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

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2006.

  1. 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?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Zipper Guest

    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.
     
    Zipper, Nov 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    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 ?
     
    Who Am I, Nov 27, 2006
    #3
  4. 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?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sawney Bean Guest

    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.
     
    Sawney Bean, Nov 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    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.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    No. Because software is both artistic and innovative. HOW something
    LOOKS is very different to HOW it WORKS.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Earl Grey Guest

    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
     
    Earl Grey, Nov 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

     
    peterwn, Nov 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    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.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    GraB Guest

    "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.
     
    GraB, Nov 28, 2006
    #12
  13. 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2006
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Earl Grey Guest

    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
     
    Earl Grey, Nov 28, 2006
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    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.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Who Am I Guest

    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.
     
    Who Am I, Nov 28, 2006
    #16
  17. 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2006
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2006
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

     
    peterwn, Nov 28, 2006
    #19
  20.  
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 28, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.