January 30, 2014 at 7:47 am
January 30, 2014 at 8:22 am
On a more ridiculous note...
The word "candy" is now trademarked[/url]
This is all sorts of absurd. The makers of the Candy Crush line of mobile phone games were granted a trademark to the word "candy" in relation to games; they're now happily suing every other game maker that has the word "candy" in its name. They're also trying to trademark the word "saga", though the case for that one is currently suspended; nonetheless, they're suing one game maker that has the word "saga" in its name, as well.
Trademarking a word's existence in relation to software... That's all kinds of insane!
- 😀
January 30, 2014 at 8:30 am
I'm going to go out on a limb here.
First, the U.S. Constitutional clause that allows IP:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
My preference:
Patents are for objects (i.e. Inventors), copyright is for writings (photographs, paintings, text of any kind, music) (i.e. Authors).
Patents: Set back to the original rules; they're for physical objects only, and you have to submit a working model to the patent office; scrap the machine transformation test, if there's no machine, there's no patent. The patent covers only the physical expression of the object - not embedded software (writings), etc. I'm ok with a 14-21 year term, which is in line with historical norms.
Copyrights: For writings only. The actual writing (code) must be submitted. For writings which can be executed (code), the original 1790 act 14 year + 14 year extension may be too much - I'd take this down to a single 14 year term, or perhaps a 7 year + 7 year term. If you haven't gotten your return in the first 14 years of your software, you probably aren't going to - write some more. For writings which cannot be executed (photos, paintings, books, articles, scientific papers, music, etc.), either the 1790 act 14 year + 14 year extension, or perhaps even the 1831 act 28 year + 14 year extension; it can take a lot longer for a book or painting or song to become famous/popular/give some return to the author.
January 30, 2014 at 8:42 am
hisakimatama (1/30/2014)
On a more ridiculous note...The word "candy" is now trademarked[/url]
This is all sorts of absurd. The makers of the Candy Crush line of mobile phone games were granted a trademark to the word "candy" in relation to games; they're now happily suing every other game maker that has the word "candy" in its name. They're also trying to trademark the word "saga", though the case for that one is currently suspended; nonetheless, they're suing one game maker that has the word "saga" in its name, as well.
Trademarking a word's existence in relation to software... That's all kinds of insane!
I understand trademarking the phrase "candy crush" or "candy saga", to prevent other game makers from attemting to sell counterfeit apps with an identical or same name (which does happen and is a legetimate concern). However, attempting the trademark the word "candy" is too broad. App developers (or basically any company that sells a branded product or service) really should perform a search on pending patents and trademarks serveral times a year to help circumvent this type of thing, rather than getting a letter from an attorney after the fact. They could do something like setting up a Google keyword alert on the government website(s) to identify pending trademarks and copyrights that might be an issue.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 30, 2014 at 9:52 am
Software code should not be able to be patented. A copyright is more appropriate. There is little difference between me writing a book and writing code.
If I write code to display "Hello World" on a screen, someone else can use the same tool, generate the same basic templates (Visual C++ for example builds a lot of boiler plate for you) and then type in their code to do the same thing. Odds are there will be very little difference. What I did was not anything that deserves a patent. If the second developer looked at my source code and used copy/paste, we could say they violated a copyright.
Obviously there is the question of scale, but a large program is simply a collection of objects and functions, each of which is a small piece of code. Most of the time, that code was "copied" from someone else, whether a KB that showed how to do something or a web page. I recognize there are those people who come first, and that figure out how to do something new, but they use the underlying OS calls to do so. How is that something that deserves a patent? I don't believe it does.
Patents were intended to protect the efforts required to imagine and develop new things. We now have patents for the human genome, which is absolutely ridiculous. I have a friend whose child was denied medical treatment because a company patented the gene that caused the issue he suffered from - and would not allow anyone else to develop a solution to the issue. The abuse is rampant.
Dave
January 30, 2014 at 9:56 am
call.copse (1/30/2014)
Was there anyone whose heart's cockles were left unwarmed by this story? An oldie but goldie.
I LOVE Newegg!
Dave
January 30, 2014 at 10:12 am
djackson 22568 (1/30/2014)
Software code should not be able to be patented. A copyright is more appropriate. There is little difference between me writing a book and writing code.If I write code to display "Hello World" on a screen, someone else can use the same tool, generate the same basic templates (Visual C++ for example builds a lot of boiler plate for you) and then type in their code to do the same thing. Odds are there will be very little difference. What I did was not anything that deserves a patent. If the second developer looked at my source code and used copy/paste, we could say they violated a copyright.
Obviously there is the question of scale, but a large program is simply a collection of objects and functions, each of which is a small piece of code. Most of the time, that code was "copied" from someone else, whether a KB that showed how to do something or a web page. I recognize there are those people who come first, and that figure out how to do something new, but they use the underlying OS calls to do so. How is that something that deserves a patent? I don't believe it does.
Patents were intended to protect the efforts required to imagine and develop new things. We now have patents for the human genome, which is absolutely ridiculous. I have a friend whose child was denied medical treatment because a company patented the gene that caused the issue he suffered from - and would not allow anyone else to develop a solution to the issue. The abuse is rampant.
That makes sense. When it comes to software, we can use book publishing, television, or film as an analogy. Most of us here would agree that the author of book or film should be able to copyright it's content and distribution, and the title can be trademarked (ie: Game Of Thrones). Thankfully, however, no one has successfully patented the general theme of a novel or movie (ie: "a fictional narrative involving swords and sorcerers").
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 30, 2014 at 10:27 am
Electronic media in general is harmed by existing patent/copyright laws - even going back to 14+14 for this area doesn't make sense given the fast pace of innovation & the diminishing returns on such media in terms of revenue generated. If Fair Use laws (and website policies to avoid infringement) weren't already being abused by major copyright holders, then those terms might be reasonable for works of art (such as video or music).
Software seems to necessitate special handling:
1) Assembled into a full application, the software may warrant copyright coverage to prevent resale of the exact same product.
2) Applications / functionality developed and licensed open source (unless the license explicitly states otherwise) should be implicitly uncopyrightable (in essence: copyright for the good of humanity).
3) Proprietary company code (assemblies, schemas, classes, etc.) should not be copyrightable - if you have a trade secret: keep it secret; if someone can implement the same functionality without stealing the code from you, it wouldn't warrant a patent / copyright in the first place.
Do you believe this would help or hinder human progress?
So much of what we, as software engineers, develop makes extensive use of the generous work by those who came before us. Isn't software more like a derivative work of those who invented / implemented the languages we're working with... of those who developed intermediate and machine languages... of those who designed the microchip?
P.S. - Maybe it's fantasy, but I expect software development's pace to increase over the coming decades to a point where this discussion will be moot. By the time you could get a copyright or patent, your software will already be obsolete.
P.S.S. - These views are my own & not those of my employer.
January 30, 2014 at 1:39 pm
djackson 22568 (1/30/2014)
Patents were intended to protect the efforts required to imagine and develop new things. We now have patents for the human genome, which is absolutely ridiculous. I have a friend whose child was denied medical treatment because a company patented the gene that caused the issue he suffered from - and would not allow anyone else to develop a solution to the issue. The abuse is rampant.
I agree with you that this is ridiculous. I can understand patenting a technique used to manipulate or extract a gene, but not the genes themselves. The company is not creating the genes.
In this case, it's not only ridiculous. It's also immoral.
January 30, 2014 at 3:31 pm
laren.hagen (1/30/2014)
P.S.S. - These views are my own & not those of my employer.
They are probably not the view of any employer.
I see it this way: When company A develops something somewhat new, they don't want anyone else to have anything like it. Why, because anyone who comes after is going to improve upon their design EVERY - SIINGLE - TIME! They want copyright protection in order to maximize their revenue, while they fire all the developers, and sue any of them who decide to try to work for any other software company ever again! (bear with my mixing of job descriptions please...)
At the same time, company B does not want that to be copyrighted, so they can improve upon it. Once they do, they now swap roles with company A, including firing their employees to cut costs and maximize bonuses for management. (Am I being too blunt with my opinions of a large percentage of corporate America?)
OK, so how should it be? Best case, totally not going to happen, would be for the first company to have some small period of protection, without needing a copyright. A common sense approach like company B sees "1-click" on company A's web site, they have to wait 6-months before implementing their own competing idea. If they don't, they have to pay some common sense compensation to company A. They have to plainly show on every single web page they own that they stole the idea from company A, and beg for forgiveness from both the company and their customers. Plus the individuals who implemented it early, and every single manager higher up then them, must go on live TV to be publicly paddled 10 times! Oh, the humility!
I could go on, and have a lot of fun with this, but I just don't think there is much that is going to be "invented" as much as "improved". There are things that will be totally new, but nowhere near the number of patents applied for every year. Yet we are going to continue to see useless patents being issue, to protect the earnings and bonuses.
Dave
January 30, 2014 at 3:45 pm
January 30, 2014 at 3:48 pm
something_123 (1/30/2014)
Someone here pointed out how to use the IFCode shortcuts a while back, I had never seen them before. Call this paying it forward?
Dave
January 31, 2014 at 2:50 am
Eric M Russell (1/30/2014)
djackson 22568 (1/30/2014)
Software code should not be able to be patented. A copyright is more appropriate. There is little difference between me writing a book and writing code.If I write code to display "Hello World" on a screen, someone else can use the same tool, generate the same basic templates (Visual C++ for example builds a lot of boiler plate for you) and then type in their code to do the same thing. Odds are there will be very little difference. What I did was not anything that deserves a patent. If the second developer looked at my source code and used copy/paste, we could say they violated a copyright.
Obviously there is the question of scale, but a large program is simply a collection of objects and functions, each of which is a small piece of code. Most of the time, that code was "copied" from someone else, whether a KB that showed how to do something or a web page. I recognize there are those people who come first, and that figure out how to do something new, but they use the underlying OS calls to do so. How is that something that deserves a patent? I don't believe it does.
Patents were intended to protect the efforts required to imagine and develop new things. We now have patents for the human genome, which is absolutely ridiculous. I have a friend whose child was denied medical treatment because a company patented the gene that caused the issue he suffered from - and would not allow anyone else to develop a solution to the issue. The abuse is rampant.
That makes sense. When it comes to software, we can use book publishing, television, or film as an analogy. Most of us here would agree that the author of book or film should be able to copyright it's content and distribution, and the title can be trademarked (ie: Game Of Thrones). Thankfully, however, no one has successfully patented the general theme of a novel or movie (ie: "a fictional narrative involving swords and sorcerers").
Yay! Just spotted my retirement plan - thanks dude ...
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
January 31, 2014 at 3:36 am
something_123 (1/30/2014)
Interesting article. I think I'd kind of plump for the no software patents side but this comment from zosima seemed right to me:
"Almost no code deserves a patent. Too much junk gets through. But there are some genuine innovations that represent substantial investments and deserve patent protection as much as anything does.
Examples of good software patents:
PageRank, MP3, LZW.
Example of bad software patents:
1-click buy. Clippy-style helpers.
The tricky thing is that patent reviewers can't tell the difference, especially because many of the best ideas in software solved problems that were only tricky *before* someone implemented a brilliant algorithm. After you know the algorithm, it seems so simple in retrospect."
To me that adds to meaning that once the cat is out the bag it should be for everyone's benefit. However I could be persuaded otherwise by a good argument for a short term non-renewable type patent.
January 31, 2014 at 3:54 am
call.copse (1/31/2014)
...Example of bad software patents:
1-click buy. Clippy-style helpers.
...
Surely "Clippy-style helpers" is just an example of bad software 😉
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 58 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply