Forum Moderators: open
The list of defendants includes many high-profile companies inside and outside the tech world: Adobe Systems, Amazon, Apple, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, Go Daddy, Google, J.C. Penney, JPMorgan Chase, Office Depot, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises, Staples, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Yahoo, and YouTube
Berners-Lee said the award would wipe out millions and billions of web pages from the history of the web as Eolas had decided to use their ownership of patent '906 to actively sue Microsoft and to profit from the patent, breaking something - the web - he helped create.
If this lawsuit is upheld by the courts what are the wider consequences for the web in general? The patent is very vague, and refers to almost any program that can be embedded within a web page or web document. The fact that Berners-Lee has got involved in this goes to show the cases importance.
Could this case go on to effect how we can use embedded programs within web applications? One such example used within the context of the Cnet article was Ajax.
Mack.
An analogy that springs to mind is the common three point seat belt that is fitted to just about every car on the road. It was invented by Volvo and they deliberatly never patented it because it would be to the greater good, if it was to be widely available.
We need more of that and less money grabbers.
Mack.
the only people who gain from this fiasco are the patent lawyers ..win or lose ..they pass via the bank ..they do not work no win no fee or pro bono ..
The patent is very vague
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with software patents. Problems seem to arise because patent offices don't understand software, and so are not qualified to determine whether an application is valid or not. And that's true of judges too!
I'm also going to be blunt and say that most webmasters don't understand software either. For every programmer that actually contributes to the technology behind the internet, there are probably over ten thousand webmasters with varying degrees of knowledge but nothing approaching that of the programmers that have made it all work. Webmasters are merely users of the technology, they are not creators of it. That's even true of those that write fairly complex scripts - there's a world of difference between writing a script and writing an interpreter that executes it.
Kaled.
Software is a method of manipulating the state of transistors to achieve a desired effect. If we must* grant patents on software, then those patents need to be treated as patents on methods, and not as patents on devices.
Very different methods can be used to achieve the same end result.
* I have never thought that allowing patents on software was a good idea. At best people should be able to have copy rights on algorithms and on source code.
1) They are not needed: software advanced at least as fast before it was patentable. This applies to many other types of patents as well, maybe patents in general (a number of economists have studied the effects of patents).
2) Software is already covered by copyright, and it can be kept a trade secret (by not releasing source code). Adding patents to this gives software a unique position.
3) many, if not most software patents cover either algorithms (maths) or some sort of standard interface such as a protocol or a file format (hindering inter-operability).
4) Software patents have a track record of being mis-used (e.g. the model railway software case).
5) They add significantly to the cost of development and the risks or deployment.
6) They tilt the field in favour of big business and against (usually more innovative) small start-ups, especially when the big boys enter into cross-licensing agreements.
Webmasters are merely users of the technology, they are not creators of it.
Although I depend on other people's software, that I could not write myself, it is almost* entirely open source and therefore written by developers who do not want patents.
Also, if you want an efficient free market economy, consumers come first, so our interests should trump those of developers.
*I have flash and realplayer installed on my desktop, and one of my websites uses Cpanel.
[edited by: graeme_p at 8:22 am (utc) on Oct. 8, 2009]
You do not even have to have a clue how this will exactly work or develop the software. You can just sit down, wait five years until someone puts this into practice and then start a lawsuit.
The problem with software patents is, that you do not even have to program a working software...
Software patents are a bad idea:1) They are not needed: software advanced at least as fast before it was patentable.
IRRELEVANT : This is not about what is good for the industry, it's about human rights. Also, as a proposition, it's questionable.
2) Software is already covered by copyright, and it can be kept a trade secret (by not releasing source code). Adding patents to this gives software a unique position.
NONSENSE : All technology can be protected by secrecy - software is not unique in that regard. As for copyright - that applies to implementation of methods not the methods themselves.
3) Many, if not most software patents cover either algorithms (maths) or some sort of standard interface such as a protocol or a file format (hindering inter-operability)
However, contrast this with jpeg compression. The file format is arbitrary and therefore should not be patentable. However, the maths and methods used to create the data that is stored in the file are complex and certainly not obvious therefore these should be patentable. But, having now fully defined the file format, any decent programmer could devise a method of unpacking the data therefore no patents should be granted for this. So, to summarise, a jpeg viewer such as a browser would NOT need to pay patent royalties, but a jpeg creator would.
Only experienced programmers are qualified to make adjudications on the validity of software patents. If such programmers existed in patent offices and legislatures around the world, few problems would arise.
Kaled.
