3 ms·
I think patent, copyright and many other things are all mixed up here. Can someone tell me about a case of "software patent" (not software copyright, not hardwa
by ArcticCelt 17y ago
I think patent, copyright and many other things are all mixed up here. Can someone tell me about a case of "software patent" (not software copyright, not hardware patent) where it promoted innovation?
- chrischen 17y agoYea you're right. Who these days come up with great software idea just to get a patent? We create new technologies because we know there will be great rewards (or other motivations), and we get the patent just to protect ourselves from the patent system. Therefore the patent system at least in its current state is purposeless.
- DenisM 17y agoVideo compression - a lot of companies saw it fit to invest into DVD,MPEG2,MPEG4 etc to rip benefits later. Of course if they hadn't done it we would still have video codecs as demonstrated by DivX, XVid and various open-source video codecs. I think the difference here is that the the patents helped video codecs rich mass users faster than would be the case without them, but became a huge drag after some point. Pretty much like any other investment, if you think of it.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoMaybe you've got a point, but you've not presented any evidence. DivX and Xvid and most "open-source" video codecs infringe on the same basic patents and so require patent licences from MPEG-LA. The question at hand is whether the same amount of companies (or simply enough) would have invested in video codecs without the ability to create monopolies via patents.