Microsoft, Oracle call for patent reform

TalkBack 11 of 17:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Solve a complicated system by adding more complication

I wonder who is driving patent policy at MS? I can?t believe such a level headed company would endorse the fundamental notion that it is okay for companies and individuals to own ideas. Patents seek to reward those who come up with ideas, and go through a process for monopolizing the use of those ideas. This is absurd! Congress should recognize the principle that ideas should never allowed to be owned: only the expression of ideas. It is with this understanding in mind, that Congress should pass IP laws. Trade secrets or copyrights and reverse engineering laws should replace patents, as this arrangement protects companies? investments, while allowing others to freely innovate without fear of legal repercussions, for inadvertently using someone else?s ideas.

Also, does MS really expect that adding more layers of complexity to a bureaucracy will improve the bureaucracy?

The following is a message I previously wrote:

Until recently, virtually everyone was satisfied with copyright to protect IP, and patents to protect the manufacture of physical items. Why is it okay now for, e.g. pharmaceutical companies, to rely on patents alone for property protection, while software companies are able to rely on both copyrights and patents? Also as I?ve said repeatedly, you just cannot apply patents to software and IP as you do to the manufacture of physical items, and expect roughly the same results: the two are very different animals. And beyond that, I?m not so sure that the patent is overall a good idea. I believe companies should rely on trade secrets and reverse engineering laws to guard their resources in both the non-IP an IP worlds. If a company e.g. comes up with a pencil sharpener that allows for two different types of sharpening, and this device is easy to clone, then let it be cloned. How is the advancement of science and arts negatively impacted by this? On the other hand, if a company invests a lot of money in developing a drug, the only the way the competition can clone it relatively quickly and cheaply, is to reverse engineer the drug or steal the company?s trade secrets on making the drug. Therefore if a company suspects a competitor of either reverse engineering its work, or stealing its trade secrets, it should be able to file a complaint with a government agency to look into the matter ? which should be able to spot a violation relatively quickly. This a lot cleaner than patents, and would improve competition, possibly allowing for more innovation and more opportunities in various industries, while guarding a company's investment at the same time.

I fundamentally cannot grasp why it is not okay, for two companies that invest heavily and come up with very similar products, and the market is able to support this, for both companies to continue operating without fear of being sued. Having trade secrets and reverse engineering laws do a much better job at guarding a company?s investment (and accomplishes the constitution?s goal of promoting arts and science) while at the same time not trampling another company?s right to engage in free and honest expression.

Posted by: P. Douglas   Posted on: 04/25/05 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

• Breaking DB2 Platform Barriers Quest Software Are you supporting DB2 on multiple platforms? In this Quest white paper ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now