| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royaltiespatents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royaltiesPosted Aug 6, 2004 10:06 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462)In reply to: patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties by talahin Parent article: Software patents no bigger threat to Free Software than to proprietary software Well, that's the broken patent system for you. ;-) Of course I can always rewrite the code so that it no longer infringes <insert favourite patent>. If that means my software does no longer offer its intended functionality, too bad: apparently I have reinvented the wheel. For instance, a patent regarding a device to capture small rodents does not cover the purpose of the device, which is to capture rodents. If I can find a way to capture rodents without using a device, I'm okay. If, however, the whole concept of capturing small rodents is patented, I've got a problem, yes. I'd go for the slightly bigger rodents then. ;-) The biggest problem is this, I think: I can still be forced to pay up even if everyone involved agrees I was not aware of any infringement, and even if I rewrite the offending code.
(Log in to post comments)
patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties Posted Aug 6, 2004 17:36 UTC (Fri) by riel (subscriber, #3142) [Link] Of course I can always rewrite the code so that it no longer infringes <insert favourite patent>That is not true at all. Patents lock down concepts, not implementation. If somebody holds a patent on using a patent on "Selling things over a network using a server, client and payment processor, or using a client and a server" (EP803105 and EP738446), then it is impossible for anybody to avoid infringing the patent by rewriting the code... For more details, see http://webshop.ffii.org/ Of course, pretty much every software patent is about patenting a concept, not an implementation. Saying that patents should cover specific implementations doesn't apply either, since implementations are already protected by copyright. Really, there is no argument for software patents (unless you're a patent lawyer).
patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties Posted Aug 6, 2004 22:32 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] That's true of the new breed of "business method" patents, which never should have been allowed, but it isn't true of most patents, which are specific enough that it's often possible to come up with an alternative approach that doesn't hit the claims.
patents are a bigger threat to free software because we can't pay royalties Posted Aug 7, 2004 4:25 UTC (Sat) by stomfi (guest, #10602) [Link] If I have a new macro idea, which includes all sorts of other commongeneral usage ideas, and patent the macro idea, does this mean that predators can patent any part of it? And what happens if the idea is common to any kind of communication and interaction, including vocal face to face and written. Will we see patents on say the idea of pen pals? The biggest problem I see is how to have a world wide patent on anything as a monopolistic predator could take out patents in all the countries that one hasn't marketed a product to yet.
|
|
||||||||||||