Server Help :: View topic - Is it me or has Software Patents gone over the edge?

Server Help

Trash Talk - Is it me or has Software Patents gone over the edge?

CypherJF - Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:32 pm
Post subject: Is it me or has Software Patents gone over the edge?

"Google filed a patent application for targeted advertising in RSS feeds about a year and a half ago. The USPTO has now assigned it a number and placed it online. The patent application covers both targeting in RSS feeds and geotargeting by IP address. It gives some insight into how Google's ad servers work."

It sounds as good as Microsoft's Patent for the conversion of an "object" to XML schema.

Amazon has recently applied/received patents regarding web services, consumer recommendations based on online purchases, etc.

So I pose this question, has software patents in the US gone over the edge? Does this mean anything for Open Source developments (are they more likely to be sued?)? What does this mean for private developers who aren't part of a large corp. who can pay license-fees for these patents? Just some rhetorical questions.

Just more things in life to watch your back for - I guess, eh?

Maverick - Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Post subject:

Such a good thing Europe rejected the Patent law.

I don't think any organization would sue open source groups because they exist out of widespread (anonymous) people and they don't have any worthwhile assets or money.

Heh, you should read my research I made for college, it covers all of these subjects. "Would Software Patents be a threat to Open Source?"

Bak - Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:47 pm
Post subject:

Yeah they have. The things they're coming up with (targeted advertising, algorithms) aren't new revloutionary discoveries, and shouldn't be capable of being patented.

Maverick - Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:48 pm
Post subject:

Well you can only request a patent over inventions, not over already existing or known technologies.

Cyan~Fire - Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:17 pm
Post subject:

We just need intelligent patent officials, the law doesn't need to be changed. It's not as if you can write a law that says "You may only patent revolutionary discoveries" because you could never define what "revolutionary" really means.

Mine GO BOOM - Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:29 pm
Post subject:

Maverick wrote:

Well you can only request a patent over inventions, not over already existing or known technologies.

Actually, that isn't true. As of a bunch of years ago, the patent office's funding has been cut really badly. Thus, its cheaper for them to not research prior art and instead let the courts deal with it. So even for things like the one-click-shopping Amazon had, they didn't care and just gave them a patent. The courts had to work it out to show prior art.

With software patents, most of them truely are pretty stupid. But the idea is, the patent office doesn't have the funding to research patents, so they just let almost any go through. Remember, they get more fees for patents that pass.

Bak - Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:10 am
Post subject:

But we end up paying for it many times fold in the courts. The money's all coming from the same place.

Smong - Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:37 pm
Post subject:

I heard you don't have to get a patent for up to 3 years after you thought of something. There was some dispute about the chicken run movie and a similar book some other guy had written.

Mr Ekted - Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:50 pm
Post subject:

Let's say I invent a complete cure for AIDS/Cancer. I patent it. Patents exist to allow me to profit from my invention. I sell it at $1 million per dose. So only rich people can afford it, but I get filthy rich. Sound fair? No. Why? Because patents are there to help society. If the above scenario ever happened, you better bet that the law would change overnight.