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. Well, I'm all for making patents easier to get ;)

    According to the story Edison dreamed up the phonograph and whipped out a
    working model after a few hours of tinkering in the machine shop. This
    shouldn't be patentable because it was so fast and 'simple' for him?
    David Maynard, Feb 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. I might not object to the Morse code being patented because it required
    It would be absurd to have a patent for such a universally useful
    communication system.
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. The typical shelf lifetime of computer software and hardware products is
    typically 2 years at the very most, 6months is a high percentage of that
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 22, 2005
  4. Yes, I know, hence I would only have the 6 months patent limit happen from
    after the launch date. 6 months is a long time in the computer industry,
    that is enough time to ensure that they will be able to make a lot of money
    off their development, 6 months before your competition can do anything,
    even develope, that is a major advantage.
    Yes indeed, the length of copyrights and patents has increased a lot since
    the introduction of the laws.
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 22, 2005
  5. The Fantom

    JAD Guest

    monopolies are permitted...hidden from the schmoes who could care less...AKA
    the majority

    <<you don't accept that universally accepted idea?

    I never disagreed ...the sub says BILL is......
    JAD, Feb 22, 2005
  6. Getting rich is certainly a "financial motivation."

    Sure. But that doesn't support your contention.

    It may or may not improve faster than cars but that says nothing as to the
    longevity of a patentable idea in either.

    You like to make flat assertions but that's all they are. I can make the
    case it stimulates invention, and competition, since you have to either pay
    a license or find a new, 'inventive', alternative.

    It's certainly high on the list but it isn't to the exclusion of all else.
    Invention increases the 'choices' so decreasing the invention incentive
    decreases choices.
    'Excessively rich' is the excuse a thief uses to justify his profession.
    Not at all. The consumer has all the original choices available, plus the
    newly invented ones.
    File a monopoly suit.
    David Maynard, Feb 22, 2005
  7. And the lifespan of an automobile style is 1 year, till the next one comes
    out, but that says nothing about the longevity of a fuel injector patent.
    Nor does the umpteenth revision of whatever the latest and greatest game is
    say anything about the longevity of a mouse patent, or a windowing concept,
    or anything else.

    Not only does your argument not hold in 'software cycles' but, even if it
    did, then a patent that is obsolete in 2 years is hardly such a 'problem'
    for the competition since it could not possibly be anything 'fundamental'
    or earth shaking. It falls into the realm of a 'fad' and I see no problem
    with hoolahoop lacking a major hoolahoop competitor, nor am I concerned
    about it being 'unfair' to Mattel. Buy roller skates, a slinky, or a doll
    if it bothers you.
    David Maynard, Feb 22, 2005
  8. The Fantom

    Matt Guest

    Chance favors the prepared mind. ---Louis Pasteur
    Matt, Feb 22, 2005
  9. And why, as a competitor, would you be so lackadaisical as to not start
    development when you knew it was going to expire in 6 months?
    David Maynard, Feb 22, 2005
  10. Well, I like it but I don't know where or how you intended that to 'fit'.
    David Maynard, Feb 22, 2005
  11. The Fantom

    Matt Guest

    Come on ... meaning it was easy or lucky for Edison only after many
    years of general preparation. Therefore only apparently easy or lucky.
    Matt, Feb 22, 2005
  12. Hehe. Well, yes, I got that part. Which, btw, is why I had "simple" in
    single quotes. I meant it in a tongue-in-cheek ironic manner and certainly
    not literally.

    What I didn't see was how it fit into the patents discussion.
    David Maynard, Feb 22, 2005
  13. That is true, but for the sake of better competition for the consumer, the
    patent shouldn't really last longer than the automobile style does.
    I see a problem with a hoolahoop lacking a major hoolahoop competitor, less
    choice for the consumer, it's a government installed monoply!
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 23, 2005
  14. Yes indeed, but the law's intention was not to help people get rich but to
    provide a finacial reason to invent technology. If you can make money off an
    idea, that's motivation, the current patent laws are much too excessive
    Yes, but patents should not be about longevity, patents with longevity limit
    competiton, patents should merely give the inventer a year or two's
    It's an excessive amount of priverage for the inventer if patents last
    decades, the marketplace will be better served by shorter patents that
    encourage more competition.
    But I think the incentive will still be plenty strong if patent lengths are
    Well being rich is not a right it's a privilege awared to those who worked
    for it, patents make it too easy, sure they invented the product. But they
    should be required to do more, keep up with other peoples improvements to
    the product.
    No, the consumer is stuck to one choice if they want the newly invented
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 23, 2005
  15. No offense, but it's silly to link patent life to styling fads.

    There's plenty of choice and I only listed a few.

    There are no "rights endowed by your creator" to hoolahoops. But people do
    have the right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and society, for
    reasons that benefit society, includes "intellectual property" in the list
    of fruits and labor.
    Repeating that is redundantly redundant repetition.

    Yes, it is. That's it's purpose and point. It's intended, no accident, and
    the desired result.

    You wouldn't HAVE the 'invention' around to be howling about 'competition'
    if it weren't for the inventor having invented it and he increased your
    choices by the act of doing so. It was HIS idea and he deserves the benefit
    of providing it for you to 'chose' whether you want to avail yourself of it
    or not.

    So go invent something and 'get rich'. The incentive is there.
    David Maynard, Feb 23, 2005
  16. Where did you get that idea?
    And I repeat, getting 'rich' is a financial reason.
    And the more the merrier, not to mention motivation.
    An opinion is just an opinion.
    Actually, they are. And there have been tons of studies about the impact of
    longevity. As well as comparing the impact of longevity vs broadness.
    That is their purpose, with regard to the specific invention.

    You're caught up in 'sloganeering' and 'absolutes'. Someone's done a bang
    up job of teaching you that competition is a good thing but apparently
    neglected to point out there are other considerations.
    Again, an opinion with nothing but the opinion.
    Utility patent 20 years, design patent 14 years.
    Studies on the matter say that's not so.

    You "think."
    Correct, it's not.
    It's not a "privilege" either. It's the result of the work, to which a
    person *does* have the right.
    Well, hells bells son, if it's so damn easy then jump right in and get rich.
    You betcha.
    Says WHO?
    The market takes care of that.
    IF, IF, IF, they want what the inventor invented. Go buy something else if
    you don't like it.

    You're just greedy. The inventor came up with something you apparently
    'want', which one might think is a good thing, so now you insist on a
    'right' to steal it.
    David Maynard, Feb 23, 2005
  17. No, because that would come under the heading of prior art. Admittedly it's
    been a while since I was taught a summary of the laws surrounding IPR at Uni
    but ISTR a patent had to involve an inventive step - that is not already in
    use, not an obvious development, be able to be exploited and not simply a
    a logical progression of what has come before. You also can't patent a
    scientific discovery or anything occurring in nature - this isn't important
    at the minute but I'll come back to it. This is UK patent law BTW, which
    I understand is far stricter than its US equivalent.

    This patent was filed in 2002 - this mouse I'm using now was manufactured in
    Aug 1996. Go figure.
    The obvious example of a bad software patent is Amazon's 'one-click' patent.
    I know that one ended up in the courts (did it get struck down - never heard
    about it) but the fact that it was granted in the first place shows something
    is obviously amiss.

    In the wider field, consider the pharmaceutical companies trying to patent
    individual genes - obviously occuring in nature. At the moment these aren't
    getting very far in Europe but the US government has been applying pressure
    for us to amend our laws.

    An example of a 'good' software patent would be something like RSA - genuinely
    inventive, and while the spooks at GCHQ may have got there first, they didn't
    exactly tell the world about it so the prior art reason not to grant it fails
    Andrew Smallshaw, Feb 23, 2005
  18. keep up with other peoples improvements to the product.
    No it doesn't, with patents the patent owner owns the market. It destroys
    competition. Shorter patents will both provide a motivation to develope new
    products and soon after that help improve the product with increased
    There is no good reason that a consumers should be limited to one provider
    if they want a new technology. It is the patent holders who are greedy.
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 24, 2005
  19. My answer was correct with the *whole* sentence that you chopped up to
    change the meaning.

    You were 'demanding' that the *inventor" should be 'required to do more' to
    "keep up with other peoples improvements to the product" and the market
    *does* take care of that because if he doesn't 'keep up' then he looses
    market share just like anyone else would who doesn't 'keep up'.
    No he doesn't. He 'owns' his patented idea that is but one piece of 'the
    You keep claiming that but, as I've said before, studies done on the mater
    don't support your 'intuition'.

    Yes, there is. Because it was *his* damn invention.
    What you want to do is not much different than stealing your neighbor's
    crops after he put in all the work to plant and grow them, with the
    'excuse' that *his* stuff is 'better' than the other's crops so you have a
    'right' to steal his 'better stuff'.
    David Maynard, Feb 24, 2005
  20. No it won't, others are effectively kept out of that market niche with the
    patent law. That market niche can be incrediably viable to a consumer, the
    alernatives can be much weaker.
    See above.
    What studies?
    That doesn't warrent him holding onto a patent for years and decades, a few
    months for the computer industry is fair enough. There must be a middle
    ground between what is fair for inventers and consumers.
    No not at all, if that neighbor's crops are better than everyone elses than
    he has the advantage when trying to sell them. What you are proposing is
    that everyone else who tries to make equally good crops are taken to court
    and fined.
    Nicholas Buenk, Feb 26, 2005
    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.