... depending on where the patent is granted.
Sorry, this is a fiction.
When a USA company creates a device, they typically pay the patents
across the board, not just on the units that are going to countries that
respect patents.
When companies are building products, they make product decisions
the United States and
Argentina concerning pharmaceutical patents, the article mandates that
signatories provide technology patents without discrimination.
So while the EU has rejected software patents for the time being,
there come a time in the future where this part of the treaty
Jon 'maddog' Hall mad...@li.org writes:
Given that the patent system is an impingement
on the liberties of 300,000,000 people (telling them what they may not
do with their own property) to benefit one person or a small handful
of his cohorts, the hurdle to prove the case ought to be set
On 07/18/2010 09:02 AM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
I can't think of any evidence that will prove the opposite -
unless a lot of software businesses are willing to open their books and
their legal papers.
Well, you can't make a reasonable policy decision absent data on
available alternatives. Given
Given that the patent system is an impingement
on the liberties of 300,000,000 people (telling them what they may not
do with their own property) to benefit one person or a small handful
of his cohorts, the hurdle to prove the case ought to be set very,
very high.
I would argue that the
Jeffry Smith wrote:
On 07/17/2010 10:17 AM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Software patents are bad for the industry - its one reason I retired
early rather than spend all my time fending off patent trolls instead of
innovating.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
[congress
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Jon 'maddog' Hall mad...@li.org wrote:
This article about software patents popped up today. Any comments about
the relevance and possibilities of software patent reform to the point
of reversal and removal?
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives
This article about software patents popped up today. Any comments about
the relevance and possibilities of software patent reform to the point
of reversal and removal?
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2010/07/death_knell_for.html;jsessionid=GXGKJE0XM2GPJQE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?cid
Software patents are bad for the industry - its one reason I retired
early rather than spend all my time fending off patent trolls instead of
innovating.
However, its going to take a few more decisive blows against software
patents before corporate lawyers decide its a lost game. Or before
there is an
economic loss to the individual or business. The elimination of software
patents will remove a lot of these trolls.
Additionally, New Zealand is about to outlaw software patents altogether.
On 07/17/2010 10:17 AM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Software patents are bad for the industry - its
On 07/17/2010 10:17 AM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Software patents are bad for the industry - its one reason I retired
early rather than spend all my time fending off patent trolls instead of
innovating.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
[congress shall have the power ...]To promote
LDR wrote:
On our way to Redmond.
See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/22/1224259 (Microsoft
will not sue over Linux patents)
And I was reading (can't find where at the moment) where some were
advertising Sue Me, Sue Me in an attempt to get Microsoft to reveal
the patents being
On 5/22/07, Bruce Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/22/1224259 (Microsoft
will not sue over Linux patents)
Hmmm. From the actual article:
If we wanted to go down that road we could have done that three years
ago, said a Microsoft spokesperson.
On 5/22/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/22/07, Bruce Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/22/1224259 (Microsoft
will not sue over Linux patents)
Hmmm. From the actual article:
If we wanted to go down that road we could have done that
On 5/22/07, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What gets me is, don't they *HAVE* to defend the patents? I know
that applies to Trademarks, but I would assume that they'd have no leg
to stand on if they blatently allowed one party to publically be
violating their patents, and then turn
At last nights CentraLUG meeting, there was discussion over the status
of European software patent rules. It appears that I was a day late and
dollar short in my information:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/07/ec_says_yes_patents/
If I understand correctly, the European Council of
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:52:54 -0500
Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At last nights CentraLUG meeting, there was discussion over the status
of European software patent rules...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/07/ec_says_yes_patents/
For more info, there has been good ongoing history
17 matches
Mail list logo
