Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 50903	2004-11-05 11:27:00	Stupid patents	mikebartnz (21)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
288297	2004-11-08 04:56:00	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	TonyF (246)
288298	2004-11-08 05:15:00	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....	metla (154)
288299	2004-11-08 05:15:00	> 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	Murray P (44)
288300	2004-11-08 07:16:00	> 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.	drb1 (4492)
288301	2004-11-08 11:02:00	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	mister harbies (5607)
288302	2004-11-08 11:08:00	> 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.	drb1 (4492)
288303	2004-11-08 11:30:00	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	Murray P (44)
288304	2004-11-08 11:37:00	> > 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)	drb1 (4492)
288305	2004-11-08 12:29:00	And another possible brand spanking innovative idea or 3 (www.theinquirer.net) about to be awarded to their rightful new owner's?? Cheers Murray P	Murray P (44)
288306	2004-11-08 13:05:00	A journalistic beat-up or a joke, surely? Or so one would hope...)	Laura (43)
1 2 3