This isn't validation - but it may be corruption.
This isn't validation - but it may be corruption.
Posted Mar 20, 2009 17:28 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784)In reply to: This isn't validation - but it may be corruption. by k3ninho
Parent article: FFII: EPO seeks to validate software patents without the European Parliament
Insofar as patents offer new start-ups a way to keep innovation actually happening, they have to be accepted as a good way to artificially control markets. Imagine the situation where a new start-up had no legal recourse to stop an incumbent from stealing their idea and running them out of the game by force of pre-existing wealth? Where would potentially game-changing developments be used -- except for being hidden away while competition dies and techniological progress stagnates?
Can you point to any "game-changing developments" employed by start-up companies that were successfully protected by patents? Most of the time, the hard work involved with such a development is in the execution, not thinking up the idea. And ideas shouldn't be patentable, anyway.
Contrary to your suggestion, patent attorneys are parasites who need their supporting businesses to pay them to do the job: if it's bad for software people, then it's bad for attorneys working on software patents (and to be clear, I say that patents for computer programs are granted but I don't believe that patents should be enforceable for computer programs).
I thought I was giving quite a clear impression that I actually regard the patent business as parasitic. However, if someone told patent attorneys (and friends) that software isn't patentable, they would probably still find ways of dressing it up to look patentable, so although this might protect software developers, there might still be a threat to solution developers, and the money would presumably keep coming in from anyone willing to pay for such patents.
And there are plenty of other domains besides software where the subject matter shouldn't be patentable, either. For software developers, if someone ruins the profession in order to make some money for themselves, it's quite inconvenient to find another line of work. For the patent business, one wonders how inconvenient it is to switch attention to another industry once one has stripped the carcass of the last one that needed "protection" for its innovations.
Posted Mar 21, 2009 16:19 UTC (Sat)
by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375)
[Link] (1 responses)
You've got confused. The patent allows you to stop a competitor from exploiting your development, and thus provides protection from a bigger competitor muscling you out of the market. Examples of game-changing developments whose patents helped their start-up companies become successes include Akamai's content delivery and Google's PageRank (and extensions to Google searches like the 'define:' search method). I cite these examples well aware that growing a business is far more than having a patent -- but having a patent stops the business you have worked to grow from being undercut by competitors who can afford loss-leaders.
Posted Mar 22, 2009 1:47 UTC (Sun)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
I'm aware of the theory, but what's to stop the bigger competitor from threatening you with their patent portfolio, anyway? And PageRank looks like a prime example of something which shouldn't be patentable, although it's interesting to note the patent's origins, suggesting some reasons as to why the subject matter isn't a trade secret, like a lot of other Google technology.
This isn't validation - but it may be corruption.
This isn't validation - but it may be corruption.
You've got confused. The patent allows you to stop a competitor from exploiting your development, and thus provides protection from a bigger competitor muscling you out of the market.