| |||||||||||||
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groupsit will be full of lawyers and special interest groupsPosted Jan 7, 2013 20:32 UTC (Mon) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656)In reply to: it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups by man_ls Parent article: The USPTO Would Like to Partner with the Software Community ... Wait. What? Really? (Groklaw)
> I am sure that any of you have met people who want to "protect their ideas" because they feel they are valuable, and there is some innate entitlement as to "I thought this one out, I should be the one profiting from it".
My experience with inventors and entrepreneurs is that those that believe they will get rich from an idea rarely succeed. Most spend years to develop a prototype, getting regulatory permissions (where applicable) and building the market. Rags to riches overnight smells like Hollywood, the people I work with often work on the invention for more then 5 years before becoming successful. Sense of entitlement usually come from the work done.
> And yet anyone that has some real experience with software should realize that any kind of protection beyond copyright is even immoral
Really? Any kind?
> since it does not even benefit the real inventors -- but only the patent trolls.
Considering I know of counterexamples from my own clients who use their patents to avoid being overrun by established companies I find this is stretching things beyond the breaking point.
(Log in to post comments)
Software protection Posted Jan 7, 2013 21:26 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Sense of entitlement usually come from the work done.That is very reasonable indeed. Indeed. The other protection mechanisms are patents, trade marks and industrial secrets (this last point is not even considered by WIPO). Trade marks do not relate to software itself: it is not "I trade under this brand in software" but "I trade under this brand". The same holds for secrets: it does not matter if the secret algorithm is done by a computer or by a very fast accountant. And patents are what is under dispute here.any kind of protection beyond copyright is even immoralReally? Any kind? The only valid protection for software is copyright, and even that is not universal: APIs for instance are not held to be copyrightable in the US, and APIs are an integral part of software. Also, seeing the wild success of software that forfeits the protections afforded by copyright, and how huge corporations often embrace it and profit from it, a case can be made against copyright for software. But let us not get into radical states of mind. Considering I know of counterexamples from my own clients who use their patents to avoid being overrun by established companies I find this is stretching things beyond the breaking point.Please cite a public example. All we hear from the US is precisely established companies that crush their smaller competitors with their puny patent holdings; it would be good to see the reverse side.
Software protection Posted Jan 8, 2013 21:58 UTC (Tue) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> Please cite a public example.
I hope you understand I cannot name my own clients. As for success histories WIPO has a collection here:
> All we hear from the US is precisely established companies that crush their smaller competitors with their puny patent holdings; it would be good to see the reverse side.
There have been a few ugly stories but some times the underdog wins, such as for the inventor of the intermittent wiper who nearly was steamrolled by Ford and others:
Sadly, even today many large companies believe they can crush all small competitors with impunity. They are wrong.
Software protection Posted Jan 9, 2013 8:32 UTC (Wed) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
> As for success histories WIPO has a collection here
WIPO is funded by patent registration fees. Everybody that sells something has a success story or two to provide. Moreover, in the examples I read, there wasn't evidence that patents helped (like "if patents weren't here, it would never have been done").
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
From what I read in this article, the guy spend 10 millions dollar in legal fees to win against two "infringers". Sure he was the underdog, but
And for the record, I don't even find this invention to be that inventive in the first place.
Software protection Posted Jan 9, 2013 16:10 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] I hope you understand I cannot name my own clients. We always get fed this line after the other one about plucky inventors standing their ground. Meanwhile, it looks like the example fed me by one of my MEPs back in 2004 (or so) to justify software patents may have referred to a company whose business model appears to be litigating other companies into bankruptcy using patented ideas from their failed product. So excuse our skepticism when we also see the more typical outcome for small companies trying to ship real products.
Software protection Posted Jan 12, 2013 0:55 UTC (Sat) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
> I hope you understand I cannot name my own clients.
The pro-patent folks like you always tell us that patents are there to publish the information to the public, to be used for the greater good. That's what patents are for, right?
If it's about publishing information to the public, why are you not allowed to name public cases? After all, court cases are public, too.
And Robert Kearns is not a good example at all, as others have noted. Spending 10 mils on ligitation? Give me a break.
Joachim
Software protection Posted Jan 22, 2013 18:37 UTC (Tue) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> The pro-patent folks like you always tell us that patents are there to publish the information to the public, to be used for the greater good. That's what patents are for, right?
Yes. Patent law is always in a tension with competition law, each with their own proponents. If it can be shown that patents do not promote the greater good I am sure the patent system would be radically changed. I see some make comments about the system being ideal to patent attorneys and agents. The view from within the profession is different, you can read through patents blogs such as PatentlyO to get an inside view.
> If it's about publishing information to the public, why are you not allowed to name public cases? After all, court cases are public, too.
I write here to provide some information how the system works in practice and, hopefully, balance some of the views expressed. If I were to state my name this could be seen by some as advertising and that is not my purpose. Secondly it is true that court cases are to some extent public, that is the information that a court case is being held and who the parties are will be public but the actual proceedings is not always public. Moreover if an out of court settlement is agreed upon the contents of that is normally kept confidential.
> And Robert Kearns is not a good example at all, as others have noted. Spending 10 mils on ligitation? Give me a break.
The inventiveness of his invention has been debated before with no conclusion. As for the money spent the article states he got large sums in settlement. Not using an attorney is probably not a good idea, my guess is that a sense of revenge was a part here. The most well known case of revenge is Steve Jobs wanting to go thermonuclear against Google. Kearns had the money and it was his choice how to spend it. Would you have preferred if he folded after 1 million dollars instead?
Software protection Posted Jan 22, 2013 19:04 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Well, more money is spent on patent litigation then on licensing patents. That definitely qualifies as an abject failure.
Software protection Posted Jan 26, 2013 16:21 UTC (Sat) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> Well, more money is spent on patent litigation then on licensing patents.
There are many studies on this, which one do you refer to?
|
|||||||||||||