Your ideas sound plausible. Patent them and then sell them to the patent office?:)
Of course, eliminating the "business method" patent that software uses now would be the far superior model. Businesses ran fine for over 200 years (Ending in 1998 with the State Street case) here in the US without patenting their "methods", and even longer in Europe.
Ok I have a strong problem with this statement - since when does prior acts of certain situations justify its need to remain? For thousands of years we have oppressed women, hundreds of years had blacks as slaves (the white man), for hundreds of years the church reigned supreme over science and knowledge....Does that mean we should keep all these acts because they have been around for a long time? Come on, good grief man, your a computer nerd - you of all people should be up for innovation for change for making things better! Saying "Well it was OK for the past 200 years" just sounds so archaic and it is. Maybe up until six years ago it wasn't a big issue. Maybe, due to the nature of software, we need to patent a process since it is the best way to offer this kind of protection to software. God forbid their inventions get protected. To say "well why haven't they been doing it since the 1950's"...the answer: there may not have been a realized need - especially in the infancy of the computer era; and once there was a need to convince the legal system that this need was real would take time, and money.
I utilize the word "You" a lot. I apologize I did not mean anything personally against you. It is just the way I speak and write. Maybe not the best method as it seems to make it personal. I hate utilizing they, he and she. No personal attack meant.
You need to elaborate. Do you mean, for example, Joe Schmoe works for a company in their R&D department. He invents something, they patent it. You have a problem with this?
Or do you have a problem because Jane Schmoe who worked out of her garage, came up with an idea and then patented it. She then decided to sell the patent to some other company for money.
Please fill in any other scenarios. Because the above scenarios are just fine. If someone wants to sell their patents thats up to them. If someone is working for a company - making money to come up with inventions - that is fine also because they agreed to it. I do not understand why a patent MUST remain with the person who actually created it. That person may not have the resources to see the patent ever come to life, and that person may not want anything more then a big cash payout and to be left alone so they want to sell the patent, get paid, and be removed from the picture (i.e. no liability once it is no longer theirs)
Well there are flaws in the court systems, in our laws. But that does not mean we should get rid of them. Otherwise, in your example about the inmates, maybe we shouldn't put them in jail. Hell lets get rid of our criminal system - excuse me while I go rob a bank or two.
While the patent system is flawed that does not mean it should be gotten rid of. It may be a poor cure (arguable if it is worse then the disease), but it is one that enough of society feels it is needed. Instead, it should be fixed. The patent office should be overhauled. Removing it will only make it easier for corporations to monopolize over other people's ideas. "Oh Joe schmoe without two cents to his name made a great invention. Lets take it, sell and make a profit. We don't have to give Joe a damn thing." How fair is this scenario? And this WOULD happen without patent/copyright protections.
Sounds like the Microsoft way of doing business for, oh, the last twenty years. Seems to work just fine in both the U.S. and Europe.
Are you arguing for or against patent law here? Because this example is a clear showing of why patent law needs to be revamped - to help prevent copying. Though I believe the courts said (at the time) you could not patent a "feel" and MS was able to satisfy that their GUI has a different "feel" then the Apple GUI.
As for the Constitution. It was written so it could be updated and could be changed. God forbid that when the times change the rules are changed to accomodate them. Oh wait, here on/. we don't accept change very well, us computer geeks like to remain with old style thinking.
While the term Iwas not familiar with, the concept I know of very well (thankfully not personally).
Again, then the fault resides with our litigation process. Just like the patent process has its issues. Well since the patent process has issues, and people want to have it abolished maybe we should do the same for our litigation process since it has problems. You know, god forbid we try and fix whats broken.
Forty-five percent of gamers volunteer at an average 5.4 hours per month.
Sixty-one percent of game players engage in some type of religious activity for several hours each month.
Ninety-three percent of game players read books or daily newspapers, while sixty-two percent often attend cultural events, such as concerts, museums, or the theater.
Fifty percent spend time painting, writing, or playing an instrument.
Ninety-four percent follow news and current events, and 78 percent report that they vote in most of the elections for which they are eligible.
Yes my religious activity involves the porceline gods.
I noticed that I didn't see a number for the amount of gamers going out on dates? So is that like 0% go out on dates? Given a margin of error of 2-3%, so are we to say that maybe 3% of gamers go out on dates?
I don't really think "nothing" is very valid. Some countries give the US (and other jurisdiction) - they just have to get permission first (sort of like when police from one state want to go to another state). They do this because it helps improve political relations (Trade relations, treaties, etc). They do this because turn-about is fair play "Yes Mr. President we let you come in and get our spammers, now we want to go in and get that guy who sold our people fake stocks".
The UK is fairly friendly with the US, so I can't see why the US couldn't go in and get these guys.
Again, as in previous statements. The Amazon "one-click" patent is a perfect example that the system needs to be fixed. But fixing something does not mean eradicating it.
So does Amazon have a process behind their one-click? Ignoring the fact that there is prior art.
Is one click a process? Do they detail how the one click system works? They obviously have code, but ignoring the actual code - is their one click process described?
Thouhg I do disagree with the "buying in one click" because a number of people here did post links showing that Amazon was not the first to utilize the process. As long as there is a process involved, it should be allowed to be patented. Saying "I want to patent warp drives" is cute, but unless you have the actual process showing what you are patenting then no. It is like saying (as in someone elses example) trying to patent "car's" you can't patent "car's" but you can patent a specific car.
A half-wit judge can also not allow the case to go to trial when he see's the docket "you are trying to sue this guy because he walked by you on a public street?"
Again, the problem then resides with our litigation system.
Yes I realize that people can sue for pretty much anything (a shame really) but short of the absurd (and yes the world is full of them) a person needs to have a substantial reason to sue.
Reading this I wonder wether you actually have ever programmed over a couple lines, or even ever invented anything worth patenting. Give another 10.000 people the same problem, and someone is bound to come up with the same idea you had - or better. And if you have a patent on a worse version of their idea, they won't be able to patent it, due to some douchbag w/o the amount of brain required to finish an idea.
I write plenty of code but that has nothing to do with the argument.
Our society subscribes to the "first come first serve"...the first person to patent the process gets the credit (as long as they didn't steal it but that is something out of our scope). So you may have a problem with this process - but many people do not. Why you ask? Well lets see - I patent something and someone comes along, copies my stuff, relabels it and then says "oh look I am going to patent it too." kind of lame no? So I would imagine (hope) that this is not your problem.
So what is your problem - ahh your last statement in your first paragraph - the part about the idiots at the patent office. Well we all know that the solution to this problem is to destroy the law. God forbid we get qualified people working at the patent office, no lets just get rid of a pretty useful law that has been serving us for over a hundred years.
Ford was granted a patent on an implementation of a car, not the idea of a car.
As others have mentioned before, software is just a combination of mathematics and creativity, and neither thing is patentable in and of itself. Patents are for particular implementations of an idea, not the idea itself.
Just because it is not tangible does not make it invalid for patents. What is the obessesion with patents needing to have a tangible state? That is so short sighted.
Ford patented a car not the idea of a car. Software makers are patenting their software, not the idea of software. To give a more clear example: Valve patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of a first person shooter game or if you want to take it one step further. They patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of Half-life 2.
When I write software people can compete by writing their own software. I patent a process in my software (maybe i came up with a great 3d rendering engine). Now i didn't patent "3d rendering engines", I patented a process of a specific 3d rendering engine. So if joe schmoe wants to patent his own process of 3d rendering - i cannot sue him for that. I can only sue him if his code was stolen from me.
So the Software Car is your 3d rendering engine, the specific car (your Honda) is the specific 3d rendering engine that I created.
Another example: Software car = First Person Shooter games, while the HOnda = Counter Strike.
Patenting a product is more expensive then doing the creating, marketing, production and distribution for a product? It was my impression that a person could patent for a few grand.
Of course, in the case of software, if you have a GREAT idea for some REVOLUTIONARY program, you'll get sued for violating several hundred different patents
This is a gross, unfair, biased, unjustified, and INCORRECT statement.
If you have a great and revolutionary product that might infringe on someone elses code - you just need to prove that yours is different OR get sued. People produce software everyday, patent it everyday and try and sell it everyday.
I would like to have the legal right to invent and not have my stuff stolen by same lame ass who is nothing more then a hack and then I can't touch him cause some douchebag decided patents shouldn't apply to software.
Yes and the world will implode. There is always a way - if your software is that great you can find it.
Now assuming you are correct, and thusly the patent system is flawed - does not mean it should be decimated into nothing. It means that the patent system needs to be revamped. More qualified personnel need to work in the software division of the patent office, etc.
It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.
On a side note, why not prove to the patent office (there has gotta be someone in there who knows a little bit about programming) that your process is different. Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. You are saying your product gives a result that another program gives, only does it differently. Well hell that sounds to me a lot like search engines. Yahoo has one, MSN has one, Goole has one, hell even someones grand mother has one. They all do the same thing - find results to queries - yet each organization patented their actual code - the way it searches. The result (as far as the patent office is concerned) is the same.
So I have shitty credit because I spent the past year working on this great revolutionary gadget and had to max out my credit cards. My family wouldn't trust me with a penny - who can blame them considering my credit; and well the banks would shoot me dead if i walked through their door. VC's are notorious for ripping people off "Sure we will help you, and just like the RIAA/MPAA we will give you 1% profits on all of your inventions."
Sorry, your thought process on this matter is over-simplistic. There is nothing wrong on patenting a process as long as it is a qualified process (i.e. patenting the process to use a fork and knife isn't exactly qualified). Software, while maybe not a physical object also qualifies for patents....sorry if they can patent a paddle, with an elastic band and a ball attached to it - then software definitly qualifies.
So what do we do? Stop the effort to travel? Travel shorter distances (lets colonize the moon). Pick up the ships along the way? "Hey on your way to planet XYZ would you stop by and pick up space shuttle 1 - they've been on the road for 20 years you know. Oh and I hear one of the passangers, Avi, likes La Columbe Coffee and is going crazy because he is forced to drink harbucks" Put the ship and tow and continue onward with Half-Life 15: Counter Strike - Beyond the Source
I think this is out of scope...we can always say "well yea this problem is important, but we shouldn't worry about it because of another problem." There are many people in this world, and we do not have to concentrate on the same problem (duh).
Given that - we do have enough resources out there - except people are greedy, spoiled, and rotten. If we slashed our military fund by 10% and used that towards other programs - we would still be the #1 army in the world able to squelch anything that moves, and would be able to solve a TON of more problems.
Unfortunately we love to spend money on war toys even when it is over costly...and as for greed - well we have poor money management skills in our gov't that gets exploited by gov't contractors.
Our #1 problem is to cut costs by telling these gov't contractors to shape up or ship out followed by reducing the gov't money stealing. Some may argue - but this is my mindset - with money we can accomplish anything. Save some money here, and spend it somewhere else and the results would be astounding.
how does this effect the networ speed - having all of these security features? Though I suspect if someone can spoof my MAC it wouldn't be hard to break the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
Your ideas sound plausible. Patent them and then sell them to the patent office? :)
Of course, eliminating the "business method" patent that software uses now would be the far superior model. Businesses ran fine for over 200 years (Ending in 1998 with the State Street case) here in the US without patenting their "methods", and even longer in Europe.
Ok I have a strong problem with this statement - since when does prior acts of certain situations justify its need to remain? For thousands of years we have oppressed women, hundreds of years had blacks as slaves (the white man), for hundreds of years the church reigned supreme over science and knowledge....Does that mean we should keep all these acts because they have been around for a long time? Come on, good grief man, your a computer nerd - you of all people should be up for innovation for change for making things better! Saying "Well it was OK for the past 200 years" just sounds so archaic and it is. Maybe up until six years ago it wasn't a big issue. Maybe, due to the nature of software, we need to patent a process since it is the best way to offer this kind of protection to software. God forbid their inventions get protected. To say "well why haven't they been doing it since the 1950's"...the answer: there may not have been a realized need - especially in the infancy of the computer era; and once there was a need to convince the legal system that this need was real would take time, and money.
I utilize the word "You" a lot. I apologize I did not mean anything personally against you. It is just the way I speak and write. Maybe not the best method as it seems to make it personal. I hate utilizing they, he and she. No personal attack meant.
You need to elaborate. Do you mean, for example, Joe Schmoe works for a company in their R&D department. He invents something, they patent it. You have a problem with this?
Or do you have a problem because Jane Schmoe who worked out of her garage, came up with an idea and then patented it. She then decided to sell the patent to some other company for money.
Please fill in any other scenarios. Because the above scenarios are just fine. If someone wants to sell their patents thats up to them. If someone is working for a company - making money to come up with inventions - that is fine also because they agreed to it. I do not understand why a patent MUST remain with the person who actually created it. That person may not have the resources to see the patent ever come to life, and that person may not want anything more then a big cash payout and to be left alone so they want to sell the patent, get paid, and be removed from the picture (i.e. no liability once it is no longer theirs)
Well there are flaws in the court systems, in our laws. But that does not mean we should get rid of them. Otherwise, in your example about the inmates, maybe we shouldn't put them in jail. Hell lets get rid of our criminal system - excuse me while I go rob a bank or two.
While the patent system is flawed that does not mean it should be gotten rid of. It may be a poor cure (arguable if it is worse then the disease), but it is one that enough of society feels it is needed. Instead, it should be fixed. The patent office should be overhauled. Removing it will only make it easier for corporations to monopolize over other people's ideas. "Oh Joe schmoe without two cents to his name made a great invention. Lets take it, sell and make a profit. We don't have to give Joe a damn thing." How fair is this scenario? And this WOULD happen without patent/copyright protections.
Sounds like the Microsoft way of doing business for, oh, the last twenty years. Seems to work just fine in both the U.S. and Europe.
/. we don't accept change very well, us computer geeks like to remain with old style thinking.
Are you arguing for or against patent law here? Because this example is a clear showing of why patent law needs to be revamped - to help prevent copying. Though I believe the courts said (at the time) you could not patent a "feel" and MS was able to satisfy that their GUI has a different "feel" then the Apple GUI.
As for the Constitution. It was written so it could be updated and could be changed. God forbid that when the times change the rules are changed to accomodate them. Oh wait, here on
While the term Iwas not familiar with, the concept I know of very well (thankfully not personally).
Again, then the fault resides with our litigation process. Just like the patent process has its issues. Well since the patent process has issues, and people want to have it abolished maybe we should do the same for our litigation process since it has problems. You know, god forbid we try and fix whats broken.
Forty-five percent of gamers volunteer at an average 5.4 hours per month.
Sixty-one percent of game players engage in some type of religious activity for several hours each month.
Ninety-three percent of game players read books or daily newspapers, while sixty-two percent often attend cultural events, such as concerts, museums, or the theater.
Fifty percent spend time painting, writing, or playing an instrument.
Ninety-four percent follow news and current events, and 78 percent report that they vote in most of the elections for which they are eligible.
Yes my religious activity involves the porceline gods.
I noticed that I didn't see a number for the amount of gamers going out on dates? So is that like 0% go out on dates? Given a margin of error of 2-3%, so are we to say that maybe 3% of gamers go out on dates?
I am human? Jesus why didn't someone tell me? Next thing I know they will tell me I'm white.
I don't really think "nothing" is very valid. Some countries give the US (and other jurisdiction) - they just have to get permission first (sort of like when police from one state want to go to another state). They do this because it helps improve political relations (Trade relations, treaties, etc). They do this because turn-about is fair play "Yes Mr. President we let you come in and get our spammers, now we want to go in and get that guy who sold our people fake stocks".
The UK is fairly friendly with the US, so I can't see why the US couldn't go in and get these guys.
Again, as in previous statements. The Amazon "one-click" patent is a perfect example that the system needs to be fixed. But fixing something does not mean eradicating it.
So does Amazon have a process behind their one-click? Ignoring the fact that there is prior art.
Is one click a process? Do they detail how the one click system works? They obviously have code, but ignoring the actual code - is their one click process described?
Thouhg I do disagree with the "buying in one click" because a number of people here did post links showing that Amazon was not the first to utilize the process. As long as there is a process involved, it should be allowed to be patented. Saying "I want to patent warp drives" is cute, but unless you have the actual process showing what you are patenting then no. It is like saying (as in someone elses example) trying to patent "car's" you can't patent "car's" but you can patent a specific car.
A half-wit judge can also not allow the case to go to trial when he see's the docket "you are trying to sue this guy because he walked by you on a public street?"
Again, the problem then resides with our litigation system.
Yes I realize that people can sue for pretty much anything (a shame really) but short of the absurd (and yes the world is full of them) a person needs to have a substantial reason to sue.
Reading this I wonder wether you actually have ever programmed over a couple lines, or even ever invented anything worth patenting. Give another 10.000 people the same problem, and someone is bound to come up with the same idea you had - or better. And if you have a patent on a worse version of their idea, they won't be able to patent it, due to some douchbag w/o the amount of brain required to finish an idea.
I write plenty of code but that has nothing to do with the argument.
Our society subscribes to the "first come first serve"...the first person to patent the process gets the credit (as long as they didn't steal it but that is something out of our scope). So you may have a problem with this process - but many people do not. Why you ask? Well lets see - I patent something and someone comes along, copies my stuff, relabels it and then says "oh look I am going to patent it too." kind of lame no? So I would imagine (hope) that this is not your problem.
So what is your problem - ahh your last statement in your first paragraph - the part about the idiots at the patent office. Well we all know that the solution to this problem is to destroy the law. God forbid we get qualified people working at the patent office, no lets just get rid of a pretty useful law that has been serving us for over a hundred years.
So what your saying is that the problems is with the litigation process? Well obviously because our litigation is flawed we should remove other laws.
Ford was granted a patent on an implementation of a car, not the idea of a car.
As others have mentioned before, software is just a combination of mathematics and creativity, and neither thing is patentable in and of itself. Patents are for particular implementations of an idea, not the idea itself.
Just because it is not tangible does not make it invalid for patents. What is the obessesion with patents needing to have a tangible state? That is so short sighted.
Ford patented a car not the idea of a car. Software makers are patenting their software, not the idea of software. To give a more clear example: Valve patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of a first person shooter game or if you want to take it one step further. They patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of Half-life 2.
When I write software people can compete by writing their own software. I patent a process in my software (maybe i came up with a great 3d rendering engine). Now i didn't patent "3d rendering engines", I patented a process of a specific 3d rendering engine. So if joe schmoe wants to patent his own process of 3d rendering - i cannot sue him for that. I can only sue him if his code was stolen from me.
So the Software Car is your 3d rendering engine, the specific car (your Honda) is the specific 3d rendering engine that I created.
Another example: Software car = First Person Shooter games, while the HOnda = Counter Strike.
Patenting a product is more expensive then doing the creating, marketing, production and distribution for a product? It was my impression that a person could patent for a few grand.
Of course, in the case of software, if you have a GREAT idea for some REVOLUTIONARY program, you'll get sued for violating several hundred different patents
This is a gross, unfair, biased, unjustified, and INCORRECT statement.
If you have a great and revolutionary product that might infringe on someone elses code - you just need to prove that yours is different OR get sued. People produce software everyday, patent it everyday and try and sell it everyday.
I would like to have the legal right to invent and not have my stuff stolen by same lame ass who is nothing more then a hack and then I can't touch him cause some douchebag decided patents shouldn't apply to software.
Yes and the world will implode. There is always a way - if your software is that great you can find it.
Now assuming you are correct, and thusly the patent system is flawed - does not mean it should be decimated into nothing. It means that the patent system needs to be revamped. More qualified personnel need to work in the software division of the patent office, etc.
It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.
On a side note, why not prove to the patent office (there has gotta be someone in there who knows a little bit about programming) that your process is different. Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. You are saying your product gives a result that another program gives, only does it differently. Well hell that sounds to me a lot like search engines. Yahoo has one, MSN has one, Goole has one, hell even someones grand mother has one. They all do the same thing - find results to queries - yet each organization patented their actual code - the way it searches. The result (as far as the patent office is concerned) is the same.
So I have shitty credit because I spent the past year working on this great revolutionary gadget and had to max out my credit cards. My family wouldn't trust me with a penny - who can blame them considering my credit; and well the banks would shoot me dead if i walked through their door. VC's are notorious for ripping people off "Sure we will help you, and just like the RIAA/MPAA we will give you 1% profits on all of your inventions."
Sorry, your thought process on this matter is over-simplistic. There is nothing wrong on patenting a process as long as it is a qualified process (i.e. patenting the process to use a fork and knife isn't exactly qualified). Software, while maybe not a physical object also qualifies for patents....sorry if they can patent a paddle, with an elastic band and a ball attached to it - then software definitly qualifies.
So what do we do? Stop the effort to travel? Travel shorter distances (lets colonize the moon). Pick up the ships along the way? "Hey on your way to planet XYZ would you stop by and pick up space shuttle 1 - they've been on the road for 20 years you know. Oh and I hear one of the passangers, Avi, likes La Columbe Coffee and is going crazy because he is forced to drink harbucks" Put the ship and tow and continue onward with Half-Life 15: Counter Strike - Beyond the Source
I think this is out of scope...we can always say "well yea this problem is important, but we shouldn't worry about it because of another problem." There are many people in this world, and we do not have to concentrate on the same problem (duh).
Given that - we do have enough resources out there - except people are greedy, spoiled, and rotten. If we slashed our military fund by 10% and used that towards other programs - we would still be the #1 army in the world able to squelch anything that moves, and would be able to solve a TON of more problems.
Unfortunately we love to spend money on war toys even when it is over costly...and as for greed - well we have poor money management skills in our gov't that gets exploited by gov't contractors.
Our #1 problem is to cut costs by telling these gov't contractors to shape up or ship out followed by reducing the gov't money stealing. Some may argue - but this is my mindset - with money we can accomplish anything. Save some money here, and spend it somewhere else and the results would be astounding.
Tell them they will get a lifetime supply of coach/vendi purses and versaci shoes
that royally sucks...you would think they would pick them up along the way.
how easy is it for someone to spoof a mac?
how does this effect the networ speed - having all of these security features? Though I suspect if someone can spoof my MAC it wouldn't be hard to break the rest.