Slashdot Mirror
Bilski Patent Case Appealed To Supreme Court
An anonymous reader writes "The landmark ruling of a few months ago that limited patents to inventions which include a machine or which transform physical matter has been appealed up to the Supreme Court. 'On the one side of this controversy... are those... who argue that patents must be available to encourage innovation in devising new ways to conduct business in the global information-based economy, including encouragement for new ways of digitizing business methods. On the other side are consumer advocacy groups and free-market devotees who worry that patent monopolies could tie up methods of creative thought processes, including teaching, judging, creative writing, making medical judgments, or picking juries (some current, real examples of claims).' The Bilski decision has already had an impact on potential software and biotech patents, in addition to the obvious limitations on business method patents. The petition (PDF) argues that the 'machine-or-transformation' test conflicts with the broad language of the patent statute and with congressional intent. It's entirely within the Supreme Court's discretion to take the case or not, but for now it looks like the issue is far from decided."
is a use or lose clause.
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
I'm not holding my breath but I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to sound the death knell for silly patent applications (and granted patents) like Bilski. As a bonus I hope they put the kibosh on software patents. I know it would make the lives of many software engineers much better and it would definitely kickstart innovation in the software industry.
My bullshit detector just exploded.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Software patents are useless. Period.
The decision is very risky as the quality of the decision of the Circuit Court was very high.
They will make Bilski fail again.
If the Supreme Court doesn't accept it, I suppose we have a chance to bring yet another case and try for more limitation of software patenting.
What really bothers me is that our only viable path to do this right now is the courts. We've not been able to establish a legislative campaign.
Bruce Perens.
There are no ways in which software patents can help anyone but patent lawyers. Since American patents are only binding in America, they put domestic companies at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Anyone can open an American office and start filing patents to be used against us, but good luck to an American company that wants to file patents in China to protect their claims.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
On the one side of this controversy... are those... who argue that patents must be available to encourage innovation in devising new ways to conduct business in the global information-based economy, including encouragement for new ways of digitizing business methods.
Yeah, because turning innovation into a minefield is a really good way to encourage it, as is connecting rewards to high speed paperwork-fu rather than marketplace superiority (or even novelty; see IIRC radio and steam engine, the "inventors" were those who first combined other people's ideas in a paperwork filing).
IMHO, being able to patent parts of the human genome is stupid. You didn't INVENT anything. Now if you designed a replacement gene that does something new, sure you can have a patent on it. But that would have to exclude cures for things. Say you figured out the gene for color-blindness. Chances are you figured it out or at least verified it against the normal gene. No patent for you. But if you invented a gene that gave a person really great night vision, yeah I'd give you a patent for that.
You cannot defeat me, for I hold the patent for "Apparatus and method for overturning absurdly overbroad bullshit patents"!
Software patents are extremely important to certain businesses, most of all the telecoms industry, which manages to keep prices rising in an area where their half-life should be 12-18 months.
If there were no software patents, it would be much harder to maintain the telecoms cartels, the high prices, and the jobs and profits they generate. So for many people, software patents are very, very useful.
Of course the overall effect is to slow down progress in communications, keep costs artificially high, penalize emerging industries, and punish the competitiveness of regions like the USA and Europe, which allow the cartels to continue.
However, the times are changing and I've written about why the growing power of the Internet as a non-political force in politics will cause the end of software patents.
It's worth noting that software patents will also be reviewed in Europe by the European Patent Office's Extended Board of Appeal (EBA), the closest thing we have to SCOTUS with respect to patents in Europe. Sure, the EPO is a fiefdom of the patent industry and EBA its chief priesthood, but reexamining the cosy arrangements that allowed software patents to exist so far is very significant.
I think we are seeing the swing of the pendulum back towards sanity and the understanding that when it comes to the digital economy, any barrier to trade and competition - and the essence of a patent is to prevent competition - is harmful.
My blog
Hey, 1920 called, it wants its Socialist Revolution back!
Seriously, did you ever see a "planned economy" that worked, except in the sense of allowing the thieves to steal more?
If there were no software patents, it would be much harder to maintain the telecoms cartels, the high prices, and the jobs and profits they generate. So for many people, software patents are very, very useful.
The telecom cartels primarily exist because of the massive infrastructure requirements to be a 'real' telecom. Its very little to do with software patents.
It is said that the lonely eagle flies to the mountain peaks while the lowly ant crawls the ground, but cannot the soul of the ant soar as high as the eagle?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If the new business process isn't efficient enough to pay for it's development, then should it actually be used?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The Supreme Court has been generally narrowing the scope of patent law over the past few years. My guess is that they won't take the case, and if they do the odds are that they will uphold Bilski, or possibly narrow the scope of patentable material even further.
Unfortunately (it's not what you meant, but...) I fear the SCOTUS right now--regardless of whether it is conservative or liberal--is most importantly pro-BUSINESS. And that means they may very well smack down Bilski HARD.
Actually, you might be slightly wrong - AT&T had all the patents and used them to be huge infrastructure in a monopolistic way. The break up of AT&T helped, but you still needed a lot of infrastructure to compete with them. It was patents that built the infrastructure barrier to entry that you speak of.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
If you need a patent for your business method in order for it to be profitable, it's a failed process. The only practical used for business process patents is patent trolling.
I'm not sure we want the SC to take cert on this. 35 USC S 101 (patentable subject matter) has traditionally been interpreted very broadly. In re Bilski significantly narrowed S101 with regard to software patents. And it did so really without regard to previous Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court could easily smack down in re Bilski, just like they used KSR to smack down the TSM (teaching suggestion or motivation) test for obviousness back in '07.
That said, the Supreme Court does not often grant cert for patent cases. One per year, at most. The chance that cert will be granted is small. Then again, this case has sent waves through the patent community, so who knows what's going to happen.
So the argument is that without patents, we will have a SHORTAGE of people trying to find new ways to make money on the internet?
Not only is that (ahem) patently ridiculous, but if it were true it would be a positive thing.
I have to ask. What happens if this does get ruled in our favor and business method/software patents are ruled invalid? What happens to the companies that have invested millions into their software patent portfolios? Do they have to just suck up that cost? Does the USPTO refund their money? Does the USPTO get sued? (I'm not tolling here, I'm genuinely interested in the aftermath of such a landmark ruling.)
Telecoms cartels have nothing to do with patents. They arise because of either spectrum licences in the case of wireless communications, or the fact that you can't put new cables down without government permission, and even if you do get that, it is prohibitively expensive to do so.
I am a fairly reasonable person and have yet to be convinced why software patents are useless and/or harmful. Like anything else, if abused they can be harmful but if applied correctly they allow a company/person reap rewards on the time/money they spent developing something. I can't fault someone who wants to get paid for their work...namely because I like getting a paycheck for the work that *I* do - and so do the rest of you.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
This "infrastructure is expensive" argument is 20 years out of date. Newsflash: no-one puts down cables any more unless they're for IP. There are many, many ways to build cheap and extremely competitive telecoms networks that would end the cartels overnight. They don't mostly happen because patents block innovation wherever it is a threat. I remind you that telecoms has become a software industry, top to bottom, and every "invention" of that industry is heavily protected by software patents.
Spectrum "regulation" are just the side effect of a powerful cartel that has friends in government - a good way to raise the cost to unbearable levels for newcomers and tax the consumer. Again, it's patents that prevent more efficient use of spectrum and those "expensive" lines you talk about.
It is all about keeping out competitors that would disrupt the cozy price-fixed market.
Try to start a VoIP telecoms provider, and see what happens. Read about Vonage, if you forget your recent history. Now tell me again, seriously, that telecoms cartels have "nothing to do with patents".
Patents are the core of the telecoms stack and the reason your mobile phone bill rises year on year.
Yes, to truly re-create competition in the telecoms industry, we need a powerful competition authority, and we need much better policies for spectrum use, but most of all, we need the end of software patents.
My blog
As a patent attorney, I need to be careful in voicing my opinion on this, but I do hope that the net result of Bilski stands. It would turn back the tide against the idiocy that started with State Street. The non-machine based patents have gotten out of hand. I am a geek and computer nut/engineer first, and I want to see business method patent that contain no real manifestation of the method rendered useless. Otherwise, taken to the extreme, screenwriters could start patenting movie storylines. (When I think of it, I suppose it could be done right now. Big method claim of "A method for creating tension in an audience, the method comprising: a first actor exchanging dialogue with a second actor, said first actor orienting a gun in line with said second actor..."
The good thing about the SCOTUS taking this up would be if they CLEARLY lay out a test for determining patentable subject matter. In the old days, you had to tie it to something physical. Right now, signals in the ether could receive patent protection.
Like anything else, if abused they can be harmful but if applied correctly they allow a company/person reap rewards on the time/money they spent developing something.
No, they make it easier to reap rewards, or to reap rewards out of proportion to what was invested. The monopoly power granted in order to do this is clearly harmful (especially so in fast-moving industries), and is not strictly necessary in order for new development to be profitable. The question is whether the benefits (additional innovation) are greater than the downsides (stagnation from higher barriers to entry)... I've seen decent arguments in Against Intellectual Monopoly that historically the downsides have not been smaller than the benefits (sometimes significantly greater, but sometimes closer to even), for software the downsides should be relatively much greater, because the barriers to entry are so very low without such interference and because the fast pace makes the stagnation last relatively longer.
There are many, many ways to build cheap and extremely competitive telecoms networks that would end the cartels overnight. They don't mostly happen because patents block innovation wherever it is a threat.
I thought they mostly didn't happen because local (or sometimes state?) governments sell monopoly rights on physically laying the cables (supposedly to reduce the time the streets are torn up, or something)?
No, it can't. Ants have no souls.
Patents give an unnatural degree of control over an abstract idea or principle. While such a system may promote some degree of innovation, it must be used with care, and at present is used rampantly, wantonly and without concern for knock-on effects through either the economy or the rest of life in general.
John_Chalisque
I think he talking about things like VOIP. In theory you could, for no additional cost over what you already pay for high speed Internet do all of your telephony over your computer, or use a system like Vonage to create a "phone" system that piggie backs off of your Internet. The problem is that patents prevent or limit this kind of thing. Vonage, IIRC, paid a fairly large settlement to Verizon for patent infringement and now has to pay royalties to operate. This is almost certainly increasing their overall prices and making them more likely to fail in the middle term.
This kind of thing remain possible to do, but very often you're stuck with a more crippled system than it could be, or companies simply choose not to enter the market. At least in theory if software patents disappeared tomorrow, more VOIP type solutions might become available and the current player might be able to lower prices and become more competitive.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
No, they make it easier to reap rewards, or to reap rewards out of proportion to what was invested.
Since the quantity of the reward is arbitrary (who is to say if they should make 5%, 20% or 1000% profits) they try and limit it to time. Also, by limiting the potential for great reward you will limit the amount of people who will take a chance. In pharmacy - for all the billions they make in medicine, they also take a LOT of risk. They should get rewarded. How much is not for you to decide.
The monopoly power granted in order to do this is clearly harmful (especially so in fast-moving industries), and is not strictly necessary in order for new development to be profitable.
Your opinion. My opinion is that it lets companies reap rewards for products people want to buy. So they will invest XYZ dollars and hopefully make that money plus a profit.
The question is whether the benefits (additional innovation) are greater than the downsides (stagnation from higher barriers to entry)...
If someone creates a popular, but restricted piece of software and allows add-ons it could spur other businesses. Look at Windows. Closed source, but look at all the companies that make STUPID amounts of money on products based on Windows...for example Blizzard. Patented, closed source, highly restricted software caused another business to flourish...in MS' case they have helped thousands of businesses/gov'ts/personal folks to flourish with their software. But there are alternatives.
I've seen decent arguments in Against Intellectual Monopoly that historically the downsides have not been smaller than the benefits (sometimes significantly greater, but sometimes closer to even), for software the downsides should be relatively much greater, because the barriers to entry are so very low without such interference and because the fast pace makes the stagnation last relatively longer.
I've seen decent arguments for IP, though monopoly is harder then it seems. People claim MS is a monopoly - but they aren't....Apple, Linux, etc. Barriers to entry into the software industry is what you can program. All you need is a computer software engineering skills and a computer.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
I thought they had 6?
If we could turn the engineers loose, we could have widespread wireless mesh networking where anyone could be a client AND server at the same time, for data or voice or whatever, and we could eliminate ISPs and the big telcos to a great extent. Then people could run what they wanted to run, and pay for it themselves at any scale, or enter in other P2P business type models that might evolve. If my major cost is just the hardware and electric bill...I don't have a problem with that, I am *already* paying that, but I am stuck filtering my digital transfers through those middlemen skimmers for a lot more money tied to rank restrictions and the lack of any access legally to any good spectrum for that purpose. Which sucks because "the spectrum" is allegedly for "the people" not a dozen fatcat companies to own for generations like they are doing.
As it is now, we are stuck with last century's model with no way around it, and especially because of all the software patents and the FCC being in the pockets of the major telcos and ISPs and the buggywhip digital content exploiters of the MAFIAA and the big entrenched broadcasters.
IANAL, but I do work for an IP law firm as an advisor.
Metaphor, my friend. Poetry. I say! Poetry expressed by the soul is evidence of its presence!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I would not call it out of date, just needs a little tweaking.
Your example was that Vonage was trying to connect to an existing POTS network using technology patented by Verizon. Vonage continues to exist by signing a two-year contract with VoIP inc. which will provide the POTS access. I assume that VoIP paid the required royalties and/or have the infrastructure available to provide the needed service to Vonage.
While Vonage may have provided an alternative to your POTS provider, they also accomplished this by you providing the infrastructure required to reach their servers. You have to pay for the broadband connection.
Now if you're okay with paying for your own access to the internet and don't require the use of POTS, you have access to many internet messaging services and if you have the bandwidth create your own.
But a true end-to-end solution still requires a considerable investment in infrastructure. Just look at your broadband provider, they invested heavily in providing the infrastructure to wire your house. I bet your ISP probably now offers digital phone service (I know Comcast, does and they aren't a traditional telco).
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I read the title as "Bikini Patent Case Appealed To Supreme Court".
It's been a long day at work.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
The monopoly power granted in order to do this is clearly harmful (especially so in fast-moving industries), and is not strictly necessary in order for new development to be profitable.
Your opinion. My opinion is that it lets companies reap rewards for products people want to buy. So they will invest XYZ dollars and hopefully make that money plus a profit.
The entire point is that others need your permission to use/improve something you've patented. This is clearly a harm, since it causes them difficulty in doing something useful. It is also clear that patents are not strictly necessary, as innovation has existed without patents. That there is also a benefit (which you cite as your opinion) is entirely irrelevant to this; patents cause harm (restrictions on using existing knowledge) and also have a benefit (greater potential gains for generating new knowledge).
I've seen decent arguments in Against Intellectual Monopoly that historically the downsides have not been smaller than the benefits (sometimes significantly greater, but sometimes closer to even), for software the downsides should be relatively much greater, because the barriers to entry are so very low without such interference and because the fast pace makes the stagnation last relatively longer.
I've seen decent arguments for IP, though monopoly is harder then it seems. People claim MS is a monopoly - but they aren't....Apple, Linux, etc. Barriers to entry into the software industry is what you can program. All you need is a computer software engineering skills and a computer.
And enough luck to avoid the attention of the patent trolls (or legit companies that just got there first).
A "business method patent" is bullshit. You create a new model of business as a necessity to do business. Digital downloads, for example, are an untapped way to make money... and then Apple creates iTunes. The consumer wants your product; your "business method" is a way to make them get the product from you, not from a competitor. As the inventor is the consumer, there is ALWAYS pressure to come up with new business methods!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The problem with Vonage - and all current VOIP implementations - is they fail the basic requirements that the wired telecom providers are required to support. Things like 48 hours without electric power. 911 that actually works with emergency services. And literally a hundred other requirements, all things that are really good for people that need basic voice connectivity.
Sure, VOIP implementations are cheap. But in comparison to what? I can use Yahoo Messenger for free. How is Vonage cheaper than that? Neither Vonage or Yahoo are paying for the infrastructure to connect me to the network. The $30-a-month POTS service is doing exactly that. What would Vonage charge if they had to pay to supply their customers with network connectivity?
Sorry, but this has a lot more to do with tariffs and regulations than patents. Sadly, it takes some serious wakeup calls before people understand the difference between the POTS network in the US and "phone service" supplied by the likes of Vonage. A 24 hour power outage might be a good start. Having a 2 year old dial 911 and not be able to recite the address might be another.
"It's entirely within the Supreme Court's discretion to take the case or not, but for now it looks like the issue is far from decided."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/washington/07scotus.html
Number of cases that go to the Supreme Court: 7000-8000. Number decided? About 100.
You DO NOT want to be the side appealing. You're better off in Vegas.
Bilski is done. The chance that it isn't done is about one in 75. That's "over, for all practical purposes," not "far from decided."
If software patents are abolished, it will enable foreign competitors to undercut US producers on their own creations (and therefore lose jobs etc).
I'm not saying it's a bad thing; this is what stopped the last movement to abolish patents...
Yeah, I wasn't necessarily agreeing with what the GP was talking about. He's got points, but there's more to it than he is letting on. I was just trying to clarify what he meant.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
My theory is that we should scrap the current system and replace it with this:
If you have an idea that you can show would have been economically feasible to do for the past 20 years, and yet no one did it, you can own it for the next 20 years.
I think someone at one point patented selling advertising on menus, right? Or is that a legend? Anyway, pretend it's the truth.
I don't know when someone thought of this, but I'll bet that when they did it was something people could have made money off of for 20 years before that time. So, imagine you think of this idea (say it's 1900 or whatever). You don't even own a restaurant, have no particular interest in starting one. You're sitting there at a sidewalk cafe and thinking, man, I already know what I want, I'm waiting for the waiter (hmmm) to come back, and I'm bored. I'm a captive audience! Someone should sell ads on these things.
Now, the question is, what do you do next? Suggest it to the cafe owner? Will he give you free lunch there for the rest of your life with the money he makes? Probably not. Are you going to start a restaurant so you can try this out? Probably not. So what's your most likely course of action? You notice free puppies for adoption on the corner and forget about it until the next time you are bored at a restaurant.
So the idea stays in your head, and the general population doesn't get the chance to use it to make money. Maybe some quirky cafes that some people really liked but they didn't appeal to a wide enough audience go under, which could have stayed afloat if they had one more source of revenue.
And with this standard, you know that the idea is "hard" or "ingenious" or "sufficiently clever" or "hard enough to arrive at that we deem it patentable", because no one has done it, even though restaurants and menus have been around for more than 20 years.
Now, if the restaurant was something that had just come out of the labs and people were only newly getting used to the idea, you wouldn't be able to patent stuff like "free water to every guest! whoa!" or "paper napkins to save on my laundry bill!" or whatever. The stuff that's too obvious to be legitimately patentable will show up as a matter of course as people try to make their businesses more profitable.
When you hear (most) people complaining about patents, they are complaining about stuff like one-click, which any reasonably intelligent person working on a user interface would arrive at by simply trying to reduce the complexity of the process for a repeat sale. Someone with a bunch of VC backing or corporate R&D budget is getting paid to play around with new technology and they end up stumbling into this area first, and bang, it's theirs. The problem with that model is that it slows down innovation, because then the next guy has to innovate around the totally obvious "invention" that someone land-rushed to.
This system would eliminate this "stake out all the easy stuff for the big companies that can afford to just play" activity. If you want a patent on something, you had better figure out something so clever that no one has thought of it for 20 years even though it could have made money at any time during that period.
Alternatives:
Make it float--if it's only been feasible for one year, you get your lock for a year. That way you eliminate the motivation to sit on an idea if it's year 15 or whatever and you might make more money if you keep it secret a while longer.
The idea of the patent system is to get the ideas out so everyone can benefit. It wants to reward innovation, and protect both the little guys who come up with a clever idea on their own and the companies that pay a lot of money for R&D and want a return on that investment. The problem with the current system is that it's really hard to say what's innovative enough to be worthy of protection. This method computes idea difficulty with a massively parallel socio-biological machine. (Man, I should patent those!)
Liberty uber alles.
Tragically, similar events have happened.
Aren't you going a bit off-topic here? None of that has anything to do with patents.
If you can't afford a computer and some time to write it, you shouldn't get any benefit.
IT'S A COMPUTER PROGRAM YOU'RE WRITING!
Let's say you write a new spreadsheet program, and it's good. Of course people shouldn't just be allowed to steal it, sell it as their own without paying you etc etc.
But that doesn't mean that any software that has a grid of cells, relations between them, etc etc infringes your IP. The goal or result is the same, but how it does it could be quite different.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Relative to what situation? How about the situation where the enabling technology wasn't developed in the first place? You really think that if windows didn't exist, companies would find it easier to write software that runs on it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Let's say you write a new spreadsheet program, and it's good. Of course people shouldn't just be allowed to steal it, sell it as their own without paying you etc etc. But that doesn't mean that any software that has a grid of cells, relations between them, etc etc infringes your IP. The goal or result is the same, but how it does it could be quite different.
I agree, just because I create a spreadsheet program does not mean I can claim a patent on grid cells, relational databasis, etc. Those are prior art - I didn't invent them. The /. crew, for the most part, would disagree with your first part. They believe it should all be open, including my new spreadsheet program. They believe that I should get paid if people want to "donate", and that I should get a "reasonable" pay (whatever that means) from those donations.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Weird - my meat is capable of poetry...
So you're like an NPC right, controlled by the GM via this 'soul' thing?
they also take a LOT of risk. They should get rewarded. How much is not for you to decide.
Bullshit. In that risk deserves reward, and that it's not my place to put a limit on tax-funded handouts.
The market will determine the reward they get. It's nobody's job to make sure that crazy risks pay off.
And yes, considering my tax money is being spent on a system that limits my freedom to innovate and build, it is MY right to say no more.
Patents are just another form of tariff to protect industry we think won't survive in an open market.
Further, only a sick fucker could think it's a good thing to be able to keep people from learning a new idea or implementing it. Seriously, sick in the head and should be locked up for the good of everyone else. The world got where it was through open sharing of knowledge. Where would we be if everyone until now was like you? Now that you've benefited from that you want to make your small tweak to the state of the art and hold everyone hostage, despite that you freely learned what you know. You obviously expect to be nearly useless in life, so you want a monopoly for whatever good ideas you do have.
Patents are the ultimate in big-government nonsense. Tax everyone to pay for extorting the competition, to PROMOTE growth... Try working, asshole.
Patents never go wrong, right?
> It appears that it also mentions a power supply and a 41% efficiency. That makes it not a perpetual motion machine.
If you truly want to know the physics behind what's wrong with this thing, read Nature (subscription required).
Frankly, they might as well have patented a hover car powered by Mr. Fusion and a flux capacitor, but that would have been more realistic.
That said, it does explain why you can be so oblivious to the flaws in the system when you don't immediately realize that this entire "invention" is pure BS.
That said, it does explain why you can be so oblivious to the flaws in the system when you don't immediately realize that this entire "invention" is pure BS.
No need to get snippy, I know all about Podkletnov's theories. What it's clear is that you don't realize that patent examiners are not theoretical physicists. If the claimed invention is not a perpetual motion machine, which it isn't due to the disclosed inefficiency, then the examiner can't reject it on the grounds that they don't believe in the theory. In order to reject an application, the examiner needs a statutory ground - not merely that they don't think it will work.
Now, if you dig into PAIR on this one, you find that it went to issue within 6 months of application, which is ludicrously fast - it's as I said, there's no real need to waste time examining it since it won't get built before the patent expires - even more so if it doesn't actually work due to the physics involved.
Remember, there's more to this than just "immediately realizing that this whole invention is BS", because only in a very few narrow circumstances can an examiner refuse to allow an application based on their gut feeling. Not realizing that explains why you can be so oblivious to flaws in your criticism of the system. ;)
The time you have spent actually developing something is protected by copyright law. No need for patents to do that.
Clever signature text goes here.
This is just a straw man/red herring. You are talking about copyright, not patents. No wonder you are so confused.
Clever signature text goes here.
Not at all. If there is competition you have no choice but to keep going forward. If there are patents, you can stop the forward momentum. So software patents are damaging to innovation, while no software patent forces the market to move forward; it leads to actual competition.
Indeed, and quite different from software too!
Once again you confuse patents and copyright. This is not about open or closed source. This is about giving someone the ability to implement something themselves. Windows isn't flourishing because of Microsoft's patents. You are dishonestly trying to mix "proprietary" and "patented". Stop it.
They are, according to law.
Clever signature text goes here.
By the way, software patents don't work. They do not protect smaller players against big predators. Because if you sue a big player for infringing on your small company's software patents, that big player probably has thousands of patents, and will counter-sue for one of their patents. Software patents only benefit patent trolls and big corporations (to a somewhat lesser extent because they can't protect against patent trolls). Everyone else will be victims of the vast patent portfolios of patent trolls and megacorporations.
Clever signature text goes here.
> it went to issue within 6 months of application, which is ludicrously fast
Yet more proof that lawyers are slightly out of touch with reality.
And while examiners are not theoretical physicists (which is not necessary to realize this thing is crap), they are supposed to be experts in their domain. And I'm pretty sure that the point of banning patents on perpetual motion machines was to avoid issuing worthless patents. Thus, once again, lawyers help narrow statutory grounds defeat common sense.
It's no good to defend them by saying that they followed the law when the law is wrong. I mean, no programmer would defend a wrong result from their code by saying that the CPU executed all the instructions properly...