Hi I don't like idea patents, which are different from process patents, but if you plan to have the business in the USA and don't have some patent portfolio you are more or less doom.
Of course, if you have issues with patenting your stuff just see this article: http://www.advogato.org/article/89.html If you have issues with your GNU/GPL'ed software this guys at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ may help you. Have a nice day. Lopo --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Beller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks, Mark . I certainly do want the opinions and advice from this > community! > > > > I'm not saying that patents aren't problematic. I, too, have a problem with > healthcare patents that prevent people from getting the care they need (or > even better care) because the patent-holder puts unreasonable demands on its > use. I'd even extend this issue beyond software: What about patented > medications whose price, prior to becoming generic, makes them too expensive > for some people? The same can be said for medical devices. In all these > cases, people are prevented from getting the best possible care because the > economic system driving healthcare is like other businesses: It is built on > profit. Actually, some people even make the case that all doctors should be > salaried, and there should be universal healthcare with no string attached, > otherwise the profit motive will continue to drive up costs and reduces > access to care, without improving quality. > > > > If I had my way, our entire economic system would be reformed so that people > whose products and services offer the greatest benefit to the common good > receive the most economic gain, with healthcare products and services likely > being at the top of the list. Instead, our current system rewards companies > for destroying competitors who have better and less costly solutions, so > they can raise prices and deliver lower value to the consumer for greater > profit. I agree that patents can play a role in this. > > > > However, prior to open source becoming a viable business model, small > independent inventors like me risked being victims of the 800 pound gorillas > in their industries, unless they had legal protection via copyrights or > patents, or unless they kept their intellectual property trade secrets. > Taking away these protections frighten small businesses innovators and > encourage the vultures to start circling. Think about it. It's just the way > our nutty system is set up! > > > > Some OS models are now offering reasonable alternatives to patents for > inventors fearful of financial ruin if they were to disclose their IP > without legal protection. > > > > Bottom line: I agree that patents can be very problematic when it comes to > healthcare. The problem as I see it, however, is not with patents, per se, > but with the pathologically mutated form of capitalism that has been driving > our country, which has made patents almost a necessity to inventors. If our > economic system were different, there may have never been the need for > software patents to allay the fears of small inventors. Thankfully, OS may > very well be an innovative "work-around" in our nutty economic system. > > > > Furthermore, while he took it from a different perspective, I see the logic > in Fred's point that inventors should have the right to use an OS software > license to exert control over a vendor using their IP, in the same way > propriety vendors presume control of a clinician through their traditional > software license. > > > > Steve > > > > From: openhealth@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mark Spohr > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:30 PM > To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [openhealth] Re: An inventor of disruptive technology looking > for advice about open source > > > > I've read your blog posting and I think that you have correctly identified > the problem. We have capitalism run amok with no controls, legal or > ethical. > > What I don't understand it why you think that software patents aren't part > of the problem. To me, it is morally repugnant to 'own' an idea in the way > that patent's permit. When you have patents on health care applications > where health is on the line, you are in the same category as the people you > cite in your article who purchased nursing homes and ruthlessly cut > services. They put personal profit ahead of people's health. > > If you really believe what your wrote in your blog, you should put your > patent in the public domain so that everyone can benefit from it without > payment. > > You did ask for our advice... > > .Mark > > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Stephen Beller <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:sbeller%40nhds.com> > wrote: > > > Our entire economic system can be characterized as "pathological mutation > > of > > Capitalism," as I discuss at this link -- > > > > > http://curinghealthcare.blogspot.com/2007/10/path-to-profound-healthcare.htm > > l > > > > > > > > As such, legal, yet morally corrupt practices--in which a few gain > > financially as others are harmed--have become an "acceptable" way of doing > > business. When patents of any kind fall into this category, I accept the > > argument that they are bad for society. I wouldn't, however, not place > > every > > patent holder in that category. Instead, I would argue that there are > > situations in which inventors with patented software are truly committed > to > > helping humanity with their innovation. They are not driven by greed or > > ego, > > and they do not want their patent to adversely affect society. They > > sacrifice much for the common good and have no intention of being part of > > any pathologically mutated form of Capitalism. > > > > > > > > I see myself as being such an individual, which is why we're looking into > > open source. We have not yet decided about the particular OS license > > because > > there is a great deal to understand and consider. > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
