At a time when pretty much anything can be patented - regardless of how ludicrous the concept, or even if there *appears* to be a case for prior art - can independant, small, or Open Source software developers hope to bring about the kinds of innovations that the Big Names fail to even recognise?
2006-09-06 11:52:02 · 6 answers · asked by Simon D 3 in Computers & Internet ➔ Programming & Design
They're evil. Merely by allowing them stops innovation or even entry into a market by smaller players, simply because of the way in which patents are defended.
If a patent is cited, a large company can ask a court to stop sales of a product. The smaller company can fight, and ask for patents to be reviewed, and have sections struck out, but that costs money. In the meantime the small company has no income, and the larger patent holder is laughing all the way to the bank, because they know the patent is probably invalid by prior art, or simply not a real invention.
Checkout the current SanDisk mp3 debacle for a good (Bad?) example.
2006-09-06 19:58:09 · answer #1 · answered by Hamish M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Patent is designed to promote innovation by assuring that the true inventor will be able to monopolize the commercialization of a real innovation during the critical start up portion of the business cycle. That being said, there are abuses of the concept and times when an usurper violates the premise of the concept and steals the work of another for himself, but the basic idea is a sound one and should be continued. As with any other human institution it is not perfect, yet it allows small businesses to compete against large by preventing the large companies from legally using another's innovation.
2006-09-06 12:02:41 · answer #2 · answered by nathanael_beal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on your viewpoint, if you create something unique with the purpose of profiting by it, then the "intellectual property", (lawyer words for exclusive rights), would and should be patentable. If your viewpoint is to contribute towards a larger good or to give others a potential stepping stone towards something even greater, good for you too. Programming languages like C and it's predecessors where developed for that purpose. Frankly, I have no problem with closed code, it's still a choice whether to buy into it or not. All these sour grape whiners would have done exactly what Bill Gates did if they had the opportunity. If you want to be really wowed, read about the origins of UNIX, these where big brain people who where innovators way ahead of the curve. There's a method and purpose in closely controlling what is little understood, and don't kid yourself, if it was so easy, why does everyone copy what's already there?
2006-09-06 17:27:58 · answer #3 · answered by THE ONE 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole point of software patents is to stop the open source movement reproducing all the commercial software and allowing people freedom of use.
If I write a seriously useful application then you are free to produce your own version of that application as long as you don't steal my code and that's how it should be.
For example I can write a spreadsheet program if I want to, it doesn't matter that someone has already done it as long as I don't copy their work then I'm free to do that.
Software patents will stop that freedom. If the spreadsheet program was Freds idea then I'll need Freds permission to write one. That's taking away my rights as a software engineer to design software applications.
I feel a debate coming on .......
2006-09-06 11:59:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They can be harmful. My wife used to work in a public library patents department and saw how many innovations for alternative fuels and energy sources were bought up by the oil companies, for example. There again, inventors have to be protected. Otherwise, their inventions are exploited - look at poor Samuel Crompton and the Mule.
Good question.
2006-09-06 11:55:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What human beings such as you fail to realize is, that may no longer particularly plenty healthcare for us. This decision will now be stated as precedent for the feds to bypass regulations to mandate something they see fit on us. Or advantageous us or throw us in detention center. you like your automobile? What if the feds do no longer? you like the variety of nutrition you consume? What if the feds do no longer? you like the clothing you place on? What if the feds do no longer? And on and on and on.
2016-12-18 06:05:32 · answer #6 · answered by snelling 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋