ProfessorOhki: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: ***snip***roc6783: I guess you are correct, it says hand-held device rather than computer.That latch stuck to a piece of wood IS a "hand-held device," given sufficiently small wood.
UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: FTFA: "In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.That's the very definition of broken.
roc6783: I guess you are correct, it says hand-held device rather than computer.
UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: tgambitg: He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.That right there is why it's broken you jackass....You're so correct that I inadvertently repeated your sentiment, so I "Smart"-ed your post in a display of solidarity. Sorry about the repeat. I'd "Dumb" my own post, if that were possible.
Theaetetus: Evil Twin Skippy: The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.This isn't correct. Patents don't cost any more to hold now than they did in the '90s, beyond some very minor increases in maintenance fees to keep pace with inflation. You certainly don't litigators to hold a patent.Now, to enforce a patent, you need some litigators, and yes, a couple guys in a garage can't really afford to front that cost... if only there were things like law firm contingency fees, or patent brokers, or lawsuit investors, or other such ways to pay for litigation, but since you have to pay every penny up front, I guess a tiny company like i4i can never afford to sue a giant company like Microsoft.They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating.That's not the intent of the patent system at all. It's all about encouraging public disclosure of inventions by eliminating the disincentives that encourage companies to keep trade secrets. And that's the same for small inventors and big industrialists.At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."... and? Who's going to spend half a million dollars to sue a guy making $50k from products he builds in his garage? Patent damages aren't punitive... the most you can get are 100% royalties, and in reality, you're going to be closer to 1%. Is DuPont really going to send a lawyer after you for $500? And, at that point, wouldn't you just pay it for a full license, knowing that they can't ever come after you again?There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"6 months.A year.How much are you willing to spend to keep spreading this FUD?The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled.Why should one industry be exempt from patentability, even for the most novel and nonobvious invention in the world?There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past.Bet you don't know what that reason is, or why it doesn't apply anymore.There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.What you don't realize is that the exact same argument has come up dozens of times in the past - airplanes are invented, and someone says "the entire airplane patent system needs to be dismantled." Television is invented, and someone says "the entire broadcasting patent system needs to be dismantled." Assembly line automation is invented, and someone says "the entire mechanical patent system needs to be dismantled." Why should computers be magically exempt?
Theaetetus: I don't understand the word metaphorical.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 24 2017 01:45:28
Runtime: 0.324 sec (324 ms)