5 ms·

>"The government can't just take property from someone, they have to pay for it." This made me laugh pretty hard. Licensing a "concept" is ridiculous and I do

by tmh88j 15y ago

>"The government can't just take property from someone, they have to pay for it." This made me laugh pretty hard. Licensing a "concept" is ridiculous and I don't know how people can get away with it. Suppose we came up with a very abstract definition of what constitutes a table, and the next time a company wants to design one they owe the inventor of the table a fee. Would that put it in perspective just how ridiculous patent trolls are? Arrival star made a device that keeps track of schedules. I can understand patenting their specific hardware, designs, etc..., but how can they claim that they invented the concept of scheduling, let alone that it is so unique that they are able to mark it as theirs? Hey, Arrival Star, it's called competition. If someone makes a similar device (without "stealing" your exact designs), don't cry about it. You need to one-up them or find a cheaper way to do it.

talmand 15y ago
But that's exactly what most software patents are, they don't really patent how to do something but cover the outcome or the concept. For instance, if someone invents a machine that takes a chunk of wood and makes a toy piano out of it can get a patent on the device. But someone else can invent a completely different, or even possibly slightly different, device that creates a similar toy piano and not infringe on the patent. But if it worked like software patents then it would be illegal for anyone to build little toy pianos, regardless of how, that are similar to the first patent on the concept. As an example, Apple has a patent on slide-to-unlock on a predetermined path. This means that no one can create a slide-to-unlock on their system even it has completely different code, graphics, design, etc, if the thing slides to unlock on a path. Apple owns the "concept" of sliding something along a predefined path for the purpose of unlocking a device. Even worse, I'm not sure such patents even say how it's done. It's like having a patent on a box with a button that pops out cupcakes when said button is pressed and declaring that no one ever again shall make a box that pops out cupcakes. Without ever having to bother to explain how said box works.
ktizo 15y ago
Well, he got away with it because the government was stupid enough to issue him this 'property' in the first place.

by tmh88j 15y ago

talmand 15y ago

But that's exactly what most software patents are, they don't really patent how to do something but cover the outcome or the concept. For instance, if someone invents a machine that takes a chunk of wood and makes a toy piano out of it can get a patent on the device. But someone else can invent a completely different, or even possibly slightly different, device that creates a similar toy piano and not infringe on the patent. But if it worked like software patents then it would be illegal for anyone to build little toy pianos, regardless of how, that are similar to the first patent on the concept. As an example, Apple has a patent on slide-to-unlock on a predetermined path. This means that no one can create a slide-to-unlock on their system even it has completely different code, graphics, design, etc, if the thing slides to unlock on a path. Apple owns the "concept" of sliding something along a predefined path for the purpose of unlocking a device. Even worse, I'm not sure such patents even say how it's done. It's like having a patent on a box with a button that pops out cupcakes when said button is pressed and declaring that no one ever again shall make a box that pops out cupcakes. Without ever having to bother to explain how said box works.

ktizo 15y ago

Well, he got away with it because the government was stupid enough to issue him this 'property' in the first place.