Northeastern sues Google over search patent

TalkBack 7 of 35:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

You've got that one wrong.

"What possible reason could anyone have for removing patent rights on software other than for getting something for nothing?"

"Patents protect the rights of people who spent a significant portion of their life to creating something"

ARE YOU KIDDING? That may be the case in other fields, such as medicine and aeronautics, fields that spend millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to create one new product, but in software, that is rarely the case.

If you read the comments again, the problem is not that someone patented something and then someone else used it. The problem is that the company that patented it usually sits around, knowing all along about a supposed violation, just letting the violator grow revenues. Then, when the time is right, they pop up out of the woodwork and cry foul.

I highly doubt that any of these people or companies spent a "significant portion of their life" creating these concepts. Granted, the one in question here does sound substantial. But the fact that they sat on it for almost 10 YEARS makes it a moot point.

I don't believe in software patents simply due to the nature of the business. But, if everyone insists on keeping them around, they should expire in 3 years, non-renewable, and infringement suits must be filed within 1 year of obvious violation. In this case, Google's supposed violation would've been obvious in 1999, if not sooner. Also, why aren't other search engines being named? Is Google the only one using distributed database computing? I doubt it. They just happen to be the juicest target whose core business is search.

I don't blame Google for not finding the patent. The patent office is a complete mess. It's so cryptic and filled with crap that it would take a team of lawyers extensive amounts of time to dig through the trash to see if there's anything close to the concept at hand. Even after spending millions of dollars trying to cover your butt, there's still no guarantee that a patent holder won't jump up and sue you while your back is turned.

So, the argument is not "entirely worthless". Patents should protect people's work, but not to the point where they can sit on their butt for eternity and wait for someone they can extort later. Extortion is illegal, but software patents make it legal. No other industry has this problem. Therefore, software patents either need reform or be abolished entirely.

Posted by: AbbydonKrafts   Posted on: 11/13/07 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

• INNOV8 2.0: A Business Process Management Simulator IBM Innovate your business' process model, play against the market, compete ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now