«

[MdaG]

What do you think about them? What are they good for? Let's not turn this into an anti copyright discussion, I'm talking about the possibility to patent an algorithm or similar, not owning your own creation, I hope you can see the difference?

[MdaG]

I don't like it either. There are "software" companies that only employ lawyer and buy up patents. They profit by finding companies that use patetented "ideas" and suing them. I also don't like that you can own an idea.

Patents were never intended to protect individuals (at least not in the beginning) even though many like to think that. Instead they were used to force people to be creative instead of using old ideas.

[Havell]

It's a good idea, but it must have it's limits. Copyrighting specfic pieces of (sufficiently complex) code should be allowed but not large concepts, for example, amazon copyrighted the whole concept of sending an e-mail to confirm a purchase from one of its stores. If you've seen this anywhere other than amazon then they are either using it under licence or are breaking the law.
Also, someone is trying to copyright prostitution it ther US, I think that's fairly bold myself. I don't think anyone's ever had the chutzpah to do it before.

[MdaG]

I'd rather companies use business secrets than patents. What if the Fourier transform was patented? thousands of inventions would never have come to be. Or what if the bike was patented? Or bread, or fusion? Copyright is a good thing, patent is a completely different thing. It's dangerous in my book. Dangerous the freedom of creative thinking.

[Havell]

Well some things are impossible to keep secret, say you were to patent something mechanical like a bike then to find out how it works all another business would have to do is buy one then examine how it works then start making whatever you're making.

[Quintopotere]

Originally posted by MdaG@Jun 24 2005, 09:55 AM
I'd rather companies use business secrets than patents. What if the Fourier transform was patented? thousands of inventions would never have come to be. Or what if the bike was patented? Or bread, or fusion? Copyright is a good thing, patent is a completely different thing. It's dangerous in my book. Dangerous the freedom of creative thinking.

I agree with you!

The problem is to find the right between protecting the interets and the work of a company that must gain something from its good work and the need of protecting the rights of all us to enjoy the achievements of the science!

[a1s]

I bvelive that software patents should exist but for a very short time (we're still talking some half a decade or so here, just not a 100 years) that way big companies can reap benifits from their work, while have to constantly improve to stay ahead of the competition.

[UnHoly]

I voted bad. Only big and rich companies will get teh patents and all the freeware stuff will propably diappear. Programmers should share good ideas with others, not to keep them for themselfs. If one person invents a good thing, but it isn't ideal another one would propably like it and try to improve it somehow to make it better and easier to use. With patents there won't be such a thing. Only guys from company that owns the patent will think about that thing. There wouldn't be so much good ideas. More people - more ideas. For example look at Linux. There are hundred of different versions. They a simmilar but somehow different. If a company owned patent to it it would be only one Linux versions, and in addition, not for free.

[Ioncannon]

Here is another bad story of patenets. Some guy created an algorithm of how to display 3d graphics, that games like wolf3d, doom, and even games today use. He forgot about the patent and remeber last year, SUEING Id, 3dRealms, Activision, EA, UbiSoft, and like 10 other companies.

[Danny252]

then they probably changed 2 lines of code and continued.