If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ZDNet)   New Zealand to patent trolls: You shall not pass   (zdnet.com) divider line 13
    More: Hero, New Zealand, software patent, non-practicing entity, sop  
•       •       •

3404 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Aug 2013 at 6:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



13 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-28 04:31:12 PM  
Patent trifecta in play.

But before you break open the champagne, Subby, realize that this actually just moves New Zealand into line with the United States and Europe: software alone is unpatentable, but software embodied in a computer system is patentable. Basically, the same thing that the Supreme Court has said in the Bilski line of cases.
Specifically, as the bill's commentary says:
We received advice that our recommendation to include computer programs among the inventions that may not be patented would be unlikely to prevent the granting of patents for inventions involving embedded software.
 
2013-08-28 04:34:02 PM  
Oh, and sadly, this has nothing to do with trolls, unless Subby is using a new definition of "patent troll" that's covers anyone with software patents. There are no substantial changes to the infringement or remedies sections.
 
2013-08-28 04:43:04 PM  

Theaetetus: Oh, and sadly, this has nothing to do with trolls, unless Subby is using a new definition of "patent troll" that's covers anyone with software patents. There are no substantial changes to the infringement or remedies sections.


I know - I got all excited, and then I RTFA.  Very anti-climactic.
 
2013-08-28 05:13:56 PM  

Theaetetus: Oh, and sadly, this has nothing to do with trolls, unless Subby is using a new definition of "patent troll" that's covers anyone with software patents. There are no substantial changes to the infringement or remedies sections.


damn it

/not subby
 
2013-08-28 07:07:58 PM  
Not good enough.
 
2013-08-28 07:29:33 PM  
The problem with software patents is that they are mostly idea squatting. The company holding the patent has no intention of ever implementing it. They just use it to get revenue from or close down other companies which come up with an implementation of it.

Big software companies reward their employees for coming up with patent ideas. So you'll have a group of employees meet regularly and think up patentable ideas. They submit them to the company to be patented, although they have no intention of ever implementing them. The ideas don't have to be related to the company's products or anything like it. If the idea becomes a patent, the employees get a bonus ($500).  So you have lots of employees thinking of lots of patentable ideas. The company then has a huge patent war chest that it can use as leverage against other companies.

Software patents should have a very short lifespan if not brought to market. That way you couldn't have a company holding 1000 patents on variations of scroll bar behavior even though they don't actually produce any products which use custom scrollbars.
 
2013-08-28 09:44:30 PM  
No protection of intellectual property from that corner of the world. Utterly shocking.
 
2013-08-28 09:44:54 PM  

warrenn: The problem with software patents is that they are mostly idea squatting. The company holding the patent has no intention of ever implementing it. They just use it to get revenue from or close down other companies which come up with an implementation of it.


Respectfully, that's silly. You hypothesize a patent owner that doesn't make product - so therefore, they must make their oney on licensing - and then you say that they want to close down other companies? Where would their revenue come from?
Apple wants to close down Samsung. Same for Samsung towards Apple. But a patent troll wants neither to close - they want some percentage in royalty from both, and have both be successful. A parasite that kills its host is a dead parasite.
 
2013-08-28 10:46:08 PM  
Where the hell is the bill that lets the bailiff summarily execute patent trolls when they appear in the courthouse? At the very least shoot their ass with a taser and pump it until electricity arcs between their butt cheeks like a Jacob's ladder in a Frankenstein movie.
 
2013-08-29 12:24:31 AM  

warrenn: The problem with software patents is that they are mostly idea squatting. The company holding the patent has no intention of ever implementing it. They just use it to get revenue from or close down other companies which come up with an implementation of it.

Big software companies reward their employees for coming up with patent ideas. So you'll have a group of employees meet regularly and think up patentable ideas. They submit them to the company to be patented, although they have no intention of ever implementing them. The ideas don't have to be related to the company's products or anything like it. If the idea becomes a patent, the employees get a bonus ($500).  So you have lots of employees thinking of lots of patentable ideas. The company then has a huge patent war chest that it can use as leverage against other companies.

Software patents should have a very short lifespan if not brought to market. That way you couldn't have a company holding 1000 patents on variations of scroll bar behavior even though they don't actually produce any products which use custom scrollbars.


How do you prove they aren't trying to take it to market? All they have to do is say "we're trying" and show various meetings that were scheduled in Outlook. Maybe some sketches. And that's it.
 
2013-08-29 12:25:18 AM  

enik: No protection of intellectual property from that corner of the world. Utterly shocking.


Do you want to know how I know you didn't RTFA or this thread?
 
2013-08-29 01:20:39 AM  
A better change, one that would actually be viable and help business: just make the lifespan of a bought patent six months if not brought to market.

You have the patent for the the general idea of a touch-screen interface algorithm? Want to sue a startup making a touch screen device because they have IO code? Guess what, you have 180 days to utilize it or it goes tits up. On the other hand if you ARE a start up and you acquire this patent, you get the full original patent lifespan if you make a product incorporating it.

This would really only harm the patent trolls.
 
2013-08-29 10:31:40 AM  

doglover: A better change, one that would actually be viable and help business: just make the lifespan of a bought patent six months if not brought to market.

You have the patent for the the general idea of a touch-screen interface algorithm? Want to sue a startup making a touch screen device because they have IO code? Guess what, you have 180 days to utilize it or it goes tits up. On the other hand if you ARE a start up and you acquire this patent, you get the full original patent lifespan if you make a product incorporating it.

This would really only harm the patent trolls.


... and the pharmaceutical companies who are in FDA trials for years before they can bring a product to market.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report