It look like New Zealand is leading the way to outlaw software patents (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100330/1852558798.shtml).
Their standpoint is that software development is incremental and that there is no "inventive step" in software development as it always is just a small step from what went before. Seems very logical to me... On Apr 7, 7:08 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > In the fine words of one Mr. George Orwell: > > Patent law is thought crime. > > You think of it when another has patented it, and you're a criminal. > It's a stupid notion that should go the way of the dodo. Yes, there > are clear situations where an inventor should clearly be given some > leverage to control the destiny of 'his' invention. But that's > emphatically not what's happening with patent law today. It starts > with the idea that you need at least $60,000 to set up a proper patent > world-wide, and then another $100,000 or so to start sueing > infringers, which you're obligated to do in some countries to show > that you're actively defending it. > > Which small inventor can drop $150,000+ bucks on merely _attempting_ > to keep an invention safe? Assuming an inventor has allocated a > generous 20% of his total budget of the invention on protecting it > with a patent, that would mean he needs at least $750k budget on his > invention. > > That's completely insane. > > Also, what image is being espoused here? Of a crackpot inventor > yelling EUREKA! at some point? That's not how it works; inventors > build on what has come before; they stand on the shoulders of the > giants of yesterday. > > So, here's the deal, in my opinion: Patent Law has failed pretty > spectacularly. Furthermore, it's on iffy ground to begin with as it > seems to clash with some fairly fundamental rights. It is therefore up > to patent law and its fans to lay out a law that will work. So far > I've heard very few ideas that are feasible and that won't run into > the same problems we have now. This is unfair to inventors that really > do have something that's worth a lot but will be shamelessly copied by > other businesses, but then, there are boatloads of completely unfair > scenarios involving patent law today. Therefore, let's forget about a > theoretical perfect solution, and instead look pragmatically at all > the various options out there and make a reasoned guess as to which > one will cause the LEAST damage. It seems clear to me that the right > answer, in this sense, lies very close to the 'no patents at all' side > of the spectrum (e.g. enforceable only for a year or 2, and far more > specificity required than there is today). > > The main point I keep stumbling over is that to get it right, there's > such a high cost in evaluating the patent that I don't see how they > can be granted in a way that doesn't result in lots of legally binding > but trolling patents, nor in costing a small fortune to register (e.g. > in order to fund a team of experts to evaluate it properly). > > On Apr 6, 3:53 am, Chris Adamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I thought the guys did pretty well for a heated topic, though they > > were probably a little too quick to interrupt each other. > > > A couple things I found myself shouting back at the radio as I drove: > > > * To Joe: How do you feel about the many patent suits against Apple > > (if you own shares, you get a summary of these every year with the > > annual statement). Do you presume that these patents are valid too? > > Come to think of it, whatever happened to AT&T's wide ranging suit > > over MPEG-4 patents? > > * To Tor and Dick: Some of the patents involved seem suitably obvious, > > fine. But what greater standard of ownership is there than the actual > > granting of a patent? You can say "yeah, but" all you like, and > > question the competence of the USPTO, but with the patent officially > > granted, how can you say the holder neither owns nor deserves it? The > > "we just know" test doesn't hold much legal water. > > * To all: on the topic of licensing, it's a shame you didn't bring up > > the idea of compulsory licensing. This exists in several fields, such > > as music publishing. A composer owns the rights to his or her works, > > but must license it in a non-discriminatory fashion for a set price > > through one of a handful of agencies. So there's precedent for what > > Dick wants. That said, I personally agree with what I think is Joe's > > point, that if ownership isn't the right to do with your property as > > you see fit, then what is it, and what good is it? When it comes to > > what I own, why should I give a damn about someone else's idea of > > "fair"? > > * There's s perfectly valid case to be made against software patents. > > Lots of smart people take that position. Tor and Dick seemed to argue > > for patent ownership rights so weak, they might be better off > > officially taking an anti-patent stance. > > > Typing this on the iPad. It's going to take some getting used to. How > > much for a little bluetooth keyboard? > > > -Chris > > > On Apr 5, 2:33 pm, Michael Easter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I was disappointed as well, due mostly to the attitude from some > > > corners. Saying things like "you are dead wrong" and street-fight > > > debating tactics like "are you in favor of communism?" were painful. > > > > I'm no shrinking violet, and I appreciate a spirited discussion, but > > > would such an attitude be welcomed at the Posse Roundup, if it were a > > > guest? I think not. In the same way, it's not welcome on my car > > > stereo. > > > > It _might_ (not sure on this) be interesting to have a podcast episode > > > with a true expert (e.g. a patent attorney). Though perhaps that would > > > be too far off-topic. > > > > Michael Easter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
