Slashdot Mirror
Tech Firms and Regulators Meet At UN About Patents
another random user writes "Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung and others tech firms met with regulators and patent officials in Geneva to discuss changes to intellectual property laws. The event follows a flurry of lawsuits involving smartphone makers. It is set to focus on how to ensure license rights to critical technologies are offered on 'reasonable' terms. Companies are split over whether they should be allowed to ban rivals' devices if they do not agree a fee. The talks have been organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN agency responsible for ensuring phone-makers agree standards so that their devices can interact with each other."
My guess: none.
Why? They have severely contrasting views.
My point? Nothing is going to change when your approach is biased.
.. say hello to the hen house.
They can come up with something that will keep the patent BS from happening... I understand a need for some form of patent system, but what we've got and what we need are dramatically different things.
It's a step... but it's a long way from a step in the right direction.
It's simple: get rid of them all.
the UN should tell the USA to get lost until they pay their fees,
its not as if their patents are valid anywhere else but the USA, its an internal domestic problem thats hurting only themselves, which as far as the rest of the world is probably a good thing
Motorola just had to pull out devices from Germany. This is not a local issue, this is a GLOBAL problem for consumers and companies alike.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why is the company holding the largest number of worthless patents not at the discussion table? It's unfathomable.
It can never happen right. They want "reasonable" terms? That's not exactly something you can lock down. The problems are not because of something no one can completely agree with everyone else means. Apple is "unreasonable" and yet a judge has recently ruled that Apple's notion of reasonable is unreasonable.
If they can't fight nicely, it's time to take away their weapons. It's as simple as that.
This feels much like watching those bad horror movies where it feels like main character is either intentionally ignoring you, or is really stupid.
Funnyhacks - Wierd, unusual, and fun hacks
By its very nature, a "standard" should be free for anyone to implement.
If I can do a better job of implementing a standard than you can, then I win. Until you leapfrog me, of course, and that's what we call innovation and progress!
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
"It is set to focus on how to ensure license rights to critical technologies are offered on "reasonable" terms".
..
US tech firms lean on UN to legalize stealing stuff from companies and then selling it back to them under RAND terms
What is Wrong with RAND?
AccountKiller
Prove your patent is so genuinely innovative that no one is likely to have come up with this during at least half, if not all, of the patent term being asked for (allow patents to be applied for with a shorter term of the applicant's choosing). Failure to prove means no patent.
The idea of patents in the first place was an incentive to invent or disclose the invention because we would have lacked these innovations without such incentives. Today, very few patents would fit that idea. Today, we only need very few patents. All the rest just puts a drag on the courts, economy, and real innovations.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You work for Monsanto or something?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
STFU and learn how to use google before spouting off:
Here's just one example of a ratified patent treaty.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
To my knowledge, Computer software is the only industry that has both copyright (source code, graphics, music, etc.) and patents (design concept) applicable to it, and therein lies the problem. Trademarks are independent of these two as they apply to brand identity.
You don't have patents in the fiction world, you have copyright law on the published text. You are free to have tree men in your story as long as you don't call them "ents". Likewise having a story about wizards in school, or vampires, or other story elements. Otherwise, if story elements/concepts were patentable we would not have as many varied stories we do have.
The same applies to paintings/drawings, TV shows, films, music and other creative arts. You don't have the makers of Armageddon and Deep Impact sueing each other over who has rights to the asteroid impact disaster movie, instead you have two different interpretations of that concept.
With the creative arts, you can take themes and ideas from other works and use them in a different way in your own work. So you have many paintings in the impressionist style, each artist giving their own interpretation on what that means.
The difficulty is allowing Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, and Samsung to operate freely, yet still use SPLs (Stupid Patent Lawsuits) to keep smaller companies from eroding their well-earned oligopoly.
If your product can't be released without giving away the patent without having to reverse engineer it, then that patent is not patentable.
Patents were the opposite to trade secret. Exposure of the trade secret was paid for by the monopoly grant.
If it can't be kept a trade secret, then it can't be patented.
My only question is who is representing consumers in this meeting of powers that be? Oh, wait, consumers don't have power... they are merely cattle.
The example I provided is the first of many treaties that cover patents. Most patent treaties essentially say "if you want us to respect patents filed in your country, you have to respect patents filed in ours".
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....