|
Authored by: nuthead on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
Show me an original invention- thought up, designed and
developed completely in a vacuum, without relying on ANY
ideas someone else came up with and I'll show you an
invention that deserves a patent.
When you get down to it, EVERYONE draws on the "hard work" of
others.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
They are commonly referred to as trolls. They stake a claim, any claim will do,
and claim that you trespass on their property.
Since the cost of defending yourself against even the most bogus claims is so
high, you can effectively extort hard-earned money from someone else.
Given that there is hardly any area where patents work, abolishing them
altogether to stop the extortion is closer to fair than keeping patents alive. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
Even patents don't grant ultimate control.
While some patent
attorney's have argued that:
a "process of entering 1 + 1 = into a
calculator to get the result" is patentable
That certainly doesn't mean
someone using a calculator to perform math should be considered to be "reap[ing]
the benefit of the hard work of others without paying for it".
I do
believe that part of the Sanity of Patent Law still allows someone to properly
purchase a patented invention (the calculator) and then use it free of any other
claims of licensing for the task(s) it was built for:
Process math
formulas!
A third party that comes along later and tries to lay claim to a
specific math formula (or more generic math formula) applied to the calculator
is the one that's in the wrong. And in my very humble opinion, the
USPTO1 is doubly wrong for having granted the patent.
The
individual who purchased said device is not the one to be accused of
wrong-doing.
Some day, I hope the Supreme's finally realize that
programming a computer with software is nothing more then using a calculator.
Even better would be if the Politicians understood that.
It's only the
deliberate obfuscation that the Patent Lawyers themselves bring into the picture
that causes software to be so complex that it's magical.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
It seems some would rather focus on the context:
whether or not you can
do [legally] anything you want with things you buy
Obviously you can't. If
you murder someone with your vehicle - running them down - you can be convicted
of murder.
I do not condone taking the Law into one's own hands except in
the most of extreme circumstances. For example:
I frown on people who
choose to deliberately speed
and to outline an extreme where taking the Law
into your own hands would be justified:
If I had been a German under the
leadership of Hitler and was given the order to kill people in a camp just
because - I'd like to think I'd have chosen to be just as civilized as I am
today and reject such an order - instead, turning and fighting against what
Hitler presented as the future - to follow through with the orders is the far
greater crime to humanity then disobeying such a Law as requires you to follow
the orders
Is someone justified in jail breaking their phone? Prior to the
Legal decision that made it Legal, I said no. I agreed they should have that
right, but I didn't agree with the choice to do it regardless of what Copyright
Law and the DMCA changes to same said. But then the Law was changed and
jailbreaking was made Legal!
So to put my belief simply: illegal things
should not be done - there are generally very good reasons for the
Law.
However, that doesn't mean Bad Laws don't happen. Rosa Parks fought such a
Law.
And there are many ways to fight one views as bad Law. I choose
intelligent discussion. Some choose to officially rebel against the Law as Rosa
Parks did. Others choose to rebel against the Law not so openly as many people
do when they choose to speed.
And therein lies the current state of
Patent Law and how it seems to be getting applied today:
Some view Patent
Law itself as bad and so they fight it
Some view at least part of the
application of Patent Law as bad and so fight those inappropriate
applications
Some view the decisions made on what to patent ad bad and
so they fight that
Some view Patent Law as not extending far enough and
so they fight for that
And no - just because some of us fight the current
state of Patent Law, just because some of us fight against what some would like
Patent Law to become:
That doesn't inherently make us bad
people!
Freedom of speech allows me to voice my opinion that:
The
process "enter 1 + 1 = in a calculator" should never be considered patentable
subject matter!
Fighting bad law is a concept that is allowed in civilized
Society. How you fight it, may or may not be illegal!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|