| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
That's not how patents workThat's not how patents workPosted May 14, 2007 10:03 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: More FUD, and double-edged at that by NigelK Parent article: Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
Just because a second person had the same idea, that doesn't mean the idea was too obvious to be patentable.
With patents, after your application is approved, anyone who implements that idea (or who has implemented it since you application was first filed!) is an infringer of your patent.
(Log in to post comments)
That's not how patents work Posted May 14, 2007 10:23 UTC (Mon) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] Just because a second person had the same idea, that doesn't mean the idea was too obvious to be patentable.Correct, but it certainly raises questions that MS might not want to answer.
That's not how patents work Posted May 14, 2007 12:42 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Which questions? Ciaran is right, nobody will question the patent system because of that. Remember Elisha Gray? The poor guy got to the patent office with his telephone invention just hours after Bell had patented the same thing. That does not make the patent any more obvious or the process any more flawed.
That's not how patents work Posted May 14, 2007 16:34 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It does make sense that two guys can independently and simultaneously invent something. But when some "invention" is done in passing and second "independent inventor" does not even realize it's "invention"... this cast the doubt on the quality of said patent. Big time. It does not mean that the patent if bogus, but it certainly looks strange... After all patent must be novel and non-obvious. If someone invented the thing and not even realized that it's worth something... how can it be non-obvious ? Are all Linux developers geniuses ?
That's not how patents work Posted May 14, 2007 16:45 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Good point. However, I'm not sure the argument would fly too far before it is shot down... After all, Linux developers (Torvalds, famously) are known for being geniuses, releasing code freely, ideologically being against software patents, supporting copyleft, and being raving communists... erm, this last part is bogus ;)In short, GNU/Linux developers (kernel+userspace) will be pictured as giving their work away and being against the holy Intellectual Property trinity (copyright, patents and trade marks), even if it is not exactly true. So nobody will be surprised that they do not patent their inventions.
|
|
||||||||||||