Time To Abolish Software Patents?

[praka123]

"Has the time come to abolish software patents? Fortune columnist Roger Parloff reports on a new campaign called End Software Patents (http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/02/28/ending-software-patents-has-the-time-come/), 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 (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080228-patent-reform-coalition-aims-to-abolish-software-patents.html) in order to promote effective legislative solutions to the software patent problem.' The campaign site (http://endsoftpatents.org/) 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 (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/18/1356257&tid=155)."

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

sametime,
RIAA faces lawsuits from artists


The Recording Industry Association of America (http://www.riaa.com/) (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 (http://www.youtube.com/), Napster (http://www.napster.com/), Kazaa (http://www.kazaa.com/) 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 (http://www.korn.com/), Don Henley (http://www.donhenley.com/) and The Rolling Stones (http://www.rollingstones.com/), told the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/).
"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 (http://www.eaglesband.com/) 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."
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2210889/riaa-faces-lawsuits-artists

[The Conqueror]

Thanks for the news update

[MetalheadGautham]

RIAA were trying to Double Time the Artists. Now their primary source of income is soon going to vanish :twisted:

[rohan_shenoy]

Abolishing patents is impractical

[gx_saurav]

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.

[MetalheadGautham]

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

[Krazy_About_Technology]

@saurav and @gautham : agree with both of you

[vaithy]

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]

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?

[gx_saurav]

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.

[rohan_shenoy]

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.

[praka123]

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:
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index.html
http://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. (http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/basics/whatis.html)

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.
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/basics/index.html

[gx_saurav]

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]

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.

[gx_saurav]

Reverse Engineering is always tough. Many of the OSS programs are made using reverse engineering closed source applications.

[NucleusKore]

Reverse Engineering is always tough. Many of the OSS programs are made using reverse engineering closed source applications.

For example?

[praka123]

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

[NucleusKore]

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

[MetalheadGautham]

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.

[gx_saurav]

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.

[Krazy_About_Technology]

Can anybody tell me if i have made something new and i want to check it out that it has been patented or not, how can i do so online?

[iMav]

the OSS model of development is to be blamed here and not the corporations; if some 1 chooses to make something and then decides to sell it, it is his wish and he has all the right to patent it so that tomoro no 1 opies his idea tweaks it a bit and rakes in credit/moolah without due credit to the original author/creator.

OSS runs on a model where they are not in it for 'money' and so they cant ethically/morally file patents becuase doing so goes against the sheer essence and fabric on which OSS has evolved, but when ur talking about MS/Apple/Intel its different these guys run on a business model they innvest huge amounts in research and have huge shareholder value so they have to get back what they put in, and they put in money and they want it back in money and if some1 copies an already patented idea it is not innovation anymore :)

[a_k_s_h_a_y]

Make it strict, Abolish Idea Sucks .. give me better reasons to abolish

its sick if people are given patents for silly stuff

for example login screen ! can't believe ! only if a person logins he can see his details .. and any screen though which he logins is a login screen !

now say yahoo designed login screen for yahoo mail .. so now windows must pay them for any type of login screen ... any screen for which a person types password and username !

Now here .. the Implantation of login screen can be patented and not the login screen itself !

LMAO

Any good programmer will know what kind of software can be given patents and what software can't be ... !!
Any damn software can't be patented unless there is really some innovation in it !! LOL !!

And what can be done in one way can be done in other way ! In Programming !

FOSS >> ??
What's the big idea ?? With it ??

I should spend all time writing software and give it away for free ?? Did i not put any efforts into it ?? Any innovation ?? Precious Time ??


Open Source is different from FOSS , Software can be open source but not free .. like MAC OS ! But Copy Righted !

hey in software the program written itself is the service ..

if you don't think so .. then imagine this ..
we write programs for People for free ! and at the end of the day we earned nothing !
then we better go out and do some thing else and earn money for living ! instead of programming !

You want us to write programs for your business for free.. so that you can use it to increase your profits ?? And we get nothing ?

support ?? can't the read english ?? don't they know to use a computer ??

yeah i support FOSS .. but not completely !

[praka123]

FOSS cannot go in sync with software patent model where every single simple ideas are patented by monopolies like micro$oft,apple,intel etc. :-|

it is NOT some "right" of the developer that patents give,instead a weapon to monopolists to suppress FOSS projects and developers,small companies etc.

the "right" to sue/fine ur competitor and competitor sue u again for some other so called software patents.M$ in essence is a victim of this.

I think it is greedy to assume patents for software when copyright/EULA give protection to their works.

it is impossible to develop a free open source software(FOSS) without fearing any patent calls from monopolistic companies.

we can aruge YES and NO incessantly; but the fact that the very idea of software patent itself is in dispute is a happy thing.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office) has traditionally not considered software to be patentable[dubious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement) – discuss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Software_patent#Dubious)][8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-5) because by statute patents can only be granted to "processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter". In particular, patents cannot be granted to "scientific truths" or "mathematical expressions" of them. This means that most of the fundamental techniques of software engineering have never been patented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#United_States

FOSS stance is very clear and ethical:
There is tremendous animosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate) in the free software community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_community) towards software patents. Much of this has been caused by free software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)/open source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source) projects shutting down[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-23) when the holders of patents covering aspects of a project demanded license fees that the project could not or was not willing to pay or offered licenses under terms which the project was unwilling to accept, or could not accept because it conflicted with the open source license in use.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-24)
Several patent holders have offered royalty-free patent licenses. Companies that have done this include IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM), Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft), Nokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia), Novell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell),[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-25) Sun Microsystems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems) and Unisys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisys). Such actions have rarely appeased the free/open source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_community) software community for reasons such as fear of the patent holder changing their mind or problems with some of the license terms.
In the late 1990s, for example, Unisys, granted royalty free licenses to hundreds of not-for-profit organizations that used the patented LZW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZW) compression method and, by extension, the GIF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format) image format. Unisys was still barraged by negative and sometimes obscene emails from the free/open source software community.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-26)
In 2005 Sun Microsystems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems) announced that they were making a portfolio of 1,600 patents available through a free software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license)/open-source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license)-type patent license called Common Development and Distribution License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License).[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-27). This was criticized by the free/open source software community, however, since it did not release the source code under a free/open source software license[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-28)
In 2006, Microsoft's patent pledge not to sue Novell Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux) customers, openSUSE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSUSE) contributors, and free/open source software developers[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-29) and the associated collaboration agreement with Novell[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-30) was met with disdain from the Software Freedom Law Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center)[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-31) while commentators from the Free Software Foundation stated that the agreement would not comply with GPLv3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3).[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-32)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-33)
Draft versions of the GNU GPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GPL) version 3 may also conflict with patents on software by preventing any patent holder from enforcing their patents against a user if said patent holder also distributes software covered by those patents under the GPL.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#_note-34)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Free_and_open_source_software

Trend Micro (http://us.trendmicro.com/) might insist that its patent case against Barracuda Networks (http://www.barracudanetworks.com/) isn't about free software -- but try telling that to the free and open source software (FOSS) community. Since Barracuda Networks went public (http://www.linux.com/feature/125807) about the case last month, it has heard from "a tremendous number of individuals" according to Dean Drako, Barracuda's president and CEO. Even more significantly, announcement of the case has led to a boycott against Trend Micro.



The case is an attempt to enforce Trend Micro's patent (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5623600.html) for antivirus detection on an SMTP or FTP gateway. Already successfully used against such companies as McAfee, Symantec, and Fortinet, the patent is being applied against Barracuda for its distribution of Clam Antivirus (http://www.clamav.net/) (ClamAV), the popular FOSS antivirus program, with its hardware products. The case began when Barracuda sought a declaratory judgment in March 2007 after receiving a series of letters from Trend Micro in 2006-2007. Trend Micro responded by a filing with the American International Trade Commission in November 2007, claiming that ClamAV was being imported on the grounds that many of its contributors are from outside the United States. The schedule for the case is expected to be announced by the end of this month.

[..]
In the same vein, Pamela Jones of Groklaw wrote, "I think it's another attempt to attack the FOSS development model and force those using such software to pay the proprietary dudes a tax. That's the same dream that SCO started with, and Microsoft shares the dream. A lot of proprietary software folks realize the sun is setting on their business model, and they would like a piece of what is replacing it.... If ClamAV is not successfully defended, I think there may be an avalanche of this kind of attack, proprietary vendors looking for some silver to cross their palms from anyone using FOSS software."

read here:
http://www.linux.com/feature/126851

Here patent weapon is used by this company against each of its competitors and FOSS clamav too. :-|

[iMav]

sorry i dont have time to read everything as u dont highlight ur point and simply just copy paste stuff from absolutely random links, however here is ur own qote:

There is tremendous animosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate) in the free software community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_community) towards software patents. Much of this has been caused by free software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)/open source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source) projects shutting down when the holders of patents covering aspects of a project demanded license fees that the project could not or was not willing to pay or offered licenses under terms which the project was unwilling to accept, or could not accept because it conflicted with the open source license in use'

what u see here is a perfect example of high headedness of the OSS people who think that just because they are making something for free gives them every right to use codes and other technical aspects of some 1 else's work, the person who originally created that feels that he should be repayed and reimbursed for his work and that no 1 else copies/modifies his work and then takes credit which OSS loves to do, take something modify it and then give it away for free thereby taking a lot of good will and credit and the person who originally created something gets thenga, this is just like what u said in the drm thread where u supported piracy as compared to giving due credit and money to the people who made the jodha akbar music u are listening to :)

and i will say this again:

if some1 copies an already patented idea it is not innovation anymore

[a_k_s_h_a_y]

Lets say COMPANY X writes a program to ADD two Numbers !

Now some Guy writes own program to add 2 numbers but uses own Algorithm .. and gives away for free.

now don't tell me this guy has to pay royalty to COMPANY X !!

This is hilarious !

[iMav]

if u really think that software patents are given for such things then only God can help u :)

[praka123]

the point is,many millions there dont know that a patent exist for his idea.
I also condemns the purposeful copying of patented ideas if any.but...many FOSS (http://fsf.org) developers and small companies innovates something later to know that there is a patent killing all this invention.

infact the weakest is FOSS..where any software's code is open and open ideas,open standards also,a patent troll company can handpick ideas and file a patent.then sue the original developer(s).
edit: watch this utube video guys:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TYbDfo4q5pw

[iMav]

the point is,many millions there dont know that a patent exist for his idea.
I also condemns the purposeful copying of patented ideas if any.but...many FOSS (http://fsf.org) developers and small companies innovates something later to know that there is a patent killing all this invention.

infact the weakest is FOSS..where any software's code is open and open ideas,open standards also,a patent troll company can handpick ideas and file a patent.then sue the original developer(s).arre mere bhai do u know the method of how patents are given. once u file an application for a patent u are not immidiately given a patent its not like creating an email account, there is a huge time limit wherein some 1 else can refute the claims and even the patent giving body researches and dude please i posted this twice and im posting it again

u say:

many FOSS (http://fsf.org/) developers and small companies innovates something later to know that there is a patent killing all this invention.

but what u dont understand:

if they come to know later that there is already a patent in that name then how come it is innovation they have done something that is already existing

please first understand how patents are given and acquired u like giving away so many links and read so much take some time out and read about how a patent is filed and how one gets a patent

[gx_saurav]

FOSS cannot go in sync with software patent model where every single simple ideas are patented by monopolies like micro$oft,apple,intel etc. :-|

Now I do agree that patenting silly things is wrong, such as spring loaded folders in Mac OS X however there magsafe connector is worth patenting but this doesn't means these big componies who do lots of research & developement, marketing etc etc should not protect theer intealctual property.

it is NOT some "right" of the developer that patents give,instead a weapon to monopolists to suppress FOSS projects and developers,small companies etc.

iTunes was made by a small company & then bought by Apple to create a media player & online music market which is top in the world today. This is just an example where a real & good innovation of a small company was treated fairly by a big company like Apple. So when you say companies do it to surprass innovation u r just spreading FUD. 90% of innovation comes from 3rd party developers only.

the "right" to sue/fine ur competitor and competitor sue u again for some other so called software patents.M$ in essence is a victim of this.

U break a patent law, u face consequence. Simple.


I think it is greedy to assume patents for software when copyright/EULA give protection to their works.


EULA tells a user how he is supposed to use the softwarem but patent prevents a user/developer to use the same idea to create there seperate application & make money. They are 2 different things.

it is impossible to develop a free open source software(FOSS) without fearing any patent calls from monopolistic companies.

Why do u call them monopolistic company & why not some company which innovated a software. For example, Microsoft innovated Windows Media Center but they did not patent the idea & now we have many free media center applications in the market. On the other hand, Apple innovated Expose & still they did not patent it & today we have same thing in Windows via Switcher.

we can aruge YES and NO incessantly; but the fact that the very idea of software patent itself is in dispute is a happy thing.


Shoot someone who has innovated a product just to find that everyone is making there own product based on it...& then say Patent sux.

many FOSS (http://fsf.org/) developers and small companies innovates something later to know that there is a patent killing all this invention

many FOSS (http://fsf.org/) developers and small companies innovates just to find out that it has already been invented & innovated.

[a_k_s_h_a_y]

if u really think that software patents are given for such things then only God can help u :)

Complex software is nothing but large collection of simple math ... ;)

And i just gave an example........ I mean't the same .. patents for sill stuff is foolish .. cant understand ?? fine .. who cares ..! Praka gets the point that's good enough !

A person spends all time and effort to invent something only later to find out its patented ! LOL ! that sucks

hey everyone hates that case not only software guys !

I think if some one else discovers he should also get the patent and both should share royalty.
patent stuff are kept secret .. so no way other people get to know how things work.

[MetalheadGautham]

screw you guys for not understanding FOSS. It is not connected with patents in any way. And FOSS guys are not anti patent parties. I for example support both, but the former should be controlled. Do you even know what FOSS is ? FOSS (atleast OSS) is about community resources in software, which is software that can help everybody and is owned by the community as a whole. It is for universal developement rather than commertial. Don't talk about things you don't understand.

And one major flaw in patents: If one person achieves something by hard work and patents it, it prevents another person from doing a similar thing even if he too innovated and worked all by himself. There is no way to check the truth and hence the first one to do something wins. Lets take a paradox where the same AAC which was invented by the MPEG group is again re-invented by another person many years later. He would still have no rights over his invention.

One main reason why patents should exist: Patents are like rights to enjoy one's hard work. Without them there will be no incentive for hard work. I fully support patents. If they don't exist, there will be no more pleasure in reserch. Screw people who want to ban patents. They can be made more fool proof and careful granting can be enforced, but not anything beyond that.

[infra_red_dude]

Entertaining discussion going on here. People trying to bring in Apple/MS/FOSS/Linux in software patents! coool! :D

Those in the FOSS community who believe patents should be abolished are, imho, non-contributors who think they are the messiah of F/OSS (don't flame me, its only my belief as 100% of those I've seen/met/interacted fall in this category). All those who think that everything in this world should be free and open-source are fools.

All those who think GNU/Linux uses most features copied from other OS' then its true to a certain point (UNIX), but I understand in this thread UNIX was not meant to be the source so I'd say that statement is utterly foolish! All that "eyecandy" being copied is not the real GNU/Linux. Its being copied coz casual users want it. These type of people are in the same category as above: fools.

Those who believe that "many F/OSS" software are reverse engineered apart from Drivers .. plz backup this statement.

IMHO Software patents should exist but the jury shouldn't be run by conked off @$$holes (as it is now). They'd give sfotware patents just like they did to things like: Basmati Rice!! :)) They've made all kinds of patents a joke!

We need an international software patent committee headed by responsible people who review everything give correct decisions on patents.

[a_k_s_h_a_y]

Entertaining discussion going on here. People trying to bring in Apple/MS/FOSS/Linux in software patents! coool! :D


+1

All those who think that everything in this world should be free and open-source are fools.

+1 !

Why should we write software that some uses to make hell of profits in his business and i get nothing. I mean not always. Some Times i can give free if i really want to or if its needed.

All those who think GNU/Linux uses most features copied from other OS' then its true to a certain point (UNIX), but I understand in this thread UNIX was not meant to be the source so I'd say that statement is utterly foolish! All that "eyecandy" being copied is not the real GNU/Linux. Its being copied coz casual users want it. These type of people are in the same category as above: fools.

+1
Those who believe that "many F/OSS" software are reverse engineered apart from Drivers .. plz backup this statement.

+1 .. guys here don't know reverse engineering of software happens in x86 Assembly and not C source code .. lolzz ! Also another thing is people trained in x86 assembly is very few. Find them at assembly community.

[gx_saurav]

screw you guys for not understanding FOSS. It is not connected with patents in any way. And FOSS guys are not anti patent parties.

Then what was prakash saying? Stop using provokative language.

And one major flaw in patents: If one person achieves something by hard work and patents it, it prevents another person from doing a similar thing even if he too innovated and worked all by himself. There is no way to check the truth and hence the first one to do something wins

That's how patent works.

[FilledVoid]

Ths thread brings some interesting views on patents lol. First of all let me clear about my view. Patents are needed in my opinion. Theres a huge controversy of the allotment of patents. Alloting patents to software is kind of shaky cause of several factors. One is that certain techniques are actually awarded patents . I believe a good example would be Object Relationship Mapping, currently Red Hat has a law suit against it for use of it in one of its programs I recall.

In fact here you go: http://www.news.com/Red-Hat-sued-over-JBoss-technology/2100-1014_3-6090307.html

Did you know that if youre in the US even use of a product that uses some other companies patented stuff makes the user also liable? (I always knew that cyber law course would prove useful somewhere :D ) I could basically even go on saying that if you did some project in class which implemented ORM then you're in violation of a patent also.

This isn't an issue about OSS , Mac, Windows, Dos , whatever . This is more an issue with some retards on the patent committee. And talking about ridiculous patents Net2Phone going after Skype over use of Point-To-Point Internet Protocol :D

[mediator]

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.


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.
.....many more

Joke of the DAY! Since when did they started patenting ideas (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/inventing/patent-ideas/)? Gosh.....googling MS , wud have yielded something like Micro-sh1t then, since much of the 'ideas' on how an OS shud work came from mother of all OSes!!??



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

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

Ahem, n exactly how does it gives problem to pirates n OSS users? With its vague things-NOT-to-do-list n not explaining in clear terms what a person can do even an MVP (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/microsoft_mvp_threats/) might get confused. So I guess its a headache for genuine users too, chained to the 10 installation compulsion n the phone-a-"friend" thing subsequently!!


How many innovations do you see coming out of India or China in software section?

Are u even aware bt the outsourcing and RnD situation in INDIA?

U talk like MS, no wonder an MVP was made to cry! U think an innocent soul who'd like to contribute some program wud spend his precious time on searching the "ideas patent" book n laws n read the dirty things-to-NOT-do list (like MS-EULA) instead of freely nourshing his "idea"?? Guess someday students will sue each other for trying to use the same "idea" to pass the exam!!


They'd give sfotware patents just like they did to things like: Basmati Rice!!

Talk bt yoga. Its like free n open source where everyone can excerise n modify it freely. But in US, I guess, it has become some sort of proprietary program!! :oops:

[MetalheadGautham]

@gx: you forgot to read why I support patents.

you see, Patents and FOSS can, should, will and have to co-exist as each have their own benifits. Whats this rubbish about going FOSS and abolishing patents ? We are not in China or Russia with such communist ideals.