[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
- Subject: [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:44:00 +0200 (CEST)
> Luuk van Dijk wrote
>
> >Each of these ideas I have come up with by myself as an answer to
> >my own problems. It is impossible to check each of these ideas
> >for possible claims, and it cannot be fair to require me to do so,
> >even if a law says I should.
> >
> >The whole reason for this discussion is that we don't want
> >the law to become the problem.
>
> I am agree with you but these argument can be dangerous .... and what will
> you think if microsoft integrate your code lines in windows 2000 ( perhaps
> it will work better ) ? you will sue them on the basis of your IP rights ...
> so, patent is just an another form of protection, I think more efficient.
No.
You have several options:
- keep your code secret, sell only proprietary software
- sue only on the basis of copyright
- grow up and learn how the software market works today: it is quite
productive even with a lot of imitation going on. What matters is speed
and human potential to solve problems of customers
> In my mind, in computer field, there is a cultural problem about IP
> rights. ( I use my first cracked software at 13 years old and I am a
> great fan of napster .... and I am an IP/IT lawyer )
You mean you used closed-source software where the copy protection had
been removed by someone?
Sorry, that doesn't make you a hacker.
> But, in a very monopolistic market such as software, only strong legal
> instruments such as patent allow small firms to earn market share,
> even if it is hard.
The market of software needn't be monopolistic, and patents only make it
more monopolistic, leaving small companies with even less chances of
getting a foothold. There are a few exceptions, such as companies who
write software for a very limited field of application. But unless that
is a true technical field (where software is secondary anyway and
inventions are patentable), any company will tend to stumble accross
thousands of algorithms of other companies, for which it must enter into
negotiation, incurring high transaction costs or high legal risks.
-phm
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284, (continued)
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Steve Probert steve . probert
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Steve Probert steve . probert
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Nicolas MONNET nico
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Nicolas MONNET nico
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Luuk van Dijk Luuk . van . Dijk
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Yann DIETRICH Yann . Dietrich
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Francois PELLEGRINI pelegrin
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Francois PELLEGRINI pelegrin
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Yann DIETRICH Yann . Dietrich
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Francois PELLEGRINI pelegrin
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284, PILCH Hartmut phm
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Yann DIETRICH Yann . Dietrich
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Yann DIETRICH Yann . Dietrich
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
PILCH Hartmut phm
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
PILCH Hartmut phm
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
dewaz dewaz
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Nicolas MONNET nico
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Luuk van Dijk Luuk . van . Dijk
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
dewaz dewaz
- [Patents] Some remarks on Vol 1 #284,
Bernard Lang Bernard . Lang
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)