Should the U.S. abolish software patent laws?

[cutforscience]

I heard there was a patent for double click...

I mean... fuck

 

[boomerang]

Wwybywb?

 

[cutforscience]

there's even a patent to match people according to the surveys they completed

ROFL

I mean even I could have come up with that without even knowing how to program.

 

[Anarchist420]

Patents should be completely abolished.

 

[cutforscience]

that would allow china to completely overtake the u.s. within 24 hours

 

[her209]

that would allow china to completely overtake the u.s. within 24 hours

You think China cares about patents and copyright laws?

 

[cutforscience]

it cares, you just got brainwashed.

 

[cutforscience]

let's not deviate from the subject lul

i am saying that patent laws should be abolished because 95% software patents are real junk and softwares are protected by copyright laws anyway.

 

[Tom]

I heard there was a patent for double click...

I mean...

So ? The patent isn't for double click, it's for what double click does; which is a great idea.

Why shouldn't the inventor be compensated for thinking of it ? A patent doesn't stop people from using something, it means the inventor is compensated for their idea.

Maybe we need patent reform, to stop inventors from squatting on ideas or claiming innovation that isn't real, but that's an ongoing process.

 

[Engineer]

it cares, you just got brainwashed.

LOL, China only cares if they get caught. Otherwise, they flip the bird to patents.

 

[her209]

it cares, you just got brainwashed.

Yeah, that's why "authentic" goods are priced so cheap when they ship from China/Hong Kong because you're getting directly from the "manufacturers".

 

[cutforscience]

it's not a great invention. 99% of people could have thought of something like that without even being a software engineers.

 

[cutforscience]

Yeah, that's why "authentic" goods are priced so cheap when they ship from China/Hong Kong because you're getting directly from the "manufacturers".

http://kimchibokkeumbap.blogspot.com/2011/04/complaining-for-nothing.html

 

[Cogman]

So ? The patent isn't for double click, it's for what double click does; which is a great idea.

Why shouldn't the inventor be compensated for thinking of it ? A patent doesn't stop people from using something, it means the inventor is compensated for their idea.

Maybe we need patent reform, to stop inventors from squatting on ideas or claiming innovation that isn't real, but that's an ongoing process.

The problem with this is the fact that whenever you invent something there is a good chance you are stepping on someone elses patent. It is pretty much impossible to create something without violating some patent law somewhere. It has gotten so bad that most companies pretty much ignore the patents and hope they aren't called out on it later.

The next problem is that patents have become extremely general, overly so in fact. Very big companies are patenting everything under the sun which can have the negative effect of squashing out competition.

 

[cutforscience]

thank you cogman

 

[MovingTarget]

I'm fine with software patents just like regular patents - provided that they serve their original purpose. They need to be for a limited time so as to provide incentive for development, but no longer. That code should be released so as to spur future innovation. In the software world...I'd say about 10 years should be enough.

 

[cutforscience]

the problem with the current software patent laws is that they recognize obvious ideas as inventions.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't think that the US should abolish software patents, but the requirements for non-obviousness for software patentability needs to be changed so that some of these 'ideas' aren't patentable. However, this is a pretty nebulous requirement - how would a Patent Examiner exactly enforce it?

 

[cutforscience]

That's why we should do away with them all together.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I wouldn't go that far, and anyways, that's never going to happen.

 

[cutforscience]

99% of the R&D cost is attributable to writing the software and not coming up with a novel idea.

Copyright is sufficient protection for softwares.

 

[Infohawk]

Wwybywb?

I was wondering that too although it could be an overzealous new poster given the naive comments like he/she's here to "spread the truth." LOL.

 

[cutforscience]

naive?

lol i talk out of my ass sometimes, but if you think i am wrong go ahead and argue with me dude lol

 

[yllus]

I would be willing to consider 2 or 5 year patents for software.

 

[RabidMongoose]

99% of the R&D cost is attributable to writing the software and not coming up with a novel idea.

Copyright is sufficient protection for softwares.

Why do you think that copyright is sufficient protection for software? What kind of protection do you think that actually gives?