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

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.

 

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.[/QUOTE]

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

 

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

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?

 

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

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

 

Any you can copyright software. Which being the case, there is no need,
and no justification, for software patents.[/QUOTE]

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.

 

No. Because software is both artistic and innovative. HOW something
LOOKS is very different to HOW it WORKS.

 

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.[/QUOTE]

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

 

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[/QUOTE]

yes it does. TRUE innovation costs money, and it is by being able to on
sell/licence that innovation that companies/people are able to recover
the costs..... ie the wages of the people they employ.

Linux is not innovative, it is very good at copying other peoples ideas,
but innovative... no.

 

"According to the Korean Times, the country’s supreme court on Friday
upheld patents held by two Korean academics over technology for
automatically switching between English and Korean. The academics
reckon the Microsoft lifted their language switching technology in
Office."

Another example of 'Microsoft IP'? Yeh right.

 

So you think Bob Frankston and Dan Bricklin should have been able to get a
patent for Visicalc, and prevent the creation of competitors like Lotus
1-2-3 and Microsoft Excel?

Historically, there has never been any evidence for this.

 

yes it does. TRUE innovation costs money, and it is by being able to on
sell/licence that innovation that companies/people are able to recover
the costs..... ie the wages of the people they employ.

Linux is not innovative, it is very good at copying other peoples ideas,
but innovative... no.[/QUOTE]

The smart guys don't agree with you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Quotes_against_patentability

 

Exactly how does it prevent the creation ?
They have the option of paying royalties to the patent holder. It is
interesting to note though that visicalc was killed off by the likes of
lotus and the inventors of the spreadsheet got nothing for it because it
was not patented...... where as if they had invented a physical item
like the CD player (and dozens of firms have licenced the technology to
the point where Phillips and Sony are not the major players anymore)
they would have been properly financially rewarded for their innovation.

 

The smart guys don't agree with you[/QUOTE]

Smart: I agree with their opinions
Stupid: I don't agree with their opinions.

better than 90% of the real work done on linux is by people who are
employed by companies producing commercial software. THIS is how the
programmers make a living. Without this then those really bright people
would be off doing something else like law, medicine, engineering and
linux would wither.

 

A patent is a monopoly. It gives you the right to be the sole provider of
the invention.

No, the patent holder has the option of allowing others to use the patent.
Or not.

 

Look at the list of open-source innovations (including Linux) at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_versus_closed_source#Innovation>.