Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Updegrove: So What About Those XML Patents, Anyway?
Andy Updegrove writes about the XML patents owned by Microsoft and i4i. "As always, we come back to the usual elephant in the software bedroom. Do patents really do any good, or only harm in the marketplace? They didn't help little i4i much. Microsoft apparently destroyed its business despite it's patent application, and i4i hasn't received a dime yet. Would i4i have launched its business around its technology even if it hadn't been able to get a patent? Of course it would have. Another new software company (if not more) makes a similar decision every day. Always has, and always will."
(Log in to post comments)
Updegrove: So What About Those XML Patents, Anyway? Posted Aug 23, 2009 14:54 UTC (Sun) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]
Small companies usually don't have enough patents in their trunk to make cross license agreements with the big boys, and without that, pretty much any non-trivial piece of software infringes a bunch of patents. And even if a small company is luck and gets its hand on a bunch of doomsday patents, the bigger companies can simply delay the legal process until the smaller company runs out of money.
In the end, the only result of software patents has been to make life significantly harder for software startups. This in a business famous for creating lots of slow, bloated monopolies.
Updegrove: So What About Those XML Patents, Anyway? Posted Aug 25, 2009 8:47 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Is it just me, or does the link still lead to a short article about the perils of using SQL? :-)
Updegrove: So What About Those XML Patents, Anyway? Posted Aug 26, 2009 13:14 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
It does indeed.
Updegrove: So What About Those XML Patents, Anyway? Posted Aug 27, 2009 6:32 UTC (Thu) by jimbo (subscriber, #6689) [Link]
No, it's not just you. It's been this way since the weekend of the 22-23. I hope Mr Updegrove's ISP sorts out the mess, as I've been waiting to read the article.
-- J
New technology without patent? Posted Sep 8, 2009 11:05 UTC (Tue) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] I've recently heard a talk where a guy who builds mostly hardware (with a bit of software inside) revealed how these people think about patents. It is astonishing how much patents in this field stiffle innovations. First of all, when you have an idea, you can't discuss it more broadly before you apply for a patent. Without discussion, ideas don't really mature. When you have applied for a patent, you can start discussion, but unless you get it granted, you won't invest into the technology - because if it's not patentable, "anybody can copy it". If most people in one particular field think like that, innovation comes to a standstill, because there's no open discussion anymore and all the long turnaround times through the patent offices cause even more delays. I think it's worth to examine those fields where patents are generally accepted; the software field has some examples of how patents harm innovation, but they are rare and usually affect patent trolls and large companies (or 800lb gorilla companies stomping competition). The harm done here is limited, the harm elsewhere is much bigger. The problem is that the people in these other fields even fail to see the harm. It's common practice, and they feel that their ideas are protected. They fear that their idea will be cloned immediately, while at the same time they have troubles to find somebody who is willing to try their unproven idea at all. No "Chinese copy shop" in the world clones ideas, they all clone successful products - and the measure of "success" is: has the original developer already made a fortune with it? If that's the case, his idea is already protected well enough.
New technology without patent? Posted Sep 8, 2009 22:47 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> unless you get it granted, you won't invest into the technology - because if it's not
> patentable, "anybody can copy it"
Given that patents take somewhere between 2 to 6 years to process, it seems a bit unlikely that
But, maybe they do -- I don't know. That'd be even more of a harm. :)
|
|||||||||||||