Patenting, unlike copyright, takes away more that just the right to someone's work - it takes away the right to someone's thoughts.
That is why software patents are so insidious.
Patents are suppose to be protection for an implementation not an idea. Thomas Edison couldn't patent the idea of a light bulb, only his specific implentation (and those based on it). With software, however, it's impossible to separate the implentation from the idea. Software is like language and should be handled solely by copyright law.
If someone steals your code they are breaking the law just as if they plagarized your novel. However, Arthur C. Clarke isn't allowed to stop anyone from writing about an alien structure found on the moon - software coampanies shouldn't be either.
The original thinking behind patents, IMHO, is to encourage the development of novel products.
The Constituional goal of patent law is to encourage the sciences, not industry. A free market will reward innovative industries regardless of whether patent law exists or not. Patents were not intended for evolutionary innovation, but for truly dramatic breakthroughs that would otherwise remain locked in a company vault as a trade secret.
A patent is a monopoly, and retards the free market. In a world without patents, the company with the greatest competitive edge will still be succesful (it may not be the same company that developed a product, but on purely capitalist principles that is not important). In all liklihood though, in an advanced capitalist society with ready access to venture capital, raw resources, etc. the first company to market with a breakthrough product will be succesful.
With patents, normal innovation proceeds as above, but technology based on new scientific thought is described in compelte detail to the USPTO. In exchange for publically publishing all the details, a company is granted a limited monopoly on a product while new ideas are immediately available to the public rather than being held in a corporate vault.
However, our current perverted system is worse than either a system with no patents or the ideal system where patents are properly administered for implementations not ideas.
If they weren't they only ones who could do this in this way, someone else (MS?) would surely come along and use Google's algorithms to provide the customized system for free.
But that's the point. In a free market economy, companies and individuals are free to enter any business and compete with established players.
No one has access to Google's algorithms now. The other search engine players will spend their R&D dollars, as Google will continue to do, and the consumers will decide which search engine does the best job. That service will then be rewarded in the marketplace. This is as it should be for evolutionary innovation - patents are government granted monopolies that were originally intended for only truly groundbreaking inventions that would otherwise be sealed in company vaults as trade secrets.
It's not a frivolous lawsuit. When the DOL doesn't allow an open a fair bidding process - there is nothing wrong with using the courts to remedy the situation. For heaven's sake, your tax dollars are being used to pay for this software.
This is a case where some bureaucrat decided on his own, without justifying the decision, that MS software should be used, regardless of the cost, and changed the bid specs so that only MS could submit a "compliant" bid.
Slashdot Mirror
Patenting, unlike copyright, takes away more that just the right to someone's work - it takes away the right to someone's thoughts.
That is why software patents are so insidious.
Patents are suppose to be protection for an implementation not an idea. Thomas Edison couldn't patent the idea of a light bulb, only his specific implentation (and those based on it). With software, however, it's impossible to separate the implentation from the idea. Software is like language and should be handled solely by copyright law.
If someone steals your code they are breaking the law just as if they plagarized your novel. However, Arthur C. Clarke isn't allowed to stop anyone from writing about an alien structure found on the moon - software coampanies shouldn't be either.
Robert Wilde
The original thinking behind patents, IMHO, is to encourage the development of novel products.
The Constituional goal of patent law is to encourage the sciences, not industry. A free market will reward innovative industries regardless of whether patent law exists or not. Patents were not intended for evolutionary innovation, but for truly dramatic breakthroughs that would otherwise remain locked in a company vault as a trade secret.
A patent is a monopoly, and retards the free market. In a world without patents, the company with the greatest competitive edge will still be succesful (it may not be the same company that developed a product, but on purely capitalist principles that is not important). In all liklihood though, in an advanced capitalist society with ready access to venture capital, raw resources, etc. the first company to market with a breakthrough product will be succesful.
With patents, normal innovation proceeds as above, but technology based on new scientific thought is described in compelte detail to the USPTO. In exchange for publically publishing all the details, a company is granted a limited monopoly on a product while new ideas are immediately available to the public rather than being held in a corporate vault.
However, our current perverted system is worse than either a system with no patents or the ideal system where patents are properly administered for implementations not ideas.
Robert Wilde
If they weren't they only ones who could do this in this way, someone else (MS?) would surely come along and use Google's algorithms to provide the customized system for free.
But that's the point. In a free market economy, companies and individuals are free to enter any business and compete with established players.
No one has access to Google's algorithms now. The other search engine players will spend their R&D dollars, as Google will continue to do, and the consumers will decide which search engine does the best job. That service will then be rewarded in the marketplace. This is as it should be for evolutionary innovation - patents are government granted monopolies that were originally intended for only truly groundbreaking inventions that would otherwise be sealed in company vaults as trade secrets.
This 20 year time period seems a bit long in the Internet era (which works in dog years), but it's worked for a long time.
No, the 20 years is a relatively new extension.
It's not a frivolous lawsuit. When the DOL doesn't allow an open a fair bidding process - there is nothing wrong with using the courts to remedy the situation. For heaven's sake, your tax dollars are being used to pay for this software.
This is a case where some bureaucrat decided on his own, without justifying the decision, that MS software should be used, regardless of the cost, and changed the bid specs so that only MS could submit a "compliant" bid.