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Patents: Free Software under serious threat
neo_x500:
quote:I don't think it would be possible to sue MS again because you can't cue somebody more than once for the same thing. Also, Xerox invented the GUI not IBM. Apple stole it from Xerox. Xerox sued and lost. Then MS stole it from Apple. Apple sued and lost. I guess they kind of deserve losing, not only did Apple scrap all over Xerox. They gave MS permission to use "Some" of their GUI compenents.
--- End quote ---
I think you're talking about double jeopordy, and that only applies to criminal cases (if you are found innocent they cannot try and prove you guilty again). This was how OJ got away. But in Civil cases, like the one apple versus M$, double jeopordy does not apply. I don't think that xerox sued apple, actually I heard they invented the GUI and decided not to use it, instead they invited apple programers to come and look at it. According to some stories they let apple have it, but this is all before my time, so I wouldn't really know.
(Think I would make a good lawyer??)
billy_gates:
quote:Originally posted by Neo:
I think you're talking about double jeopordy, and that only applies to criminal cases (if you are found innocent they cannot try and prove you guilty again). This was how OJ got away. But in Civil cases, like the one apple versus M$, double jeopordy does not apply. I don't think that xerox sued apple, actually I heard they invented the GUI and decided not to use it, instead they invited apple programers to come and look at it. According to some stories they let apple have it, but this is all before my time, so I wouldn't really know.
(Think I would make a good lawyer??)
--- End quote ---
Taking into Account Calum's previous post, I won't delve any further except to say... I had heard that people at xerox invnted it, then xerox excutives (people who know nothing and were suggested against it by the inventors) invited apple. Apple used it, then after it was a huge success, Xerox sued. That is what I have heard.
Now back to the patent thing. I do believe that one should be able to patent ideas. It is totally logical to me. You invent something and patent it. What is the difference between inventing an idea, a different way of doing something; and inventing an actual product that works in a different way and does something. Makes complete sense to me. Without it, wut is the point of inventing an idea, a workflow, a way of doing something. You can't make any money off of it, you have no way to prove u invented it, and everyone will copy you. Doesn't sound very worth inventing something if that is what will happen.
Pantso:
quote:Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:
Now back to the patent thing. I do believe that one should be able to patent ideas. It is totally logical to me. You invent something and patent it. What is the difference between inventing an idea, a different way of doing something; and inventing an actual product that works in a different way and does something. Makes complete sense to me. Without it, wut is the point of inventing an idea, a workflow, a way of doing something. You can't make any money off of it, you have no way to prove u invented it, and everyone will copy you. Doesn't sound very worth inventing something if that is what will happen.
--- End quote ---
Oh really? Aren't you equally protected if you hold the COPYRIGHTS to your product? Patenting a piece of software is a lot different that holding the copyrights for it! Read Calum's article for God's sake!
billy_gates:
quote:Originally posted by Panos:
Oh really? Aren't you equally protected if you hold the COPYRIGHTS to your product? Patenting a piece of software is a lot different that holding the copyrights for it! Read Calum's article for God's sake!
--- End quote ---
now that I read the top half of the article. If I was making software I would want to patent it. Sounds good to me, controlling the market, charging what I want. It would be a monopoly. However, as an end user I could see how this would be bad. I'm mixed on the subject. I still don't see why it should be illegal though?
edit:
after reading the second half, I would have to agree that the software industry would grind to a halt. But imagine how it could simplify things. One program for one purpose. Not 20 different varients all of which are not 100% compatible with eachother. This is my dream of computer, simplicity. Everyone has one choice, one app, one OS, one etc. However, this is starting to sound a lot like socialism. I want choices.
In the end I am still mixed.
[ June 07, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]
edit 2
After thinking. I think software patenting should be illegal, but Idea and workflow and specific features on computers or in software should be patentable. Like 1 Click. Or Piles. Those are both ways of doing thing, they are ideas. Ideas should be patentable, but not the actual "Online Store" or "File Browser."
I think I'm done correcting myself
[ June 08, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]
Calum:
yeah it really would make things a lot simpler if nobody was allowed to do anything new.
i am sickened by the shameless tripe in this thread. This issue concerns europe. The US already pisses away its own patents laws due to apathy, that's why you have so many fucked legal cases.
now anybody who lives in europe want to see that happen here? not me, so go and write or fax your representative to try and stop it please.
thank you!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version