Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Patents: Free Software under serious threat
Laukev7:
No need to yell, I know what a copyright is. Copyright only prevents brand imposture (ie copying the look-and-feel of an interface, misusing brand names, etc). It doesn't keep a huge corporation from hijacking the idea and crushing the inventor before his product even gets on the market. A patent, on the other hand, gives a chance to the inventor, which a copyright cannot grant.
Other thing, I wasn't even specifically talking about software. What makes you think that a copyright would be enough for anything else?
flap:
quote:Copyright only prevents brand imposture (ie copying the look-and-feel of an interface, misusing brand names, etc).
--- End quote ---
No, that's trademarks; not copyright.
quote:It doesn't keep a huge corporation from hijacking the idea and crushing the inventor before his product even gets on the market. A patent, on the other hand, gives a chance to the inventor,
--- End quote ---
That's the myth of patents that the corporations would have you believe - that patents are there to "protect" individual, struggling inventors from big companies. Actually patents are generally used, and bought up, by big companies like Microsoft, IBM etc. in order to control/restrict a technology's use, and to extort money out of everyone who uses them.
Laukev7:
You did not read my other post, flap. I know perfectly well that the patent system, in its present state, only benefits to monopolists. What you just said is exactly why I suggested that thr life span of a patent should be restricted to a few years only, rather than a lifetime.
You also took the last quote out of context. I explicitly said in my last post that I was discussing the general application of the patent system, not exclusively software. You are also assuming that a patent does the same damages to "real" inventions as to intellectual concepts.
And tell me, if the acetylsacicylic acid (a.k.a Aspirin) has been patented by Bayers (I'm not sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong), then why do we find many competing brands, such as Anacin and Tylenol, if the patenting system supposedly crushes competition?
[ June 10, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
As for the copyright, I may have confused it with trademark. But no explanation of copyright and patents is being made in Calum's article, nor is any difference between the two shown, and as such I see no immediate basis in the claim that "copyright addresses the needs of software much more adequately".
[ June 10, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Fett101:
"Under current patent law, the patent holder for a pharmaceutical product has the exclusive right to supply the product for 20 years from the granting of the patent. One problem with this, from the perspective of the pharmaceutical companies, is that the 20-year period begins with the granting of the patent, not with FDA approval of the drug. As the time required for drug approvals lengthened substantially due to requirements for more elaborate clinical trials, the period of market exclusivity provided by the patent declined. The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 provided an extension to the patent period equal to one-half of the time from the beginning of clinical trials to the end of the drug approval process. This extension can last for at most five years and the total period of market exclusivity cannot exceed 14 years. To receive this extension, a pharmaceutical company must display "due diligence" in the approval process."
Patents don't just support monopolies. They support companies that pour cash into R&D, and prevent other companies from exploiting them by just copying the product exactly. But currently, patents are being given out far too freely, such as a pantents for for "one click web shopping" and "stationary menu's on websites". May as well patent the exchange of money for goods and services.
Calum:
quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Other thing, I wasn't even specifically talking about software. What makes you think that a copyright would be enough for anything else?
--- End quote ---
ok, your attempts to belittle me are invalid for the folowing reasons:
1) the topic is "software patents" therefore i feel i am justified in assuming that you were talking about software patents
2) what makes you think i think copyright would be sufficient for other areas? i NEVER said such a thing. May i refer you to point 1)? I am talking purely about software patents.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version