3 ms·
Do no evil?
by shabda 18y ago
Do no evil?
- imp 18y agoOr at least protect their ass from those that are evil.
- shabda 18y agoYes, as patent trollling is a good way to do that. How is when Amazon tries to patent single click checkout, that is evil, but when your favorite company does the a frivolous patent, that is just protecting their ass? Also related read: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/09/reforming-patents-promoting-innovation.html http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/09/reforming-pat... (Google's official policy on patents.)
- alexandros 18y agoWithout going into the frivolity of each patent, let's not forget that Amazon has actually used their patent aggressively against Barnes and Noble. http://www.out-law.com/page-2424 http://www.out-law.com/page-2424
- pierrefar 18y agoIt can cut two ways: defensive patent or a weapon to be used against Adobe AIR and MS Silverlight. Patents are the new field where the paradigm of Mutally Assured Destruction rules supreme.
- jmackinn 18y agoHow is this evil?
- carpo 18y agoI guess a lot of developers believe that software patents such as these don't pass the "non-obvious" test, and therefore filing one is seen as wrong. I know that when I read some software patents (I haven't read this one, so not sure about this case), I think that if I had the same problem, I could solve it without too much trouble. Does this make the patent obvious? We have copyright law to protect the implementation - shouldn't that be enough. We're often told that idea's are worth less (worthless?), it's how they're executed. But this puts the power (and the money) in the hands of someone who had an idea and a general specification on how to implement it.