The US Constitution gives Congress the power to grant creators exclusive rights for "a limited time." Since when did life plus 75 years become "a limited time"?
If someone is sent to prison for life, is that "a limited time"? If you purchase a product which is advertised with a warranty that lasts ten years longer than you shall live, would you think the warranty is limited in time?
If I am awarded something or restricted from something for the rest of my life no matter how long I shall live, that is an unlimited time as far as I am concerned. If my ISP offered me $5/month Internet access for the rest of my life regardless of how long I live, I would consider that to be cheap internet service for an unlimited time. If my driver's license was suspended for life, that would be a complete revocation, not a suspension for a limited time.
So I wonder what in the world the lawmakers were smoking when they thought that "a limited time" for anything granted to a person could be defined as a time period that is guaranteed to extend beyond their lifetime. Apparently "a limited time" to them is anything less than infinity.
Patents were not included into law for the profit of the inventors; they were included because it was thought that a lack of patents would result in significantly fewer inventions.
This is why software patents are unnecessary. With rare exceptions, people come up with new algorithms because the algorithms are needed to solve a problem in the larger software, hardware, business or scientific product they are trying to create... not because they plan to sell the algorithm as a standalone product.
And because algorithms are essentially just mathematical truths that are waiting to be discovered (unlike physical inventions that depend on someone actually creating them where they did not exist before), if one computer scientist or programmer declined to pursue the realization of a new algorithm because he/she couldn't patent it, there is a high probability that someone else in the near future will develop the same algorithm or another one that accomplishes the same result.
There are few or no algorithms that would not have been developed if they could not have been patented. Lack of the ability to patent would not cause a database vendor to stop seeking faster algorithms for searching and sorting data. Lack of patents would not stop a Word processor developer from including a better grammar checker.
That patents are also unnecessary is also evidenced by the growing abundance of free software that exists today.
Algorithms have been and will continue to be developed in the natural course of solving other problems, or in mathematical research by universities, so it is not necessary to have patents in order to promote the progress of software. Lack of patents will rarely or never prohibit the creation of software, but the existence of patents can and has become a great obstacle to the creation of software.
If you're making what the average programmer makes... about $60K/year... and you're not getting paid for this overtime, quit and get another job.
The economy sucks right now and it may not be easy to get another programming job, but who says it has to be a programming job? If you're making $60K and working 80 hours a week, there are a zillion other jobs where you'll make more money than $60K if you worked 80 hours.
In a job where you get paid hourly and 150% pay for overtime, if you're working 80 hour weeks you only need a $12.50/hour wage to make $60K/year (assuming 50 weeks of work per year). In your case, with 15x7 = 105 hours = 65 overtime hours per week, that is equivalent to $9.09/hour.
Slashdot Mirror
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to grant creators exclusive rights for "a limited time." Since when did life plus 75 years become "a limited time"?
If someone is sent to prison for life, is that "a limited time"? If you purchase a product which is advertised with a warranty that lasts ten years longer than you shall live, would you think the warranty is limited in time?
If I am awarded something or restricted from something for the rest of my life no matter how long I shall live, that is an unlimited time as far as I am concerned. If my ISP offered me $5/month Internet access for the rest of my life regardless of how long I live, I would consider that to be cheap internet service for an unlimited time. If my driver's license was suspended for life, that would be a complete revocation, not a suspension for a limited time. So I wonder what in the world the lawmakers were smoking when they thought that "a limited time" for anything granted to a person could be defined as a time period that is guaranteed to extend beyond their lifetime. Apparently "a limited time" to them is anything less than infinity.
Patents were not included into law for the profit of the inventors; they were included because it was thought that a lack of patents would result in significantly fewer inventions.
This is why software patents are unnecessary. With rare exceptions, people come up with new algorithms because the algorithms are needed to solve a problem in the larger software, hardware, business or scientific product they are trying to create... not because they plan to sell the algorithm as a standalone product.
And because algorithms are essentially just mathematical truths that are waiting to be discovered (unlike physical inventions that depend on someone actually creating them where they did not exist before), if one computer scientist or programmer declined to pursue the realization of a new algorithm because he/she couldn't patent it, there is a high probability that someone else in the near future will develop the same algorithm or another one that accomplishes the same result.
There are few or no algorithms that would not have been developed if they could not have been patented. Lack of the ability to patent would not cause a database vendor to stop seeking faster algorithms for searching and sorting data. Lack of patents would not stop a Word processor developer from including a better grammar checker.
That patents are also unnecessary is also evidenced by the growing abundance of free software that exists today.
Algorithms have been and will continue to be developed in the natural course of solving other problems, or in mathematical research by universities, so it is not necessary to have patents in order to promote the progress of software. Lack of patents will rarely or never prohibit the creation of software, but the existence of patents can and has become a great obstacle to the creation of software.
If you're making what the average programmer makes ... about $60K/year ... and you're not getting paid for this overtime, quit and get another job.
The economy sucks right now and it may not be easy to get another programming job, but who says it has to be a programming job? If you're making $60K and working 80 hours a week, there are a zillion other jobs where you'll make more money than $60K if you worked 80 hours.
In a job where you get paid hourly and 150% pay for overtime, if you're working 80 hour weeks you only need a $12.50/hour wage to make $60K/year (assuming 50 weeks of work per year). In your case, with 15x7 = 105 hours = 65 overtime hours per week, that is equivalent to $9.09/hour.