You are supposing that if somebody has a time-machine they would use it to go to the early 90s to get VC money to run an online dog food business?
THEY HAVE A TIME MACHINE. They will use it to go back to the 1950s to invest a couple hundred dollars in IBM and then go forward in time to spent the millions earned on that initial investment on alien hookers...
Patents protect the efforts required to advance the state of the art, not only non-obvious research. If something truly is non-obvious after other companies do it, the better way to protect it is through trade secrets. In this sense... there is a striking LACK OF a patent for the ingenuity.
If I recall correctly from undergrad courses in this and related subjects... one main research that Coke is so strong a company is that their recipe for the soft-drink is secret. If they were to patent it, after X years the patent would expire and "generic" Coke could be made to taste like "authentic" Coke by using the patented recipe. As the case is now... they can get close - but not close enough to replace the lumbering giant.
If you think "buy a brand then exploit it" is the new Google motto, your are instantly lumping them in with what made Microsoft so successful.
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people will argue in favor of each side of the arguement.
For the majorities interest, though, what is critical is that dependancies on proprietary business do NOT become developed. In the OS world, this has led to the near-complete entrenchment of Windows.
I would argue that it is in the best interests of the majority that the online content world should be prevented from slipping into the grips of the proprietary Google technology.
I can see that a software company wants to concentrate on getting a product that is going to make them money (Vista) out the door on time, and that nothing for a service pack that is critical is going to be held back.
My question: If this enrages people - why not switch over to Linux where the SOTA is always available in a no-cost distribution?
You are supposing that if somebody has a time-machine they would use it to go to the early 90s to get VC money to run an online dog food business?
THEY HAVE A TIME MACHINE. They will use it to go back to the 1950s to invest a couple hundred dollars in IBM and then go forward in time to spent the millions earned on that initial investment on alien hookers...
Patents protect the efforts required to advance the state of the art, not only non-obvious research. If something truly is non-obvious after other companies do it, the better way to protect it is through trade secrets. In this sense... there is a striking LACK OF a patent for the ingenuity. If I recall correctly from undergrad courses in this and related subjects... one main research that Coke is so strong a company is that their recipe for the soft-drink is secret. If they were to patent it, after X years the patent would expire and "generic" Coke could be made to taste like "authentic" Coke by using the patented recipe. As the case is now... they can get close - but not close enough to replace the lumbering giant.
If you think "buy a brand then exploit it" is the new Google motto, your are instantly lumping them in with what made Microsoft so successful.
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people will argue in favor of each side of the arguement.
For the majorities interest, though, what is critical is that dependancies on proprietary business do NOT become developed. In the OS world, this has led to the near-complete entrenchment of Windows.
I would argue that it is in the best interests of the majority that the online content world should be prevented from slipping into the grips of the proprietary Google technology.
I can see that a software company wants to concentrate on getting a product that is going to make them money (Vista) out the door on time, and that nothing for a service pack that is critical is going to be held back.
My question: If this enrages people - why not switch over to Linux where the SOTA is always available in a no-cost distribution?