PDA

View Full Version : Stupid patents



mikebartnz
06-11-2004, 12:27 AM
The Yanks are allowing some of the most stupid patents out. Try this (http://news.com.com/Amazon+sued+over+book+recommendations/2100-1030_3-5439238.html?tag=nefd.hed) for size.

alphazulusixeightniner
06-11-2004, 01:36 AM
Anyone know about the patent that got let through that patents the shopping basket feature on e-commerce sites?

Who are the idiots that let these things happen?

Murray P
06-11-2004, 10:56 AM
> Who are the idiots that let these things happen?

These absolute morons in the good old US of A (http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html).

At the moment the Europeans are deliberating on providing the same ability to patent software, art and other nefarious ideas along the same lines, with the drive coming from American corporations. The Public Patent Foundation (http://pubpat.org/index.html) is trying to stem the tide with some success but too little too late.

But hey, it's only businesses trying to support their shareholders, so who should really give a rats :)

Cheers Murray P

mikebartnz
08-11-2004, 12:07 AM
And yet another one here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/05/dell_e-commerce_patent_clash/)

andrew93
08-11-2004, 09:39 AM
And it just (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943017/posts) gets worse and worse (http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-34090)

mister harbies
08-11-2004, 09:59 AM
Did you know that Apple Computers invented the mouse, but decided not to patent it because they did not think it was useful.

Big Mistake, so now they patent everything, and I mean everything. There was a website with all the stupid apple patents, but who can blame them, they don't want to make another mistake.

I think now, because people relised they should have patented something, everything is patented and everyone guards it like crazy, because you never know that it could be big money.

Imagine the profits for Apple if they patented the mouse, or if they refused to let MS use the mouse. We might be using trackwheels.


Mister Harbies

Graham L
08-11-2004, 03:21 PM
Would have been a good deal for Apple, especially as the mouse was invented at Xerox. :D

I like the Australian who patented the wheel. He did it to show the stupidity of the system now the world is full of lawyers and managers who would rather make money in the courts than by creating useful products. (It's a bit like boat racing. :D).

mister harbies
08-11-2004, 03:37 PM
Apple invented it but found no use for it. Xerox used the idea and used it. Apple missed out. Xerox spreaded it. The world changed. Apple changed and now patent everything. :D

Graham L
08-11-2004, 03:45 PM
Xerox built the Alto in 1972-3. Steve Jobs visited their Palo Alto labs in 1979 and used a GUI and mouse on the Lisa, then on the Macintosh.

Xerox invented a lot of things which didn't bring them monetary return.

The laser printer was a Xerox invention.

Murray P
08-11-2004, 05:42 PM
The point of the current crop of 'bad' patents is that they are for software not devices or machines.

If you can patent software why not a song, a book or a movie or even closer to what they are doing; a philosophical thought technique, the thought processes that trigger the movement you make to indicate left or right when you are driving?

The likes of Xerox missing the boat with a really good piece of engineering innovation wasn't all that uncommon, but there were new inventions coming thick and fast all the time. I have no figures to back it up, but my feeling is that that isn't happening so much now. Money is going into 'enhancement', -->marketing and litigation, not engineering or basic research. Lazy, greedy people will get some short term gain, then what?

As a symptom, I reakon that pretty soon Moore's law is going to get a kick back towards earth if things don't change.

Cheers Murray P

TonyF
08-11-2004, 05:56 PM
I think Murray P had it right in an earlier post, where he said :-
"But hey, it's only businesses trying to support their shareholders, so who should really give a rats"

I agree that the US Patent Office has passed some odd items, but it is all about protecting your patch these days.

If your crafty lawyers can see a way of blocking a competitor, then why not ?

Pity.

Cheers Tony

metla
08-11-2004, 06:15 PM
I think his "rats" comment was a tounge in cheek jab at an earlier discusion where persons unremembered stated companies where immune to sociaties wish for moral behaviour,and that the shareholders opinion was all that mattered....

Murray P
08-11-2004, 06:15 PM
> I think Murray P had it right in an earlier post,
> where he said :-
> "But hey, it's only businesses trying to support
> their shareholders, so who should really give a
> rats"
>
> I agree that the US Patent Office has passed some odd
> items, but it is all about protecting your patch
> these days.
>
> If your crafty lawyers can see a way of blocking a
> competitor, then why not ?
>
> Pity.
>
> Cheers Tony


I was being a bit sarcastic actually.

When you see lawyers touting for business or gaining rights to patents just to pursue them to their own end, something is seriously wrong with the system. I repeat, it's not devices/inventions that we are talking about being patented here, it's idea's and, in may cases abstract ideas that can and will never be made in into something and further, it is more often than not prior art, ie something that is already in common usage, that is being patented.

Of course people will take advantage of a system that allows that, however, it serves no useful purpose, does not advance anything or protect an "inventor" as the patent system was devised to do, all it does is add another layer of unnecessary cost, redirects funds from research and legitimat profits into defence and stifles innovation.

Why not rely on copyright, after all, that's what it is for?

Cheers Murray P

drb1
08-11-2004, 08:16 PM
> Did you know that Apple Computers invented the mouse,
> but decided not to patent it because they did not
> think it was useful.
>
> Big Mistake, so now they patent everything, and I
> mean everything. There was a website with all the
> stupid apple patents, but who can blame them, they
> don't want to make another mistake.
>
> I think now, because people relised they should have
> patented something, everything is patented and
> everyone guards it like crazy, because you never know
> that it could be big money.
>
> Imagine the profits for Apple if they patented the
> mouse, or if they refused to let MS use the mouse. We
> might be using trackwheels.
>
>
> Mister Harbies

you must check the mouse was invented/created by either zerox or one of the other large US printer/coppier companies, and stolen by M/s and apple because the developing corp saw no use for it.

mister harbies
09-11-2004, 12:02 AM
I actually read this information about apple's mistakes not patenting stuff. One of their mistakes was not patenting the mouse, so if they had the right to patent the mouse, they invented it.

Maybe I mis-read it?

Whichever way we take it, Microsoft can't take the credit. :D


Mister Harbies

drb1
09-11-2004, 12:08 AM
> I actually read this information about apple's
> mistakes not patenting stuff. One of their mistakes
> was not patenting the mouse, so if they had the right
> to patent the mouse, they invented it.
>
> Maybe I mis-read it?
>
> Whichever way we take it, Microsoft can't take the
> credit. :D
>
>
> Mister Harbies


For shure, appel could have patented it, if they acknoweledged the intulectuall origin, because the original developer saw it as junk.

That was at the beginning of the patent rights, as income game. M/S were a lot quicker out of the hole.

D.

Murray P
09-11-2004, 12:30 AM
MS used to be against Patenting software, instead espousing copyright as enough and the correct method of protection. It's only when they saw the likes of IBM secure their future by holding their, and others IP close with the use of patents that they got into the act with a vengeance.

As far as the mouse goes, if nobody had patented it previously and it wasn't already in general use then anyone can step up and patent it as a new invention.

Some big corporations have made great use of lax patent law and patent office standards lately, which is smart thinking on their part but, it is to the detriment of business invention in general. Why? Why pay for expensive R&D if you can corner a market with patents by buying up companies or their IP and sit back and collect the dues.

The problem with that approach is that it needs big bucks in the first place (to secure in USA & Europe, where it counts). If you, as a small player patent a great new device, for eg, and some lawyer rich multinational infringes on your patent, they just tie you up in court for the next ten years, if your money lasts that long, and carry on regardless.

That's how, particularly in the software field, it stifles innovation and competition.


Cheers Murray P

drb1
09-11-2004, 12:37 AM
>
> The problem with that approach is that it needs big
> bucks in the first place (to secure in USA & Europe,
> where it counts). If you, as a small player patent a
> great new device, for eg, and some lawyer rich
> multinational infringes on your patent, they just tie
> you up in court for the next ten years, if your money
> lasts that long, and carry on regardless.
>
> That's how, particularly in the software field, it
> stifles innovation and competition.
>
>
> Cheers Murray P

Oh so true.

~ Like music, progress in software is dependent on the ideas that have gone before. The creative and innovative part is not the ideas themselves, necessarily, but the particular combinations that make up the whole. Patent the component ideas, and no one can write anything new.~ (Richard Stallman)

D.

~Patenting software is like patenting the text of a book. Neither is necessary to protect Intellectual Property~ (Unknown)

Murray P
09-11-2004, 01:29 AM
And another possible brand spanking innovative idea or 3 (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19526) about to be awarded to their rightful new owner's??

Cheers Murray P

Laura
09-11-2004, 02:05 AM
A journalistic beat-up or a joke, surely?
Or so one would hope...)

mikebartnz
09-11-2004, 08:51 AM
> A journalistic beat-up or a joke, surely?
> Or so one would hope...)
No :(