Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : A sSftware Patent? Can I get one?? |
|
Answer» What is a software patent? Can trust anybody for a software patent? Quite frankly, I don't really know the answer. Nor do I have enough knowledge and experience to even make an intelligent statement. But I am sure that will not stop the rest of you. So come on, tell me what I need to know about software patents. For a starter, I am going to quote part of an article from someone who is much more qualified than me. And for that matter, is much more qualified than most anybody I could think of. His name is "Dan" Bricklin. Daniel Singer "Dan" Bricklin (born 16 July 1951) is the American co-creator, with Bob Frankston, of the VisiCalc spreadsheet program. He also founded Software Garden, Inc., of which he is currently president, and Trellix Corporation, which is currently owned by Web.com. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote Dan Bricklin's Web Site: www.bricklin.com Please take a look at what Dan has to say. He has been deeply involved in the issue himself. Still, it's hard to understand the concept of how you can write a piece of software and then claim that nobody else has the right to do anything like it. But maybe that's not what he really said. How do you understand? I am NOT going to tell thee my idea 'till they wax me patent.I don't get it... If a patent is what you want they can be had ...for an undetermined amount of cabbage depending on which lawyer you speak with... Software patents are really kind of a joke. There are very few software ideas that are really new, mostly just improvements on previous ideas and concepts. That doesn't mean that there aren't many, many software patents filed each year. The patent office hasn't kept up with technology, and as long as lawyers get paid to file patent claims there will be patent claims for all kind of bogus issues. There are a number of companies that file dozens of patents with no real products involved, and they are hoping that in the future some other company will use a similar technology that they can then sue for patent infringement. I remember several years ago, Amazon tried to claim patent rights to "one click". They eventually backed off of that claim. Quote from: rthompson80819 on May 01, 2010, 05:01:55 PM Software patents are really kind of a joke. There are very few software ideas that are really new, mostly just improvements on previous ideas and concepts.Thank you! That was a great idea! Oh how I wish I had thought of that! Quote US Patent Office Decides That One Click Really Is PatentableMaybe that was a joke? I don't get it either. Quote from: rthompson80819 on May 01, 2010, 05:01:55 PM Software patents are really kind of a joke. There are very few software ideas that are really new, mostly just improvements on previous ideas and concepts.Yeah! Totally! like how how the fluorescent lightbulb is really just a improvement over the incandescent LIGHT, or how that was itself just an improvement over the lantern (I don't think lanterns had a patent). The thing I don't get is, patent's have been on ideas. wether the manifestation of that idea is physical or consists of computer code is largely irrelevant- either way, somebody needs to implement it; with a physical object you can follow the patent documents and create the patented item- you need to pay royalties, of course. Same story for software patents- somebody comes up with, say a new way of hashing that is even better then SHA-2, they patent it- and anybody else can buy the documentation of that patent and build that new has algorithm. Of course, Open Source has a problem with this- since they have, in general, this idea that every single piece of code ever developed should be shared in a communal fashion- that is, that the creator of the new hash function should just give away the algorithm free of charge. Now, I'm no expert, but if somebody is going to work for years on something, be it a physical invention or a code-complete one, I'm PRETTY sure they aren't doing it just for that warm fuzzy feeling they get when they release it for free. Much as Edison, and many other inventors, made off their inventions, so too should the inventors of new concepts- new algorithms... new, inventions in software. Quote There are a number of companies that file dozens of patents with no real products involved, and they are hoping that in the future some other company will use a similar technology that they can then sue for patent infringement.This was the case before computers and software patents. thankfully these companies didn't have very good foresight into the future. Of course, all that being said, the software patents being filed are becoming all too frivolous. The one-click example mentioned makes a good example- as you can see in the actual USPO file: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=5960411&KC=&FT=E While the method is outlined, it's rather vague- and to be honest, it's actually kind of obvious, and would probably be what anybody else would do in that situation. It's like patenting walking up your walkway and forcing everybody to either walk on the grass or pay royalties. The thing is, for physical patents, this situation never arises- you cannot patent, for example, a 4 legged chair, because everybody has been using them for ages, and it's common sense to find previous works. Software is more fleeting- it's hard to find previous works for a given software patent- this doesn't mean they don't exist. I think software patents are fine for things like the previously mentioned "super hash function"- because if it TOOK 20 or so years for somebody to think of this new hash that os more powerful then any devised, chances are it isn't going to be stumbled on by anybody else anytime soon. The patent filing itself allows anybody to view the patent, as well- the patent filing will include a description of the algorithm, that any licensee can use to create their own implementation. I might also point out that the patent was refused in Canada due to a provision added in 1993 (around the start of the whole "software patent" era (was this the year Unisys patented GIF?) which adds the requirement that an invention be not obvious in light of prior art. Also, they made strong statements about the patentability of "business-method patents"- there is an article here. In fact, Canadian patent law specifically excludes the patenting of computer programs at all: Quote The list of prohibited matters notably differs from the United States. With respect to patents for software, while mere algorithms are not patentable per se (mere algorithms may be protected by Canadian copyright law), software may be protected by Canadian patent law if it meets the traditional criteria for patentability (that is, it must be new, non-obvious and useful). In other words, if for example the software is new and non-obvious, it would be patentable in Canada if the software directly provided a functional real world useful result (and not merely the calculation of a mere algorithm). So, going back to my example of a newfound hash algorithm, the read-world useful result would be increased difficulty to find hash collisions, which translates into increased security across the board for everything that uses the method- therefore, it would probably be patentable. Now, of course, if such an algorithm is conceived and patented, open source advocates will be arguing with zeal that it should be free and not require the payment of royalties. My answer is, of course, "why?" If the original author didn't patent it or release it all, nobody would be able to argue about wether it should be released freely, and certainly none of them would have come up with it, they are far too busy tinkering with their Linux boxes. Basically, their argument is against the very core of a capitalist society. Consider for a moment Tetris. Almost Everybody has played that game. Everybody I've asked thinks it made the original creator rich. Well, it didn't, since the inventor was in the U.S.S.R. all the money went "to the people" (the government) and while Alexey got a nice warm feeling and a couple "Excellent job comrade!"'s, he didn't see a dime of it. Of course, this was a licensed product- the USSR held the patent and rights to the game in several countries, and they even licensed it to MULTIPLE companies simultaneously (notably Tengen and Nintendo) LEADING to a dispute that went all the way down to the exact person who sold the rights to each company. You're in Canada and I have a question for you- of sorts, that is. OpenBSD, have you tried it? What's the distributed use of it in Canada? Quote from: BC_Programmer on May 04, 2010, 07:48:40 AM Totally! like how how the fluorescent lightbulb is really just a improvement over the <patented> incandescent light, or how that was itself just an improvement over the lantern (I don't think lanterns had a patent). The fluorescent light bulb produces light physically in a very different way than the incandescent bulb. It's not just an improvement, but a totally different way to produce light. BTW, lanterns have many patents. http://www.lanternnet.com/patents.htm |
|