Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Microsoft & patents: what goes around comes around...

Reply
Thread Tools

Microsoft & patents: what goes around comes around...

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2006
With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly infringing
Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get slapped with a
patent-infringement suit:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.

Still think software patents are a good idea?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Zipper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2006
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly infringing
> Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get slapped with a
> patent-infringement suit:
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.
>
> Still think software patents are a good idea?


No, the whole system is a joke and is getting worse and worse. Soon it
will be impossible to do anything without violating a patent. The
people that accept these patents seriously have to be on crack or
something, I can understand greedy companies/governments wanting to slap
patents on anything to try and make easy money with sueing/settling but
the patents should never have been accepted in the first place in so
many cases. That is just my opinion of course.

It destroys innovation and wastes so much time and resources.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Who Am I
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2006
In article <456b6ecb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Zipper <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly infringing
> > Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get slapped with a
> > patent-infringement suit:
> > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.
> >
> > Still think software patents are a good idea?

>
> No, the whole system is a joke and is getting worse and worse. Soon it
> will be impossible to do anything without violating a patent. The
> people that accept these patents seriously have to be on crack or
> something, I can understand greedy companies/governments wanting to slap
> patents on anything to try and make easy money with sueing/settling but
> the patents should never have been accepted in the first place in so
> many cases. That is just my opinion of course.
>
> It destroys innovation and wastes so much time and resources.


why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
arts works, so why no protection for software ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Who Am I
wrote:

> In article <456b6ecb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Zipper <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> > With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly
>> > infringing Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get
>> > slapped with a patent-infringement suit:
>> > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.
>> >
>> > Still think software patents are a good idea?

>>
>> No, the whole system is a joke and is getting worse and worse. Soon it
>> will be impossible to do anything without violating a patent. The
>> people that accept these patents seriously have to be on crack or
>> something, I can understand greedy companies/governments wanting to slap
>> patents on anything to try and make easy money with sueing/settling but
>> the patents should never have been accepted in the first place in so
>> many cases. That is just my opinion of course.
>>
>> It destroys innovation and wastes so much time and resources.

>
> why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
> arts works, so why no protection for software ?


Software already has copyright protection internationally by being
classified as "artistic work". Yet in jurisdictions like the US, it is the
only kind of "artistic work" that also enjoys patent protection as well.
Why do you need two kinds of protection? Isn't one enough?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sawney Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Who Am I <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <456b6ecb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Zipper <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > > With all Ballmer's recent sabre-rattling over Linux supposedly infringing
> > > Microsoft's patents, it makes a change to see _them_ get slapped with a
> > > patent-infringement suit:
> > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/ms_korea_court/>.
> > >
> > > Still think software patents are a good idea?

> >
> > No, the whole system is a joke and is getting worse and worse. Soon it
> > will be impossible to do anything without violating a patent. The
> > people that accept these patents seriously have to be on crack or
> > something, I can understand greedy companies/governments wanting to slap
> > patents on anything to try and make easy money with sueing/settling but
> > the patents should never have been accepted in the first place in so
> > many cases. That is just my opinion of course.
> >
> > It destroys innovation and wastes so much time and resources.

>
> why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
> arts works, so why no protection for software ?


Any you can copyright software. Which being the case, there is no need,
and no justification, for software patents.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Who Am I
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Sawney Bean <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> > why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
> > arts works, so why no protection for software ?

>
> Any you can copyright software. Which being the case, there is no need,
> and no justification, for software patents.


HOW do you copyright software... source code ?
Computers were invented to be flexible so as a crude example your code
said a+b=c is this the same then as b+a=c, or b*1+a=c and so on. There
are thousands of variations in writing the code to achieve the exact
same results.

The innovative part is NOT the code, its the method, technique or what
ever.

So, copyright has few benefits for software compared to Patent. Apart
from that patents have a lower life time than copyright, so if the same
protections are available with each method surely innovation would be
stifled even more through copyright.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Who Am I
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
In article <ekfu9c$88f$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:


>
> Software already has copyright protection internationally by being
> classified as "artistic work". Yet in jurisdictions like the US, it is the
> only kind of "artistic work" that also enjoys patent protection as well.
> Why do you need two kinds of protection? Isn't one enough?


No. Because software is both artistic and innovative. HOW something
LOOKS is very different to HOW it WORKS.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Earl Grey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
Who Am I wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Sawney Bean <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>> why should innovation be limited to physical items. You can copyright
>>> arts works, so why no protection for software ?

>> Any you can copyright software. Which being the case, there is no need,
>> and no justification, for software patents.

>
> HOW do you copyright software... source code ?
> Computers were invented to be flexible so as a crude example your code
> said a+b=c is this the same then as b+a=c, or b*1+a=c and so on. There
> are thousands of variations in writing the code to achieve the exact
> same results.
>
> The innovative part is NOT the code, its the method, technique or what
> ever.
>
> So, copyright has few benefits for software compared to Patent. Apart
> from that patents have a lower life time than copyright, so if the same
> protections are available with each method surely innovation would be
> stifled even more through copyright.


So once the first software method to accomplish a task is patented, any
improved software methods to accomplish that task become patent
infringements
That doesn't encourage innovation
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006

Who Am I wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,


> The innovative part is NOT the code, its the method, technique or what
> ever.
>
> So, copyright has few benefits for software compared to Patent.


No. In general software is copyright by default, and is effectively
released at the discretion of the copyright holder. It is copyright
law, not atent law that forbids running pirated copies of software.

Those writing propietary software find 'open source' software covered
by the GPL a real pain - it is out there just waiting to be snitched
and incorporated in propietary products, but that is not allowed.

> Apart
> from that patents have a lower life time than copyright, so if the same
> protections are available with each method surely innovation would be
> stifled even more through copyright.


The problem with a significant number of patents is you merely just
have to think of an idea, even of a trivial one, and you may be able to
dash off to the patent office and patent it. The upshot is, the patent
holder has a potentially lucrative 'troll under bridge' type income if
he can make the patent stick. He has hence obtained a disproportionate
benefit from society for very little work. In USA, it does not matter
too much if the patent is potentially invalid, the logistics of any
legal action strongly favours patent holders. Moreover if a 'front'
company is the one taking legal action it would receive a sufficient
cash injection to continue legal action, but if the action fails, it
would be in no position to meet court awarded costs.

It is for these sorts of reasons that there is a big groundswell
against software patents in the likes of EU, etc.

In New Zealand's case, granting patents too readily to offshore outfits
results in a stifling of opportunities for Kiwis to develop things, and
effectively transfers significant wealth from NZ to overseas companies.

I do not know why it is that people like Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer can
walk into many countries and be able to speak with politicians and top
ranking officials, something that is effectively denied to most
citizens.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Who Am I
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Who Am I wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,

>
> > The innovative part is NOT the code, its the method, technique or what
> > ever.
> >
> > So, copyright has few benefits for software compared to Patent.

>
> No. In general software is copyright by default, and is effectively
> released at the discretion of the copyright holder. It is copyright
> law, not atent law that forbids running pirated copies of software.


So what.
For example what if someone today invented a new software idea, as an
example the spreadsheet. Copyright prevents you from running pirated
copies, however it does not prevent anyone copying the IDEA. That is
where Patents fit in.

>
> Those writing propietary software find 'open source' software covered
> by the GPL a real pain - it is out there just waiting to be snitched
> and incorporated in propietary products, but that is not allowed.


So, they rewrite the code.


> The problem with a significant number of patents is you merely just
> have to think of an idea, even of a trivial one, and you may be able to
> dash off to the patent office and patent it. The upshot is, the patent
> holder has a potentially lucrative 'troll under bridge' type income if
> he can make the patent stick. He has hence obtained a disproportionate
> benefit from society for very little work. In USA, it does not matter
> too much if the patent is potentially invalid, the logistics of any
> legal action strongly favours patent holders. Moreover if a 'front'
> company is the one taking legal action it would receive a sufficient
> cash injection to continue legal action, but if the action fails, it
> would be in no position to meet court awarded costs.


Same is true of physical items.

>
> It is for these sorts of reasons that there is a big groundswell
> against software patents in the likes of EU, etc.


And they will see a reduction in innovation. Innovation costs money.

>
> In New Zealand's case, granting patents too readily to offshore outfits
> results in a stifling of opportunities for Kiwis to develop things, and
> effectively transfers significant wealth from NZ to overseas companies.
>


Equally well we have a lot of patents held here in NZ and bring in a lot
of money from overseas.

> I do not know why it is that people like Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer can
> walk into many countries and be able to speak with politicians and top
> ranking officials, something that is effectively denied to most
> citizens.


LOL... because your impact on the world and the economy is irrelevant
compared to them. And I have spoken to 3 PMs at various functions and so
on.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola MCSE 4 11-15-2006 02:40 AM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola Microsoft Certification 3 11-14-2006 05:18 PM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola MCSD 3 11-14-2006 05:18 PM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd realexxams@yahoo.com Microsoft Certification 0 05-10-2006 02:35 PM
microsoft.public.dotnet.faqs,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms,microsoft.public.dotnet.general,microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb Charles A. Lackman ASP .Net 1 12-08-2004 07:08 PM



Advertisments