That would be the opposite of what happened with gene patents and patents on genetically modified organisms. The US embraced them, Europe and Japan did not, and now the US biotech industry is leaps and bounds ahead of theirs.
Forbes suggests some solutions, including abolishing software patents.
Actually writing for Forbes was Tim Berners Lee, widely known as the inventor of the WWW. He invented HTML and the HTTP protocol to transport it. But what if Douglas Englebart had enforced a patent on hypertext? TBL could never have created the web. No it wasn't.
Actually writing for Forbes was Tim Berners Lee, widely known as the inventor of the WWW. He invented HTML and the HTTP protocol to transport it. But what if Douglas Englebart had enforced a patent on hypertext? TBL could never have created the web.
The Patent Office budget should be dramatically increased, and multiple satellite offices should be established in tech hubs. It's the only way to improve examination on the front-end.
what small company would ever take the risk of trying to bring something genuinely new to market, knowing full well how what will probably happen when they do is that, immediately, bigger companies will simply push them out of the market, having unfair competitive advantages due to their size?
delmoi--but then what small company would ever take the risk of trying to bring something genuinely new to market, knowing full well how what will probably happen when they do is that, immediately, bigger companies will simply push them out of the market, having unfair competitive advantages due to their size?
No, I'm not saying they will necessarily sue them out of business w/out patent protection, but that the small company won't be willing to invest the capital needed to get into the new line of business at all, because even if they manage to bring a new product or service to market first, they'll stand no chance of competing on a resource-basis with larger, predatory competitors who can easily copy the innovation and then outmaneuver the smaller player on the basis of their superior financial resources and other competitive advantages of being a larger player
Apple and Microsoft, to cite two examples, have sued over the allegedly infringing use of technologies that they implement in their own products. TiVo did the same thing in its long-running case against Echostar. i4i, a company that sued Microsoft, makes various software products related to XML. z4, another company that sued Microsoft, makes DRM software. Oracle has sued Google over software patents.
You shouldn't. That's the purpose of the nonobviousness requirement.
"I tried to put you in touch with other people in this community to talk to you about this and they almost uniformly said they couldn't talk to you," Sacca told us. "They were afraid to." IV has the power to "literally obliterate startups," Sacca says.
One of the useful functions of patents is that they provide a way for investors to recoup their investment in a company even if the company fails before it has much in the way of tangible assets.
a) How do you define what is a patent troll? An entity which doesn't itself practice the invention? That would cover most universities and research centers. An non-practicing entity without its own R&D? That would cover most legitimate patent pools, but not IV.
b) What if the "troll" has a good patent and wins in court?
And this was when, exactly?
If TAL wants to be unbiased, it shouldn't use a derogatory term to refer to a subject of its reporting.
Sorry, I can't quite parse this sentence, and I believe it's simply because you just still don't understand what patents are. Patents are negative rights. A patent is a right to forbid others from exploiting what's covered by the patent claims. Whether these others hold a license for a different patent which also covers at least part of their product is completely irrelevant, if they are infringing on your patent.
Second, patent litigation is expensive, even more so in the software field where discovery may involve poring over many, many lines of code. It is expensive for both parties, not just the defendant.
I'm trying to persuade the company I work for to develop and bring to market a new line of business services supported by specialized software. I'm not sure if it's what you would call a "pure" software patent.
It's a suite of services, business processes, and a software app.
It doesn't make you a parasite to take a risk on a new idea and fail, does it?
I seldom see major new system implementations, involving complex business rules and lots of special requirements, that don't require at least a few months of development time, for a proper implementation.
What kind of APIs do you develop in OAuth? Or is that what you--oh, never mind. That's totally off topic.
On the other hand, I might like some reasonable window of time to develop the idea and bring it to market with a protected status (2-3 years), in order to have a reasonable chance to .
« Older Industrial Scars: The Art of Environmental Polluti... | This is an art called “Life is... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt