Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Patents: Free Software under serious threat
flap:
quote: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.
--- End quote ---
quote:Originally posted by Stryker:
Does that sound insane to anyone else?
--- End quote ---
Yes, it does. Particularly as he first says that software patenting should be illegal, and then goes on to suggest that, well, software patenting should be legal.
No-one tries to patent entire pieces of software, like a word processor - that would be pointless. The very problem with software patenting is that the features he talks about can be patented. That is, obvious ideas or vaguely defined conjunctions of obvious ideas.
Faust:
No Urg! Don't make hot red burning stuff go! No office for patent - you no make money!
neo_x500:
Software patents are weak at best, for instance, say if Europe looses this battle and somebody patents the GUI, what will germany, who went totally ope source do? Will they be forced to go back to Macrosuck, or will they pay royalties to the cock-sucking company that tries to patent this. The problem with this is that the patenting of software should have been settled long ago, when the first software programs were being written. How many pieces of software are running around now? The answer: Thousands; hell, millions. How are we supposed to define who owns what, or who came up with what? What does it mean for companies who lost suits on this, who could suddenly reverse the decesions made. Software patens are so vague, so fucking crazy that there would never be anyway to rationalize who owns what, and who has the right to copy this, or distribute that. What if Linus suddenly decided to patent linux, which he could legally do if these software laws came into effect? He could litirally eliminate all distrobutions of linux at his will. Although he would never do that because it goes against the GPL, it is a scary reality. What of UNIX and the SCO lawsuit against IBM. The compnay name has changed so many times, and the ownership and copyrights and possibly PATENTS have shifted so many times that it is impossible to tell he should legally have tyhe rights to it. If laws like this become commonplace, I suggest picking up a career as a law attorney, because those guys would be making the most moolah in the years to come over software battles. Software patents are wrong, nuff said. *end constant rambling*
Laukev7:
I strongly believe in rewarding or at least giving credit to the person who came up with an idea. I do agree, though, that the patenting system is crazy. In my opinion, patents should grant exclusivity to its applicant, but in a much more restrictive way.
For example, the period of exclusivity should vary, such that broad concepts should be given an exclusivity period of 1-5 years (3 years maximum for computer software), while more specific inventions may be granted up to 10-20 years (those are just examples, do not take them seriously), rather than the 100 years long patents that make competition impossible.
The inventor should at least be granted, one way or another, an advantage of some sort, a headstart to gain a foothold in the market (gotta love these body part expressions!). And, of course, the inventor should get full credit for his invention/concept.
Calum:
COPYRIGHT GODSDAMN IT!!!!!!!!
aren't you hearing a word i am saying?????
that's why COPYRIGHT EXISTS!!!!!!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version