Slashdot Mirror
UK Firm Patents Software Downloads
spike1 writes "The Register has a story about BTG (British Technology Group) acquiring a patent on software downloads ... If this is one area of tech that's not covered by prior art, I don't know what is.
Although, the Reg doesn't include a link to the actual patents, out-law.com is also carrying the story and contains links to the patents, and looking at some of their patent synopses, it looks like it's a pretty broad brush."
Let's entertain the notion that BTG get their way (this wouldn't surprise me anymore), the companies paying royalties would only pass these fees onto their users. Making this another reason for users not to patch, there should be part of patent law for patents that effect national security like this...then again if you're going to change patent law I can think of a few other things I'd change too...
I think the [MS Word] paperclip is a great idea. - Miguel de Icaza
Most of which I downloaded at least some software. Prior art indeed! What closet have the patent examiners been locked in for the last 30 years that they never heard of software downloading?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
it was BT, Britain's monopolist telephone company. A phone company that makes you pay by the second for local calls.
Telephony is something I consider a natural monopoly, that should be either state-run or under strict state governance.
Same for energy supply. Phones, gas and electricity in the UK are a disaster now that the artificial market has been created. Everyone tries to cover up the true cost by introducing bonuses for taking two services from one company, "friends and family" discounts, cheap international calls, and so on. It's impossible to compare costs.
Anyway, if you have telephony from a cable company, they generally give you free calls to other cable customers.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
These are *pre-existing* US patents which they have *licensed*. They, themselves, have *not* patented these, they have paid money to the people who *did* patent them.
The real controversy here is their application of these patents: their business plan is that they will sue the pants off the largest corporations they can find that they can plausibly attest is violating "their" patent. This has been their modus operandi for awhile.
Ironically, they were originally set up by the government of Great Britain in 1948 to commercialize "publicly funded research". It seems that they have gotten a little off track, and should probably be reined it a little.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.