Supreme Court Rules Software Patents Invalid-Without Ever Mentioning Software Once In the Decision
"What this means is that companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Google and others have had the value of their patent portfolios nearly completely erased today. If they wish to remain compliant with Sarbanes Oxley and other laws and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission they will need to level with their shareholders and tell them that their patent portfolios have been decimated."
db is on a plane headed to the Atlas Summit to give a talk about Galt as Inventor. When he gets off the plane, this news will greet him. Imagine a MODERN patent system understanding the manufacturing age but not the information age....
db is on a plane headed to the Atlas Summit to give a talk about Galt as Inventor. When he gets off the plane, this news will greet him. Imagine a MODERN patent system understanding the manufacturing age but not the information age....
Previous comments... You are currently on page 10.
There is a difference between standard engineering and inventions. A suspension bridge is an invention. Engineering a suspension bridge for a specific case, such as to cross a river, is not an invention.
The question is WHERE the line gets drawn, and the Supreme Court ruled that the bar needed to be much higher to justify a patent. You seem to be taking the angle that there will no longer be ANY patents - an absurd notion.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as an emotional diatribe not characteristic of your normal level of intellect and rationale.
Because you apparently miss a basic tenet of Objectivism which even I get; respect for the rights of others.
But 9 named by progressives...
This why President Reagan advocated and passed law creating the Court of Appeals for patent cases. In part, this was in response to a huge anti-patent push in the late 60s and 70s.
The problem is you have been making broad pronouncements that are incorrect and require knowledge about how patents are written and work. So, your conclusions are based on faulty information.
Your opinions can influence. IF people are swayed by incorrect information or incorrect assumptions, that is not good. This happens to be an area rife with mis-information and there is a resurgence of anti-patent sentiment which goes along with anti-property right sentiment. Patent laws are where it always starts.
As an engineer, I learned early in my career to listen to the manuf engineers. Having designed a beautiful bracket that was an impossibility to manufacture and being rather embarrassed by such, it only took one such instance to forever change my behavior.
"My response: "An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field."
The laser produces light, but so does a fire. Does that achieve a unique function? An invention does not have to have a unique result actually. Swan invented an incandescent light bulb and so did Edison. Many inventions are different ways of accomplishing something that is already done.
Perfect competition is a nonsensical ideal that in fact we would never want. A proper definition of a monopoly can only be defined in terms of Natural Rights. A monopoly is the government interfering in the marketplace in way that infringes peoples' right to contract or property that give one person/company an exclusive access to a market.
By objective result, I mean one that is repeatable and has the same result independent of the observer. See the incandescent light bulb.
Art is a human creation that has a subjective result. See Atlas Shrugged. It does not do anything on its own, and depends on the observers reaction. The movie AS III is a work of art, but it used inventions to create it.
True injustice is reading rulings which are confusing, legally contradictory and the result of which will devalue high tech start up companies' patent portfolios. The ruling has vast implications over thousands of patents and over a trillion dollars. It will take months for the dust to settle on this and the court will attempt to clean up this ruling, but the implications are clear: 1. you are not likely to get patents in financial business methods 2. software inventions will now cost double to write applications, you will argue them longer (10years plus) with examiners who will say straight out that the media publicity on spurious patents is so concerning to the PTO they are unlikely to grant much 3.Litigation wars will increase as infringing companies take on existing patents which were invalidated by this ruling.
Glad to see that the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had such strong patent systems.
From an earlier reply to your comment: 'Define Abstract. By definition an invention is an abstraction, just as the word humans is an abstraction that classifies a number of specific instances.'…
My response: "An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field."
If that is not a coherent definition of an invention, then I might suggest that you've spent too much time away from your engineering background being a scrivner.
When those things lead to physical things, then the physical things can be patented. But not the ideas. The idea of controlled, powered flight can't, and shouldn't, be patented. The implementation of it via the three-axis controller can be.
Quick, who invented the waterbed? Who invented the communication satellite?
Patent ideas, and there would have been no Star Trek, or Star Wars, or Battlestar Galactica...
:)
To disseminate information
To gather information for my own edification.
Why are you here?
We use to have a requirement to submit a model of the invention. The problem is how do you submit a model of a nuclear reactor, or a jet engine. In the information age we have the problem of the patent office needing to have the right computer to run your program. Rarely is the invention easily discernible from the code. Sending in a microprocessor as a model would provide no insight. We changed the rules to just require a description of how to make and practice the invention that provides one skilled in the art enough information to do so.
O.o
I have never
in my life
seen a better example
of oversimplification ad absurdum.
You do not wire circuits with code. Most people don't wire circuits anymore; they etch them.
Java is a high level software language.
It does not rewire circuits. It executes other, existing, software instructions. Nowadays there are many such programming languages, such as Python and Lua.
Most software is designed to accomplish more than one specific task.
Most code, including machine code, are instructions, not "wiring". they are instructions telling the cpu and/or associated co-processors what functions to perform, in what order, upon which data. We have a word for this, even when it's binary numbers; "language".
Tell me, Mr. Owl, is there a subject about which you do not feel a God-like omniscience?
It seems that the answer should be obvious.
Patents: Monopoly or Property Right a Testable Hypothesis http://hallingblog.com/patents-monopoly-...
If patents are a monopoly, as some suggest, then it should led to certain outcomes. A close examination shows that none of the supposed monopoly effects result from granting patents.
Monopoly/Rent Seeking vs. Property Rights/Intellectual Property http://hallingblog.com/monopolyrent-seek....
This post explains the characteristics of a monopoly and a property right and poses three questions to show the difference. Patents fit all the characteristics of a property right and none of a monopoly. Note that professional license, such as a law license has some of the characteristics of a monopoly.
More on the Myth that Patents are Monopolies http://hallingblog.com/more-on-the-myth-....
This post contains a number of quotes from philosophers explaining that patents are not monopolies.
Property Rights, Possession and Objects http://hallingblog.com/property-rights-p...
This post explains the difference in the concepts of property rights, possession, and objects. Most economists and patent detractors confuse these concepts. The origin, definition, and legal basis of property right are explained.
The Myth That Patents are a Monopoly http://hallingblog.com/the-myth-that-pat...
This post compares the definition of a monopoly to the rights obtained with a patent. It shows that the rights obtained with a patent do not confer a monopoly.
Patents are Natural Rights http://hallingblog.com/patents-are-natur...
This post traces the ideas of Locke and William Blackstone to show patents and copyrights are natural rights.
I can understand and even sympathize with your frustration, but ad hominem is not argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_I...
Load more comments...