3 ms·

I hate software patents, but in this case since its being used against microsoft instead of them using it to bully linux vendors, it makes it a little easier to

I hate software patents, but in this case since its being used against microsoft instead of them using it to bully linux vendors, it makes it a little easier to swallow.

yason 17y ago
No, it's as immoral as always. Information has no other place than being free, even information that doesn't necessarily produce things that are deemed good. (It's a juicy case, that assuming there was any kernel of ingenuity to the actual patent Microsoft just made the Windows world a slightly worse place by using this patented antipiracy technology. It's kind of two evils battling against eachother. But it's no different to other patent litigations, really.) I'm a huge believer in that people don't invent truly new things because of money but because they have to -- a man always has some vague feeling that just keeps finding a way out until it materialises into an idea. It's also given that the one who gets the idea rarely is the one who actually benefits from it. That may hurt some people but in the end it's better for everyone to have the idea pop out from one place and let other forces build the necessary machinery required to market and distribute the idea to everyone. Patents should be banished at once.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  The idea of patents is to allow innovation that wouldn't otherwise occur right? I can't see any examples of ideas historically that wouldn't have been made in the absence of a patent. And to patent an idea rather than an implementation... The exception would be investors stealing an idea they see and the solution would be contracts but I doubt investors would sign these.
  - yason 17y ago
    That's the idea of patents as I've understood it. However, I guess it hasn't worked well even before our times when trivial programming solutions, plant seeds, indigenous herbs, and probably soon-if-not-already DNA are being patented. I happened to browse through the history of steam engine on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_steam_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_steam_power (because pg mentioned it in http://www.paulgraham.com/revolution.html.. http://www.paulgraham.com/revolution.html... :)) and one thing caught my eye: each time some significant steam engine related patent expired the steam engine business expanded and spread rapidly. New ideas were combined with the previously patented ideas and new constructs became commonplace. I think that companies and patent holders, too, realise that patents are rather useless and they would all be better off without them. That is because nobody has successfully lobbied for longer patent periods in the last 100-200 years or so. In contrast, the copyright has been extended tremendously because companies can actually make money because of it and have lobbied for decades to keep Mickey Mouse off the public domain. Makes me wonder.
    - nopassrecover 17y ago
      Yeah the idea that you need a patent that extends well beyond the life of both the company and inventor to have any motivation to invent things is ridiculous.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Unfortunately Microsoft can easily take the hit for sums that seem astronomical to ordinary people (or even ordinary businesses) and then turn round and use that as justification for their own patents. Just like when it gets fined hundreds of millions by the EU, it can use these numbers to elicit sympathy, while I'm sure internal calculations show greater profit from ignoring the law or playing the patent game, even after subtracting these costs. After all if they didn't profit from it, then they probably wouldn't do it.

I hate software patents, but in this case since its being used against microsoft instead of them using it to bully linux vendors, it makes it a little easier to swallow.

yason 17y ago

No, it's as immoral as always. Information has no other place than being free, even information that doesn't necessarily produce things that are deemed good. (It's a juicy case, that assuming there was any kernel of ingenuity to the actual patent Microsoft just made the Windows world a slightly worse place by using this patented antipiracy technology. It's kind of two evils battling against eachother. But it's no different to other patent litigations, really.) I'm a huge believer in that people don't invent truly new things because of money but because they have to -- a man always has some vague feeling that just keeps finding a way out until it materialises into an idea. It's also given that the one who gets the idea rarely is the one who actually benefits from it. That may hurt some people but in the end it's better for everyone to have the idea pop out from one place and let other forces build the necessary machinery required to market and distribute the idea to everyone. Patents should be banished at once.

nopassrecover 17y ago
The idea of patents is to allow innovation that wouldn't otherwise occur right? I can't see any examples of ideas historically that wouldn't have been made in the absence of a patent. And to patent an idea rather than an implementation... The exception would be investors stealing an idea they see and the solution would be contracts but I doubt investors would sign these.
- yason 17y ago
  That's the idea of patents as I've understood it. However, I guess it hasn't worked well even before our times when trivial programming solutions, plant seeds, indigenous herbs, and probably soon-if-not-already DNA are being patented. I happened to browse through the history of steam engine on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_steam_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_steam_power (because pg mentioned it in http://www.paulgraham.com/revolution.html.. http://www.paulgraham.com/revolution.html... :)) and one thing caught my eye: each time some significant steam engine related patent expired the steam engine business expanded and spread rapidly. New ideas were combined with the previously patented ideas and new constructs became commonplace. I think that companies and patent holders, too, realise that patents are rather useless and they would all be better off without them. That is because nobody has successfully lobbied for longer patent periods in the last 100-200 years or so. In contrast, the copyright has been extended tremendously because companies can actually make money because of it and have lobbied for decades to keep Mickey Mouse off the public domain. Makes me wonder.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    Yeah the idea that you need a patent that extends well beyond the life of both the company and inventor to have any motivation to invent things is ridiculous.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

Unfortunately Microsoft can easily take the hit for sums that seem astronomical to ordinary people (or even ordinary businesses) and then turn round and use that as justification for their own patents. Just like when it gets fined hundreds of millions by the EU, it can use these numbers to elicit sympathy, while I'm sure internal calculations show greater profit from ignoring the law or playing the patent game, even after subtracting these costs. After all if they didn't profit from it, then they probably wouldn't do it.