1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Bill Gates Blackmailing Denmark

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by The Fantom, Feb 15, 2005.

  1. The Fantom

    JAD Guest

    "> excessive and cause more problems than good.
    only because YOU don't have a patent on anything..........................if
    you did, and you sunk 2 million in R&D on your product, you would not
    think for a second, that 6 months is long enough to 'make a profit'.
     
    JAD, Feb 21, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. For software, that's about half to a quarter of the amount of time you can
    sell it in before it gets obsolete and into the budget piles, 6 months is a
    long time in the computer industry, different industries should have patents
    that last different lengths of time.
     
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 21, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Also, the point of patents is not to let the inventor become rich.
    Excessively long patents do not motivate invention any better than shorter
    ones, 6 months is enough time to cover your research costs at the speed at
    what the computer industry goes through products, long patents just help
    people to become rich which they should do without government help.
     
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 21, 2005
    #23
  4. The Fantom

    George E Guest

    And it's even worse when machines are allowed to try to enforce those
    things.
     
    George E, Feb 21, 2005
    #24
  5. The world wants compatablity, they want their programs to run on any
    computer. You don't require a single OS to achieve this, you just require
    the removal of patent laws so that other OS's can reverse engineer
    microsoft's API's, that way we'd have good competition.
     
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 21, 2005
    #25
  6. The Fantom

    Mark Lloyd Guest

    And I would that if a patent is abandoned (patent holder fails to make
    the product or service publicly available after a reasonable amount of
    time), the patent is removed and anyone allowed to provide the product
    of service.
     
    Mark Lloyd, Feb 21, 2005
    #26
  7. The Fantom

    Overlord Guest

    Yeah, noticed that. It appears more like a time dependant method of making
    the buttons do double/triple duty on a hand held device with the Palm as an
    example.

    No doubt the EU will let me copyright the standard oval shape of a mouse tho
    without regard to how long it's been around.
    Witness the weird shit they've recently done regarding cookies.


    ~~~~~~
    Bait for spammers:
    root@localhost
    postmaster@localhost
    admin@localhost
    abuse@localhost
    postmaster@[127.0.0.1]

    ~~~~~~
    Remove "spamless" to email me.
     
    Overlord, Feb 21, 2005
    #27
  8. The Fantom

    JAD Guest

    "E" commerce my friend Ecommerce.

    You do in fact need One OS- to secure, control, and profit from, and above
    all....NOT to share those profits.
    Is Bill to be looked down on for this? Hell no....its what everybody
    does.The difference? Bill and the 'powers' put it out there for public
    scrutiny, to see how we (the lambs to the slaughter) will react.
     
    JAD, Feb 21, 2005
    #28
  9. Don't confuse the speed of product _releases_ with the speed of product
    _development_. With the likes of M$ even a new version of Windows or
    Office or whatever seems to be typically 18 months late. A fundamental new
    technology may take _years_ to see its release as a commercially viable
    product and I for one would like to see a new innovative idea implemented
    properly in the first place rather than a half baked implementation going on
    the market and causing all kinds of headaches in the long run.

    Having said this I'm no great defender of software patents in general. The
    old rule was you couldn't patent software, although any underlying algorithms
    were fair game. That sounds fair enough to me. But now the line in this and
    a lot of other patent areas seems to be being re-drawn (it seems to be the US
    in particular that's pushing this through). IMHO its this 'patent-creep'
    that's causing much of the controversy at the moment.
     
    Andrew Smallshaw, Feb 21, 2005
    #29
  10. The Fantom

    Matt Guest

    Okay sorry, it doesn't mention mice. Telegraph, mouse, PDA,
    whatever---same concept: dots and dashes.

    The fact that that patent was issued and still stands indicates that the
    patent system is seriously broken.

    The patent system is one of the main reasons for American economic,
    technological, and military success, which is why there are so many
    forces trying to ruin it, and having considerable success. There is no
    way I would want to abolish the patent system, but patent policy has
    been going seriously wrong for some years now.
     
    Matt, Feb 21, 2005
    #30

  11. And what do you base a whopping 6 months on?
     
    David Maynard, Feb 21, 2005
    #31
  12. Says who? And why not?
    I don't see anything to support that contention.
    That products need to remain competitive in no way means the original,
    patented, idea is 'discarded' or becomes 'obsolete'. Just as adding power
    windows to your car offering in no way 'obsoletes' or diminishes the fuel
    injector patent.
    Your complaint is that the person who did the work gets rich instead of the
    plagiarist.
     
    David Maynard, Feb 21, 2005
    #32
  13. Yep. Frankly, it would be interesting to see a challenge to that patent
    because it isn't as if 'time dependent' buttons is a completely new thing
    as most digital watches, to name one example, have had them for decades.

    Of course, something having been around a long time is supposed to be an
    automatic patent killer but the weirdness of the EU is another matter ;)
     
    David Maynard, Feb 21, 2005
    #33
  14. The example given in one of the original 'complaint' posts was the
    underlying 'algorithm' to 'time dependent' application keys.

    Just curious if that meets your criteria as an acceptable one.
    I'd be interested to hear an example of what you mean.

    Btw, I've noticed that some people are mixing copyright with patent, and
    they're not the same thing.
     
    David Maynard, Feb 21, 2005
    #34
  15. You're contending that since a telegraph key is pressed momentarily to make
    dots and dashes that nothing using key depressions can ever again be a
    patentable idea? Isn't that a bit like saying that since Gog, the caveman,
    banged on tree logs to communicate that the telegraph isn't patentable?

    I might simply mean that no one cared enough to challenge it. And, given
    the length of time it takes to get anything into a court, it might mean
    it's still sitting on a docket somewhere.

    Of course, just because you wish you could use it too doesn't mean it
    shouldn't be patentable.
    I know we like to think the U.S. is responsible for everything but it
    didn't originate the notion of patents. At the very least it goes back to
    15'th century England.
     
    David Maynard, Feb 22, 2005
    #35
  16. The Fantom

    Matt Guest

    The essential element here is using the time-dependence of the key
    depression as a code, not the thing (mouse, telegraph, etc.) that uses
    that element. As I understand it, somebody tried to patent the first
    pencil with an eraser on the end. The patent was denied because it was
    seen as a trivial combination of existing inventions.

    I might not object to the Morse code being patented because it required
    some statistical analysis that led to efficiency of the code. And
    everybody was free to use some other code.

    It looks like this MS patent either tries to own the idea of using a
    time-dependent binary signal as a code or tries to own a trivial
    combination of existing inventions.
     
    Matt, Feb 22, 2005
    #36
  17. Well, the "hardware button" is a part of it. As well as being an
    "application button."
    Could be. I'm not familiar with it.

    The question always is, if it was so 'trivial' then how come no one was
    doing it before me?
    It did? So an original 'inefficient' code would not be patentable?
    (actually, my example was the telegraph, not morse code, and I don't know
    for sure you can patent a 'code' or if that's a copyright kind of thing.)

    I don't think that 'efficiency', or even practicality, is a consideration
    as there are plenty of inefficient and impractical wacky things patented.
    The market sorts those things out.
    I don't think that's a consideration either. "I'm sorry Otto but you can't
    patent your gasoline engine because there are no alternate gasoline powered
    engines one is free to use." Actually, he lost his patent because there
    *was* one.

    I'm probably not a good judge of what the 'minimum' criteria is as, judging
    from some I've seen, I've missed a slew of patent opportunities with things
    I consider simply solving the problem at hand.
     
    David Maynard, Feb 22, 2005
    #37
  18. The Fantom

    Matt Guest

    Well that's just it. The laws should be such that people don't think
    about patenting small solutions to problems at hand. Something is wrong
    when applying for and obtaining the patent is more work than the
    invention itself.
     
    Matt, Feb 22, 2005
    #38
  19. Monoplies are bad because they provide the consumer with no choice, how come
    you don't accept that universally accepted idea?
     
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 22, 2005
    #39
  20. The point of patents is to provide financial motivation of new products,
    this was the original intention of them.
    If a company can make a profit out of developement, they will do it.
    The computer industry goes through technology a lot faster than cars. And
    even for patents that are still useful decades after they were made, that is
    way too long a time to hang on to them. It will serve no purpose other than
    to decrease competition.
    The most important thing is that the marketplace has plenty of choice for
    consumers. Allowing the inventor to get excessively rich limits consumer
    choice and creates monoplies.
     
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 22, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.