5 ms·
Excellent example of the lawyer's defense patent. I'm often in discussion with engineers from other fields taking patents as some holy grail. I now have some am
by hbogert 12y ago
Excellent example of the lawyer's defense patent. I'm often in discussion with engineers from other fields taking patents as some holy grail. I now have some ammo to show that patents are not a generalized solution.
I do have one remark, Knuth refers to algorithms as fundamental building blocks, but as every programmer knows - we like to abstract upon abstractions making solutions higher level, so when does something stop being a building block and where does something start to be a patentable product.
- simonh 12y agoIt doesn't. It's building blocks all the way up. That's why I don't think that software should be patentable.
- m_mueller 12y agoExactly. That's what Copyright is for, a perfectly fine way of protecting a software developer's work.
- jsmeaton 12y agoI agree with you, but what about copyrightable? I don't think that "swipe gestures with 3 fingers in a diagonal motion" should be patentable. But I don't think blatant ripoffs of entire applications should be protected or encouraged either.
- Joeri 12y agoIf you copy the code, the specific artwork or the resulting binary, you're copying the expression, which is covered by copyright. If you copy the specific ornamental design, you may violate a design patent, if one was registered. If you copy the name or logo, or create one that is confusing, you may violate trademark law, if one was registered. Software patents don't protect someone against blatant rip-offs of their product, those other laws do that. They merely prevent good ideas from disseminating quickly. The software patent system acts in exact opposition to its stated aim: encouraging innovation.