On TechRepublic: Why Linux will triumph over Windows
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 31 of 55:
Next »
« Previous
Re: Yes, it should...
Ask any pharm. company that spends billions on developing a formula for a new drug.

That's not a case for business process and software patents, which should be eliminated. All the patent disputes we hear about - IBM accusing Amazon of infringing one of its patents because Amazon's customers order from a catalog, for example, or NPT suing Blackberry - would not arise if the pharma model was followed in the software world.

A pharma company that develops a formula that cures the common cold has its formula protected. Let's say it uses animal proteins derived from pig saliva glands.

Another drug company is working on a cold cure that uses plant proteins derived from seaweed. It's still free to patent and introduce its different formula to cure the common cold.

They each have their formulations protected. That's legitimate. Getting protection for curing the cold? That's not legitimate.

That's how business process/software patents work. They would protect the act of curing the cold, as IBM's patent assertions attest. IBM owns "selling products out of a catalog," or at least it claims to do.

Cisco claims to own "bundling phone, data and video services" and has a patent to back it up - not a certain technology to do it, but doing it, period. That's no different than owning the concept of bundling a burger, fries and a shake because you've called it an "invention."

Business process and software patents should be eliminated. They tend overwhelmingly to simply tax the economy and not introduce news inventions.


happy


happy
Posted by: none none   Posted on: 11/27/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

"I was thinking about it."  Anton Philidor | 11/27/06
I think it's obvious... we need...  el1jones | 11/27/06
The best patent examiners...  Anton Philidor | 11/27/06
Obvious?  earlkaplan@... | 11/27/06
IP property law depend on parties defending their rights against others  lamp299 | 02/21/07
I think that shouldn't be patentable  voska | 11/27/06
In any field...  Anton Philidor | 11/27/06
Thing is people have  voska | 11/27/06
I would say...  Patrick Jones | 11/27/06
Airplanes  Yagotta B. Kidding | 11/27/06
Have to agree... spot on (nt)  el1jones | 11/27/06
But is that true???  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/27/06
However..  Patrick Jones | 11/27/06
Huh?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/27/06
That is the original point!  Patrick Jones | 11/28/06
Duh?  el1jones | 11/28/06
IP - should it be patentable  dhopp@... | 11/27/06
How about a 'tangible' test  l_g_johnson@... | 11/27/06
Ridiculous  wjkahlssmd@... | 11/27/06
i agree with your litmus test, but...  Been_Done_Before | 11/27/06
Are You A Programmer?  wjkahlssmd@... | 11/27/06
I think is was more a metaphore  John Zern | 11/27/06
I thought of that!!!!  wjkahlssmd@... | 11/27/06
as long as it's physical . . .  CobraA1 | 11/27/06
Unfair  SRipley | 11/27/06
Agreed  CobraA1 | 11/27/06
The iPOd???  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/27/06
They tried to patent their click wheel.  CobraA1 | 11/27/06
And oh, yeah . . .  CobraA1 | 11/27/06
Yes, it should...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/27/06
Re: Yes, it should...  none none | 11/27/06
The problem of "obvious" is "when".  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/27/06
There really is a simple solution to software patents.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/27/06
Re: There really is a simple solution to software patents.  none none | 11/27/06
There is no place for software patents  bitfuzzy | 11/27/06
agreed (nt)  CobraA1 | 11/27/06
The answer is obvious...  Ian Lewis | 11/27/06
valuable patent portfolio  Resuna | 11/27/06
Easy  Thore | 11/27/06
Obviousness  ESFabian | 11/27/06
Obviousness of Patents  stevem_001 | 11/27/06
Bogusoids gaming the system  NeutralityNow | 11/27/06
A reason stupid patents exist.  nm32help | 11/27/06
Patenting Software is like patenting math  davidsarmstrong | 11/27/06
Yes and no...  Allstar_z | 11/28/06
All patents must die [nt]  Omch'Ar | 11/27/06
Holy Smokes...  critique | 11/28/06
So a lab which develops a valuable idea...  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
However..  Patrick Jones | 11/28/06
Thanks!  critique | 11/28/06
Ideas too important to patent?  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
Woah Woah...  critique | 11/28/06
Oh Yeah....  critique | 11/28/06
I think we are being carried away by the "obviousness" test  lamp299 | 02/21/07
Freedom for the consumer  Dumber_z | 11/11/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here