| reply to Goober
Re: Holding companies are the problem.... I would argue that your gene machine and all the patents in-between should not be granted until you have a working model. Your idea, regardless of how well you or a lawyer or an engineer can put it down on paper is nothing but a dream until you actually have something tangent that can do what you "think" it can do.
Yes, I would say concepts, theories and hypotheticals should not be patented even if they can be proven with mathematics and physics unless you have a working model.
If in the process of making the gene machine you create something else (the in-between) then that should be patented on its own merit.
Software along with their processes and results which are the end product of software should NEVER be patented for any reason. It is code and should be copyrighted. This would and should allow others to create the same end results, but require they write their own code for doing so. |
|
 GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
 ·Dish Network
| said by Skippy25:I would argue that your gene machine and all the patents in-between should not be granted until you have a working model. Your idea, regardless of how well you or a lawyer or an engineer can put it down on paper is nothing but a dream until you actually have something tangent that can do what you "think" it can do.
Concepts, theories and hypotheticals should not be patented even if they can be proven with mathematics and physics unless you have a working model.
If in the process of making the gene machine you create something else (the in-between) then that should be patented on its own merit.
Software along with their processes and results which are the end product of software should NEVER be patented for any reason. It is code and should be copyrighted. This would and should allow others to create the same end results, but require they write their own code for doing so.
Like I said, constructive reduction to practice has been the law of the land for many years. It's not going to change and there's been no indication that it's even a concept on the drawing board.
Software patents typically do not disclose the code. It's done in a black boxed functional manner, where code is usually not specifically claimed or disclosed (although you will see it in certain patents).
Software doesn't have to be copyrighted. It automatically receives that protection. A copyright only has to be registered if there's going to be litigation.
Also, eliminating software patents is also potentially unfair for innovators. For example, if I come up with a program that puts pixels on a screen in a certain way that will prevent epileptic seizures when displaying images, shouldn't I be able to get a patent for that? If not, why? The screen and the device are hardware. The arrangement of the pixels on the screen is a method. The software simply drives the ability to enact the method. But it's still an important part of the invention. So are hybrid software/hardware patents okay? If so, then we're back to the present day Bilski case.
--
No more corruption, lying and unremitting stupidity by Obama. Impeach the clueless, anti-business, socialist now. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Software patents only exist to provide something to sue people over. A good example is the constant rounds of bullshit in the smartphone industry.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Dish Network
| said by Kearnstd:Software patents only exist to provide something to sue people over. A good example is the constant rounds of bullshit in the smartphone industry.
Disagree.
We spend millions of dollars developing software that works with our hardware. I've personally written many, many software patents over the years. In very few cases was it done for the purpose of suing someone. Rather, it was done to protect the engineering innovation and R&D dollars spent in developing the software.
--
No more corruption, lying and unremitting stupidity by Obama. Impeach the clueless, anti-business, socialist now. |
|
1 edit | reply to Goober
I'm not sure I am seeing a valid argument for or against anything I said beyond your seizure one, which I would say no to if it is software based. Hybrid solution would result in the hardware being patented and the software being copyrighted exclusive of one another.
The method you got it to work with software is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced, but the end result is what you really want to patent (no seizures because of your software) and thus you want to restrict anyone else from "innovating" even better software to accomplish the same goal without paying you first. We could extent this to say once someone comes up with any concept for an end result and patents it, then nobody can do anything to come up with that end result without first paying the patent holder. One example of this that comes to mind is the One-Click shopping cart patent.
Your first point, that it has been that way for years, is kind of silly. Blacks use to be owned and women couldnt vote. I am pretty sure we are better off now because we didnt have people sitting around saying.... it's been that way for years so we cant change it. The system is clearly broke and I would argue one of the main reasons it is broken is because concepts and theories are patented too much. |
|
| reply to Goober
But wait... didnt you already say your software is copyrighted and thus can't be stolen? So what is it you are scared of?
Are you also saying that nobody else can come along and innovate a better implementation on "your" hardware by writing better software? |
|
|
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Dish Network
| reply to Skippy25
Unless you know the history of patent filings, you have no basis on which to call my assertion silly. Read up a little on the case law and history before making comments like that.
--
No more corruption, lying and unremitting stupidity by Obama. Impeach the clueless, anti-business, socialist now. |
|
| Really? You are saying because it has always been that way so we can't change it is silly regardless of history and my lack of knowledge concerning patents.
Case law or not. It can be changed with laws being enacted by Congress. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 | READ the history. Constructive reduction to practice has NOT always been that way. I'm done with you. |
|
