I think it's best to stick to the facts. One is that if you develop virtually any piece of software there's probably a patent out there that you're violating, and you cannot always tell which one it is in advance in order to arrange licencing.
This only really matters when you get big enough to be noticed, of course, but having that risk over a startup's head seems a bad idea. A couple of solutions: 1. Better filtering at the US Patent Office. I shouldn't be able to patent a device I haven't built a prototype for and have demonstrable unique market research for. The patent should not stand if after a year there is no product on the market selling in reasonable numbers. 2. A certified legal service that conducts patent searches, limiting future claims of patent violation and hopefully reducing actual violation. I.e., if you invent a device that allows you to smell the words you're typing, get a certified patent search done, and then SmellOKeys, Inc. come along and say they have a prior patent the damages would be limited to $10,000 or 1% of your revenue, whichever is larger. The suing company would be able to claim a limited amount against the state, which would give the state incentive to keep its certified vendors honest. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > On this topic he is indeed trolling. Notice how the "burden of proof" is > always on everyone else. He has been presented with tons of evidence that > shows the harm but hand-waves it all off as not relevant because it doesn't > prove the only point he considers to matter and casually dismisses what > everyone else thinks is significant. Repeating his "innovation" crap again > without proving that innovation is due to patents rather than in spite of > them is indeed trolling. > > Ralph > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Oscar Hsieh wrote: > > There is no need to be rude. Cedric is a regular here and I am sure most > people don't consider him a troll. > > Use the wikipedia link you provided. Correlation does not imply causation > but correlation can be a "hint" and thus provide reason to do further > research. > > The original intent of Patent is to promote innovation by encouraging people > sharing their "secret recipe" without losing the benefit of being the first. > I don't think anyone can deny that the Patent system worked pretty well > past. It only becomes a problem when it applies to Software since software > evolves a lot faster. > > Anyway, enough had said on this topic by others in this forum. I do believe > that by now most people already have strong believe one way or the other > (abolish vs fix software patent) so it is rather pointless to argue here. > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Morten A-Gott > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jun 18, 5:03 pm, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > Now you are just trolling. That retoric is at a level that wouldn't >> > > even fly in a high school essay. >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation >> > >> > This is not about causation and correlation but about burden of proof. >> > Please read the past discussions on the subject. >> >> >> Yes it is. You only present casual correlations, no evidence/proof. >> Also, the "how many end up in court"-argument actually goes both ways, >> as it may also be an indication of how many can afford to challenge >> patents. This especially harms "the little guy" and startups. They >> have no chance, Drew Curtis explains this quite well >> http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_troll.html >> >> The question of innovation and patents should be answered using >> academic standards, not courtroom standards. >> >> I'll stop feeding now though. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "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. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "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. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
