Server Help

CypherJF

"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?
_________________
Performance is often the art of cheating carefully. - James Gosling

Maverick · Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:46 pm *Post maybe stupid* 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?"
_________________

Nickname: Maverick (I changed my name!)
TWCore developer | Subspace statistics

Bak · Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:47 pm *Post maybe stupid* 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.
_________________
SubSpace Discretion: A Third Generation SubSpace Client

Maverick · Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:48 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

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

Cyan~Fire · Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:17 pm *Post maybe stupid* 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.
_________________
This help is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. Cyan~Fire assumes no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
Wise men STILL seek Him.

Mine GO BOOM · Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:29 pm *Post maybe stupid* Post subject:

Bak · Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:10 am *Post maybe stupid* 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 · Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:37 pm *Post maybe stupid* 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 · Movie Geek Gender: Joined: Feb 09 2004 Posts: 1379 Offline

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.
_________________
4,691 irradiated haggis!