IBM offers 500 patents for open-source use

TalkBack 32 of 127:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Not really: >>>As for your mention of MS in your reply, it seems that you believe everyone should take sides. I am not pro this company or pro that company. In fact my company is totally an IBM shop...<<<

Actually its the opposite. Its the fact most seem to take sides, and usually go to extremes, that I mentioned MS.

It was more of a pro-active comment since sooner of later it will come up. Someone is going to make some comment about how IBM is patenting everything, including the kitchen sink. I just reminded that someone that MS is also doing the same thing. Its not a choose sides thing. The only side I consider myself to be on is the side of anti-FUD, regardless of who creates it. You will probably see many more anti-MS FUD posts from me. That's simply because MS generally creates many more opportunities to be anti-FUD. Look long enough and you will see me going after the OSS zealots as well.

IMHO the patenting of software should have never begun. Since it is here then it should be as stringent as the patenting of hardware. I've researched patent infringement cases on hardware where the items in dispute did the same thing but, since one was slightly different there was no infringement. You won't see that with software since software patents seem to cover ideas rather than a specific, narrowly defined implementation of that idea.

Lawyers lack the competence to make decisions on software patents. Most think DOS and Disc Operating System are entirely different things.

I have no doubt that companies are using software patents as offensive and defensive weapons now. I think initially software patents were used the same as patents on mechanical devices. That is, to protect the inventors product since software patents originally had to be part of a system that included the mechanical apparatus as well. More recent court decisions have corrupted that into this: Since the software turns the computer into a special function device then the computer does not have to be an integral part of the invention. The software makes it an integral part of the invention. I believe that to be an overly broad interpretation.

Plaintiffs and prosecutors favor broad interpretations. Defendants in civil cases, equity cases and criminal cases generally hope for narrow interpretations. It seems the USPTO has opted for the broadest interpretation possible, giving the defendants in such actions very little wiggle room. It is much easier to prevail as the defendant in a patent infringement case when a mechanical device is at issue than when software is at issue.

My hope it that more people are able to see the problems with software patents and actually do something about it. I have several dozen letters from Senators and Representatives in response to writing to complain about something. All are standard form letters and I doubt any of the politicians personally read my letters. That does not matter. What matters is that there is a staff memmber in that office that separates the letters into pro and con stacks. That is the gauge the representatives have on the general feelings of their constituents. My single letter does nothing. 100,000 letters that are put into the same stack as my letter might. The point being that we all have access to our elected representatives, though not as we once did, and we should all use that access to let them know what we think. People won't take the time to write letters. How do they expect anything will change?

I could go on for hours about the apathy I see in American citizens and their complete lack of interest in our government. Its SUPPOSED to be OUR government but nobody seems to care. But I shall not.

Enough electrons used. End now.; Posted by: AmusedAtItAll Posted on: 01/12/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use