After Colbert requested that the Smithsonian declare him a national treasure and put his portrait in the National Portrait Gallery - they agreed and put the portrait by the restrooms - perfect!
They got lots of publicity and increased attendance, he gave them free plugs over multiple episodes - win-win.
So NASA should learn from this and do the same - "resist" initially, then give in, and name the toilet Colbert (or something similar - to provide him with enough comic fodder).
So having these patents safeguards against lawsuits, but not your valuable intellectual property being ripped off. Small comfort. Oh well.
I guess I can't help thinking how things would be different if some small company had been granted patents and is now suing, say, Microsoft, for patent infringement.
I understand all the points being made, but the answers (or lack of) aren't very satisfactory. If you've made real innovations in software, and you're not willing to give it away (or allow competitors to copy it), what recourse do you have?
> Amazon is abusing the patent system by primarily using patents as a weapon against competitors as opposed to a way to actually safegaurd their innovations.
If your competitors are blatantly copying your innovations, I don't understand how you would "safeguard your innovations" using patents without "firing the first shot".
Case 1a: company A has patents on company B's innovations, sues Company B for patent infringement. This is "using patents as a weapon against competitors".
Case 1b: company A has patents on its own innovations, sees competitor B copying them, A sues B. If I read RMS right, this would also be "using patents as a weapon against competitors", since A fired the first shot.
Case 2: company A has patents on its own innovations, competitor B sues A for patent infringement of B, A counter-sues with its own patent portfolio, they settle. This could be "using patents to safeguard innovations".
Case 3: company A has patents on its own innovations, sees competitor B copying them, but does nothing (not firing the first shot).
In case 3, how did A "safeguard its innovations"? If it doesn't sue, it seems to me that it has allowed B to blatantly copy its innovations. If it sues, then it could be argued that it fired the first shot, and that it's using the patents as a weapon. (case 3 = case 1b).
Slashdot Mirror
a virtual currency and buying Achievements with Slashbucks? =)
After Colbert requested that the Smithsonian declare him a national treasure and put his portrait in the National Portrait Gallery - they agreed and put the portrait by the restrooms - perfect!
They got lots of publicity and increased attendance, he gave them free plugs over multiple episodes - win-win.
So NASA should learn from this and do the same - "resist" initially, then give in, and name the toilet Colbert (or something similar - to provide him with enough comic fodder).
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/2008/04/stephen-colbert-declared-a-national-treasure/
Now we need to repopulate the waterways with scuba divers wearing these...
Another example would be Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers...a classic sci-fi novel turned into a B movie.
So having these patents safeguards against lawsuits, but not your valuable intellectual property being ripped off. Small comfort. Oh well.
I guess I can't help thinking how things would be different if some small company had been granted patents and is now suing, say, Microsoft, for patent infringement.
I understand all the points being made, but the answers (or lack of) aren't very satisfactory. If you've made real innovations in software, and you're not willing to give it away (or allow competitors to copy it), what recourse do you have?
> Amazon is abusing the patent system by primarily using patents as a weapon against competitors as opposed to a way to actually safegaurd their innovations.
If your competitors are blatantly copying your innovations, I don't understand how you would "safeguard your innovations" using patents without "firing the first shot".
Case 1a: company A has patents on company B's innovations, sues Company B for patent infringement. This is "using patents as a weapon against competitors".
Case 1b: company A has patents on its own innovations, sees competitor B copying them, A sues B. If I read RMS right, this would also be "using patents as a weapon against competitors", since A fired the first shot.
Case 2: company A has patents on its own innovations, competitor B sues A for patent infringement of B, A counter-sues with its own patent portfolio, they settle. This could be "using patents to safeguard innovations".
Case 3: company A has patents on its own innovations, sees competitor B copying them, but does nothing (not firing the first shot).
In case 3, how did A "safeguard its innovations"? If it doesn't sue, it seems to me that it has allowed B to blatantly copy its innovations. If it sues, then it could be argued that it fired the first shot, and that it's using the patents as a weapon. (case 3 = case 1b).
What can company A do in case 3 without suing?