Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Nabil
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 years ago
in How Not to Argue for Software Patents on The Technology Liberation Front
Jack,
Point taken about patent trolls, there should be a special place in hell for them. And, as I said in my post, I do fundamentally agree that the software patent system is broken. The way the patents are granted around such tiny minutia is ridiculous. But I do think there is a place for patents in software. If for nothing else than to help small software companies protect against the big guys stealing IP after in-depth technical demos or partnership/acquisition related due diligence. I just believe the bar needs to be MUCH higher to get a patent approved. As I re-read Tim's post (and since I am new to the site) I am not sure if he is against all patents in software or just the state of the patent system as it is today.
As for Microsoft, well they are Microsoft, what can I say. And while I have been out of software for a few months I still think the vast majority of software companies don't use patents aggressively but no doubt with the way the system is today that could change.
On the graphic, the comment was partially in jest. But it is very visually similar to soviet images, including that famous propaganda play about the rights of the worker (that I can't for the life of me remember the name of). I did not get the connection between the graphic and the content on the site (especially since the Tim used to be with the Cato Institute) so I was just wondering if it was a coincidence or there was some point.
Point taken about patent trolls, there should be a special place in hell for them. And, as I said in my post, I do fundamentally agree that the software patent system is broken. The way the patents are granted around such tiny minutia is ridiculous. But I do think there is a place for patents in software. If for nothing else than to help small software companies protect against the big guys stealing IP after in-depth technical demos or partnership/acquisition related due diligence. I just believe the bar needs to be MUCH higher to get a patent approved. As I re-read Tim's post (and since I am new to the site) I am not sure if he is against all patents in software or just the state of the patent system as it is today.
As for Microsoft, well they are Microsoft, what can I say. And while I have been out of software for a few months I still think the vast majority of software companies don't use patents aggressively but no doubt with the way the system is today that could change.
On the graphic, the comment was partially in jest. But it is very visually similar to soviet images, including that famous propaganda play about the rights of the worker (that I can't for the life of me remember the name of). I did not get the connection between the graphic and the content on the site (especially since the Tim used to be with the Cato Institute) so I was just wondering if it was a coincidence or there was some point.
3 years ago
in How Not to Argue for Software Patents on The Technology Liberation Front
I agree with you in principle. Most software patents are actually a bit absurd . The patent system for software is beyond broken. Probably for other industries too but I used to work in software so I can speak to that.
However, most big software companies have traditionally used patents defensively to protect against getting sued instead of as a weapon to squash competitors. Because everyone holds so many patents on such obscure little things it is almost impossible not to be violating someone elses patents. So if Oracle sued SAP for violating a patent, SAP would just find a few that Oracle was violating and counter sue. They would settle, pay each other off and the lawyers get to make lots of money (or work absurdly long hours if you are an in house lawyer). A far bigger impediment to competition in software markets like SAPs is a lack of standards and extremely complex software that the installed base cant rip out.
I also dont really think it is acurate to say "thats the way it goes in most other industries". It seems that most other intellectual property industries have extensive patent and copyright protections.
One last question: Is the graphic at the top intended to invoke thoughts of the soviet union? Or is that just me?
However, most big software companies have traditionally used patents defensively to protect against getting sued instead of as a weapon to squash competitors. Because everyone holds so many patents on such obscure little things it is almost impossible not to be violating someone elses patents. So if Oracle sued SAP for violating a patent, SAP would just find a few that Oracle was violating and counter sue. They would settle, pay each other off and the lawyers get to make lots of money (or work absurdly long hours if you are an in house lawyer). A far bigger impediment to competition in software markets like SAPs is a lack of standards and extremely complex software that the installed base cant rip out.
I also dont really think it is acurate to say "thats the way it goes in most other industries". It seems that most other intellectual property industries have extensive patent and copyright protections.
One last question: Is the graphic at the top intended to invoke thoughts of the soviet union? Or is that just me?
