Group seeks to invalidate Microsoft patent

TalkBack 30 of 188:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Patents, copyrights, good; duration BAD

What we seem to fail to realize is that the "durations" for copyrights and patents were assigned many years ago, when the genetic evolution of technology happened in a longer cycle. Think about it. Most patents 50 years ago were for THINGS, concrete things that we would use, like a little garden spade (one of those 6" long shovels), things that were manufactured. Remember that our lifeblood as an economy during that time was MANUFACTURING, and it took awhile design and layout manufacturing lines and equipment. By the time something was patented (the exclusive right to produce and market a "thing") and brought on line for manufacturing, they were 3-5 years into the 15-17 year cycle. Copyrights had a similar duration. they were tied to a manufacturing cycle. Our technological DNA was manufacturing, and that assigned durations for patents and copyrights were consistent with that product cycle and the ability to market and make a profit over that life cycle.

Nowadays, our tech DNA is software, it is used in computers to control equipment that can re-configure and produce a product line in much, much less time. We use software to design motherboards/circuit boards and computer controlled equipment to manfacture them. Our evolution as a society is now based on a technology that can evolve and mutate on a daily basis.

What value is there in imposing a 75 year old duration for exclusivity based on a 10-15 year product cycle? None, absolutely none.

If we impose a 17 year cycle of mid 20th century technology on the last ten years, we could come to the conclusion that we have actually evolved through probably 4 generations of technology, or about 70 years in the patent cycle. Something is amiss in Denmark...and the USA as well. The fact that a LOT of the software technology WASN'T patented over the past ten years was the driver for that evolution. Patents and copyrights do represent a revenue stream over the exclusive duration, and people, due to greed and drive for financial success want long lived revenue streams. SCO is an example of this, so is MS and their push to "rent" software to us.

Product cycles are what, 18 months to 3 years now? Well, the solution from my point of view would be to shorten the patent life cycle to that same cycle.

Which becomes an absurdity in the legal process. You see, US court procedures and rules of order are ALSO based on a much slower evolutionary cycle. Which is why firms like MS can "get away" with the acts of monopolism they do.

We need an overhaul of a LOT more than just patents and copyrights...

Posted by: markgros@...   Posted on: 04/17/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now