Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: "Google loses 5 million dollars over a Linux patent"

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
    If you invent something, then you deserve to have a micro-monopoly on your invention.
    Why?

    If you invent something, presumably you plan to sell it, so you'll make money by selling it ahead of the competition.

    I could almost agree with patents for things that are truly not obvious, but they're so rare that most patent office employees would spend most of the day playing Minesweeper while waiting for one to turn up.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueJayofEvil View Post
    A patent is also a micro-monopoly that goes against the very concept of a free enterprise market.
    Not really, in theory a patent allows the hypothetical little guy to make money from his or her invention which is the foundation of capital, not in and of itself a bad thing.

    The fact that people, these days, tend to sell patents to companies that collect them and turn a profit by licensing those patents to others is again, another building block in capital, not really a bad thing.

    People have a right to make money from their inventions and they have a right to sell that right to others, usually making both a profit.

    It's ironic we have a patent system as well as anti-trust laws here in the US. Innovation occurs from competition, not from monopolistic stagnation (which patents often induce.)
    No, there is no irony, we learned a long time ago, and continually have it proven that a market that is unregulated by an external power, is a bad thing. Or did you make a bundle in the market crash of 2008?

    You'd be surprised. Much of the human genome is patented, so patenting a genetically-modified human being could be a problem in the no-too-distant future.
    That hypothetical will be a very lengthy and politically poisoned legal battle involving everyone from the Christian Right to the Far Left to overturn the current policy. It won't happen any time soon.

    I do look forward to the company that tries to sue someone for having a cancer gene, though.

    I do agree with the idea of scaling back what can be patented. It would also be much more sane to limit any given patent to a 5-year maximum.
    Scaling back what can be patented to the late 80's level, before those damned mice were patented, can only be a good thing. The time limit is debatable.

    I do not agree that abolishing patents should not be considered, though.
    Good luck with getting people to listen to an argument that includes that. It'd be an argument louder and more vitriolic than the Single Payer Health Care argument.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    People have a right to make money from their inventions and they have a right to sell that right to others, usually making both a profit.
    Why?

    No, there is no irony, we learned a long time ago, and continually have it proven that a market that is unregulated by an external power, is a bad thing. Or did you make a bundle in the market crash of 2008?
    Calling financial markets 'unregulated' is bizarre. The crash was due to the credit bubble of the 90s and 00s, which was primarily due to government central banks holding interest rates at artificially low levels to create an artificial boom so the politicians would get reelected.

    In a free market you would not have seen banks lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to anyone with a pulse to buy an overpriced house, because anyone who saw their bank doing such a thing would have pulled their money out immediately.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    Why?
    Because I said so.



    Calling financial markets 'unregulated' is bizarre. The crash was due to the credit bubble of the 90s and 00s, which was primarily due to government central banks holding interest rates at artificially low levels to create an artificial boom so the politicians would get reelected.
    I'll take former regulator Bill Black's word over yours on the causes of the banking collapse any day.

    In a free market you would not have seen banks lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to anyone with a pulse to buy an overpriced house, because anyone who saw their bank doing such a thing would have pulled their money out immediately.
    Unless they could turn a profit doing so, which they did. If you really believe that markets can be self regulating, you are fooling yourself.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Owatonna, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Not really, in theory a patent allows the hypothetical little guy to make money from his or her invention which is the foundation of capital, not in and of itself a bad thing.
    Patents are not required to make money off an invention. Patents were originally supposed to be used to "promote progress" by disclosing useful ideas in exchange for a temporary restriction on others using that idea.
    Too many people seem to think that patents are the *only* way to make money off of something or that that is their sole purpose.
    Patents have only been around a few hundred years, and people made money in business long before that.

    The fact that people, these days, tend to sell patents to companies that collect them and turn a profit by licensing those patents to others is again, another building block in capital, not really a bad thing.
    Agreed, but that does not address the larger problems patents cause.

    People have a right to make money from their inventions and they have a right to sell that right to others, usually making both a profit.
    And patents are not required to do that. Coca-Cola's formula, for example, is a trade secret. They made their money building a brand name (trademarked) and selling their products.

    No, there is no irony, we learned a long time ago, and continually have it proven that a market that is unregulated by an external power, is a bad thing. Or did you make a bundle in the market crash of 2008?
    And what does that have to do with patents? Patents are tools that enable monopolies, and as such need to be seriously re-examined.

    That hypothetical will be a very lengthy and politically poisoned legal battle involving everyone from the Christian Right to the Far Left to overturn the current policy. It won't happen any time soon.
    When ACTA and the TPP are accepted, they will definitely force a serious discussion involving the abolition of all forms of patents, copyrights, and other restrictive concepts.

    I do look forward to the company that tries to sue someone for having a cancer gene, though.
    Already happening.

    Scaling back what can be patented to the late 80's level, before those damned mice were patented, can only be a good thing. The time limit is debatable.
    Agreed.

    Good luck with getting people to listen to an argument that includes that. It'd be an argument louder and more vitriolic than the Single Payer Health Care argument.
    You should read Techdirt.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueJayofEvil View Post
    That is a group of cancer patients suing a pharmaceutical company not a pharmaceutical company suing cancer patients.

    (Good luck to them, though, hope they win)

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    17

    Default um... that means it will take...

    about 40 minutes to make that money back.


  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    20

    Default Patent reduced to pure math!

    This is very interesting http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/05/01/1746231/Patent-5893120-Reduced-To-Pure-Math

    US Patent #5,893,120 has been reduced to mathematical formulae as a demonstration of the oft-ignored fact that there is an equivalence relation between programs and mathematics. You may recognize Patent #5,893,210 as the one over which Google was ordered to pay $5M for infringing due to some code in Linux. It should be interesting to see how legal fiction will deal with this. Will Lambda calculus no longer be 'math'? Or will they just decide to fix the inconsistency and make mathematics patentable?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •