Bill Gates Blackmailing Denmark

[Nicholas Buenk]

Says who? And why not?

The point of patents is to provide financial motivation of new products,
this was the original intention of them.

I don't see anything to support that contention.

If a company can make a profit out of developement, they will do it.

That products need to remain competitive in no way means the original,
patented, idea is 'discarded' or becomes 'obsolete'. Just as adding power
windows to your car offering in no way 'obsoletes' or diminishes the fuel
injector patent.

The computer industry goes through technology a lot faster than cars. And
even for patents that are still useful decades after they were made, that is
way too long a time to hang on to them. It will serve no purpose other than
to decrease competition.

Your complaint is that the person who did the work gets rich instead of
the plagiarist.

The most important thing is that the marketplace has plenty of choice for
consumers. Allowing the inventor to get excessively rich limits consumer
choice and creates monoplies.

 

[David Maynard]

Well that's just it. The laws should be such that people don't think
about patenting small solutions to problems at hand.

Something is wrong
when applying for and obtaining the patent is more work than the
invention itself.

Well, I'm all for making patents easier to get

According to the story Edison dreamed up the phonograph and whipped out a
working model after a few hours of tinkering in the machine shop. This
shouldn't be patentable because it was so fast and 'simple' for him?

 

[Nicholas Buenk]

I might not object to the Morse code being patented because it required

some statistical analysis that led to efficiency of the code. And
everybody was free to use some other code.

It would be absurd to have a patent for such a universally useful
communication system.

 

[Nicholas Buenk]

And what do you base a whopping 6 months on?

The typical shelf lifetime of computer software and hardware products is
typically 2 years at the very most, 6months is a high percentage of that
time.

 

[Nicholas Buenk]

Don't confuse the speed of product _releases_ with the speed of product
_development_. With the likes of M$ even a new version of Windows or
Office or whatever seems to be typically 18 months late. A fundamental
new
technology may take _years_ to see its release as a commercially viable
product and I for one would like to see a new innovative idea implemented
properly in the first place rather than a half baked implementation going
on
the market and causing all kinds of headaches in the long run.

Yes, I know, hence I would only have the 6 months patent limit happen from
after the launch date. 6 months is a long time in the computer industry,
that is enough time to ensure that they will be able to make a lot of money
off their development, 6 months before your competition can do anything,
even develope, that is a major advantage.

Having said this I'm no great defender of software patents in general.
The
old rule was you couldn't patent software, although any underlying
algorithms
were fair game. That sounds fair enough to me. But now the line in this
and
a lot of other patent areas seems to be being re-drawn (it seems to be the
US
in particular that's pushing this through). IMHO its this 'patent-creep'
that's causing much of the controversy at the moment.

Yes indeed, the length of copyrights and patents has increased a lot since
the introduction of the laws.

 

[JAD]

monopolies are permitted...hidden from the schmoes who could care less...AKA
the majority


<<you don't accept that universally accepted idea?

I never disagreed ...the sub says BILL is......

 

[David Maynard]

The point of patents is to provide financial motivation of new products,
this was the original intention of them.

Getting rich is certainly a "financial motivation."

If a company can make a profit out of developement, they will do it.

Sure. But that doesn't support your contention.

The computer industry goes through technology a lot faster than cars.

It may or may not improve faster than cars but that says nothing as to the
longevity of a patentable idea in either.

And
even for patents that are still useful decades after they were made, that is
way too long a time to hang on to them. It will serve no purpose other than
to decrease competition.

You like to make flat assertions but that's all they are. I can make the
case it stimulates invention, and competition, since you have to either pay
a license or find a new, 'inventive', alternative.

The most important thing is that the marketplace has plenty of choice for
consumers.

It's certainly high on the list but it isn't to the exclusion of all else.
Invention increases the 'choices' so decreasing the invention incentive
decreases choices.

Allowing the inventor to get excessively rich

'Excessively rich' is the excuse a thief uses to justify his profession.

limits consumer
choice

Not at all. The consumer has all the original choices available, plus the
newly invented ones.

and creates monoplies.

File a monopoly suit.

 

[David Maynard]

The typical shelf lifetime of computer software and hardware products is
typically 2 years at the very most, 6months is a high percentage of that
time.

And the lifespan of an automobile style is 1 year, till the next one comes
out, but that says nothing about the longevity of a fuel injector patent.
Nor does the umpteenth revision of whatever the latest and greatest game is
say anything about the longevity of a mouse patent, or a windowing concept,
or anything else.

Not only does your argument not hold in 'software cycles' but, even if it
did, then a patent that is obsolete in 2 years is hardly such a 'problem'
for the competition since it could not possibly be anything 'fundamental'
or earth shaking. It falls into the realm of a 'fad' and I see no problem
with hoolahoop lacking a major hoolahoop competitor, nor am I concerned
about it being 'unfair' to Mattel. Buy roller skates, a slinky, or a doll
if it bothers you.

 

[Matt]

Well, I'm all for making patents easier to get

According to the story Edison dreamed up the phonograph and whipped out
a working model after a few hours of tinkering in the machine shop. This
shouldn't be patentable because it was so fast and 'simple' for him?

Chance favors the prepared mind. ---Louis Pasteur

 

[David Maynard]

Yes, I know, hence I would only have the 6 months patent limit happen from
after the launch date. 6 months is a long time in the computer industry,
that is enough time to ensure that they will be able to make a lot of money
off their development, 6 months before your competition can do anything,
even develope, that is a major advantage.

And why, as a competitor, would you be so lackadaisical as to not start
development when you knew it was going to expire in 6 months?

 

[David Maynard]

Chance favors the prepared mind. ---Louis Pasteur

Well, I like it but I don't know where or how you intended that to 'fit'.

 

[Matt]

Well, I like it but I don't know where or how you intended that to 'fit'.

Come on ... meaning it was easy or lucky for Edison only after many
years of general preparation. Therefore only apparently easy or lucky.

 

[David Maynard]

Come on ... meaning it was easy or lucky for Edison only after many
years of general preparation. Therefore only apparently easy or lucky.

Hehe. Well, yes, I got that part. Which, btw, is why I had "simple" in
single quotes. I meant it in a tongue-in-cheek ironic manner and certainly
not literally.


What I didn't see was how it fit into the patents discussion.

 

[Nicholas Buenk]

And the lifespan of an automobile style is 1 year, till the next one comes
out, but that says nothing about the longevity of a fuel injector patent.
Nor does the umpteenth revision of whatever the latest and greatest game
is say anything about the longevity of a mouse patent, or a windowing
concept, or anything else.

That is true, but for the sake of better competition for the consumer, the
patent shouldn't really last longer than the automobile style does.

Not only does your argument not hold in 'software cycles' but, even if it
did, then a patent that is obsolete in 2 years is hardly such a 'problem'
for the competition since it could not possibly be anything 'fundamental'
or earth shaking. It falls into the realm of a 'fad' and I see no problem
with hoolahoop lacking a major hoolahoop competitor, nor am I concerned
about it being 'unfair' to Mattel. Buy roller skates, a slinky, or a doll
if it bothers you.

I see a problem with a hoolahoop lacking a major hoolahoop competitor, less
choice for the consumer, it's a government installed monoply!

 

[Nicholas Buenk]

Getting rich is certainly a "financial motivation."

Yes indeed, but the law's intention was not to help people get rich but to
provide a finacial reason to invent technology. If you can make money off an
idea, that's motivation, the current patent laws are much too excessive
however.

Sure. But that doesn't support your contention.



It may or may not improve faster than cars but that says nothing as to the
longevity of a patentable idea in either.

Yes, but patents should not be about longevity, patents with longevity limit
competiton, patents should merely give the inventer a year or two's
advantage.

You like to make flat assertions but that's all they are. I can make the
case it stimulates invention, and competition, since you have to either
pay a license or find a new, 'inventive', alternative.

It's an excessive amount of priverage for the inventer if patents last
decades, the marketplace will be better served by shorter patents that
encourage more competition.

It's certainly high on the list but it isn't to the exclusion of all else.
Invention increases the 'choices' so decreasing the invention incentive
decreases choices.

But I think the incentive will still be plenty strong if patent lengths are
reduces.

'Excessively rich' is the excuse a thief uses to justify his profession.

Well being rich is not a right it's a privilege awared to those who worked
for it, patents make it too easy, sure they invented the product. But they
should be required to do more, keep up with other peoples improvements to
the product.

Not at all. The consumer has all the original choices available, plus the
newly invented ones.

No, the consumer is stuck to one choice if they want the newly invented
technology.

 

[David Maynard]

That is true, but for the sake of better competition for the consumer, the
patent shouldn't really last longer than the automobile style does.

No offense, but it's silly to link patent life to styling fads.

I see a problem with a hoolahoop lacking a major hoolahoop competitor, less
choice for the consumer,

There's plenty of choice and I only listed a few.

There are no "rights endowed by your creator" to hoolahoops. But people do
have the right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and society, for
reasons that benefit society, includes "intellectual property" in the list
of fruits and labor.

it's a government installed monoply!

Repeating that is redundantly redundant repetition.

Yes, it is. That's it's purpose and point. It's intended, no accident, and
the desired result.

You wouldn't HAVE the 'invention' around to be howling about 'competition'
if it weren't for the inventor having invented it and he increased your
choices by the act of doing so. It was HIS idea and he deserves the benefit
of providing it for you to 'chose' whether you want to avail yourself of it
or not.

So go invent something and 'get rich'. The incentive is there.

 

[David Maynard]

Yes indeed, but the law's intention was not to help people get rich

Where did you get that idea?

but to
provide a finacial reason to invent technology.

And I repeat, getting 'rich' is a financial reason.

If you can make money off an
idea, that's motivation,

And the more the merrier, not to mention motivation.

the current patent laws are much too excessive
however.

An opinion is just an opinion.

Yes, but patents should not be about longevity,

Actually, they are. And there have been tons of studies about the impact of
longevity. As well as comparing the impact of longevity vs broadness.

patents with longevity limit
competiton,

That is their purpose, with regard to the specific invention.

You're caught up in 'sloganeering' and 'absolutes'. Someone's done a bang
up job of teaching you that competition is a good thing but apparently
neglected to point out there are other considerations.

patents should merely give the inventer a year or two's
advantage.

Again, an opinion with nothing but the opinion.

It's an excessive amount of priverage for the inventer if patents last
decades,

Utility patent 20 years, design patent 14 years.

the marketplace will be better served by shorter patents that
encourage more competition.

Studies on the matter say that's not so.

But I think the incentive will still be plenty strong if patent lengths are
reduces.

You "think."

Well being rich is not a right

Correct, it's not.

it's a privilege awared to those who worked
for it,

It's not a "privilege" either. It's the result of the work, to which a
person *does* have the right.

patents make it too easy,

Well, hells bells son, if it's so damn easy then jump right in and get rich.

sure they invented the product.

You betcha.

But they
should be required to do more,

Says WHO?

keep up with other peoples improvements to
the product.

The market takes care of that.

No, the consumer is stuck to one choice if they want the newly invented
technology.

IF, IF, IF, they want what the inventor invented. Go buy something else if
you don't like it.

You're just greedy. The inventor came up with something you apparently
'want', which one might think is a good thing, so now you insist on a
'right' to steal it.

 

[Andrew Smallshaw]

The example given in one of the original 'complaint' posts was the
underlying 'algorithm' to 'time dependent' application keys.

Just curious if that meets your criteria as an acceptable one.

No, because that would come under the heading of prior art. Admittedly it's
been a while since I was taught a summary of the laws surrounding IPR at Uni
but ISTR a patent had to involve an inventive step - that is not already in
use, not an obvious development, be able to be exploited and not simply a
a logical progression of what has come before. You also can't patent a
scientific discovery or anything occurring in nature - this isn't important
at the minute but I'll come back to it. This is UK patent law BTW, which
I understand is far stricter than its US equivalent.

This patent was filed in 2002 - this mouse I'm using now was manufactured in
Aug 1996. Go figure.

I'd be interested to hear an example of what you mean.

The obvious example of a bad software patent is Amazon's 'one-click' patent.
I know that one ended up in the courts (did it get struck down - never heard
about it) but the fact that it was granted in the first place shows something
is obviously amiss.

In the wider field, consider the pharmaceutical companies trying to patent
individual genes - obviously occuring in nature. At the moment these aren't
getting very far in Europe but the US government has been applying pressure
for us to amend our laws.

An example of a 'good' software patent would be something like RSA - genuinely
inventive, and while the spooks at GCHQ may have got there first, they didn't
exactly tell the world about it so the prior art reason not to grant it fails
there.

 

[Nicholas Buenk]

keep up with other peoples improvements to the product.

The market takes care of that.

No it doesn't, with patents the patent owner owns the market. It destroys
competition. Shorter patents will both provide a motivation to develope new
products and soon after that help improve the product with increased
competition.

IF, IF, IF, they want what the inventor invented. Go buy something else if
you don't like it

You're just greedy. The inventor came up with something you apparently
'want', which one might think is a good thing, so now you insist on a
'right' to steal it.

There is no good reason that a consumers should be limited to one provider
if they want a new technology. It is the patent holders who are greedy.

 

[David Maynard]

No it doesn't,

My answer was correct with the *whole* sentence that you chopped up to
change the meaning.

You were 'demanding' that the *inventor" should be 'required to do more' to
"keep up with other peoples improvements to the product" and the market
*does* take care of that because if he doesn't 'keep up' then he looses
market share just like anyone else would who doesn't 'keep up'.

with patents the patent owner owns the market.

No he doesn't. He 'owns' his patented idea that is but one piece of 'the
market'.

It destroys
competition. Shorter patents will both provide a motivation to develope new
products and soon after that help improve the product with increased
competition.

You keep claiming that but, as I've said before, studies done on the mater
don't support your 'intuition'.

There is no good reason that a consumers should be limited to one provider
if they want a new technology.

Yes, there is. Because it was *his* damn invention.

It is the patent holders who are greedy.

What you want to do is not much different than stealing your neighbor's
crops after he put in all the work to plant and grow them, with the
'excuse' that *his* stuff is 'better' than the other's crops so you have a
'right' to steal his 'better stuff'.