The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

[yogi_berra]

Aren't patents just great?

Sure they are great, they allow small businesses to profit from their products rather than getting shafted when large multi-nationals come in and clone their products.

How the hell is all this mess supposed to support progress, which was the original intention when the concept of patents was introduced⁈

Ask the judge that told the USPTO that mice were patentable (against the USPTO's wishes).

Does anyone else here think that patents have outlived their usefulness a very long time ago?

Not at all, but the system does need to be reformed to prevent certain kinds of patents.

[smitty3268]

Aren't patents just great? How the hell is all this mess supposed to support progress, which was the original intention when the concept of patents was introduced⁈ Does anyone else here think that patents have outlived their usefulness a very long time ago?

To be fair, I think some patents are useful. It's just the business-method patents, and most software patents that are evil. If you read the original patent laws, I don't think most of these are actually valid patents to begin with, but unfortunately judges have disagreed.

[Eduard Munteanu]

I'm not convinced patents are useful at all. Really, there are enough incentives already, like being the first to market or raising funds through a variety of means (even donations or pledges). What patents do instead is create an opportunity for excess profits by stifling competition, effectively enacting a monopoly. They might also reduce incentives for innovation, if it proves some new technology builds upon patented ideas.

So I don't really get this "some patents are ok" thing. Do they become evil once they visibly step on your toes?

[Nevertime]

I'm not convinced patents are useful at all. Really, there are enough incentives already, like being the first to market or raising funds through a variety of means (even donations or pledges). What patents do instead is create an opportunity for excess profits by stifling competition, effectively enacting a monopoly. They might also reduce incentives for innovation, if it proves some new technology builds upon patented ideas.

So I don't really get this "some patents are ok" thing. Do they become evil once they visibly step on your toes?

I largely agree, software patents should be abolished. Its on the level of patenting a plot in a book. If you could do that you'd get to the point where you couldn't write a story without violating several patents. I wouldn't go as far as saying all patents should be abolished but its clearly standing it the way of progress as far as software's concerned.

[smitty3268]

I'm not convinced patents are useful at all. Really, there are enough incentives already, like being the first to market or raising funds through a variety of means (even donations or pledges). What patents do instead is create an opportunity for excess profits by stifling competition, effectively enacting a monopoly. They might also reduce incentives for innovation, if it proves some new technology builds upon patented ideas.

So I don't really get this "some patents are ok" thing. Do they become evil once they visibly step on your toes?

20 years is FOREVER in the software industry, which makes the problem especially noticeable. One thing patents traditionally do is incentivize companies to publish their work publicly for others to take advantage of - rather than trying to keep it secret. And really, if something is genuinely a real breakthrough and not just a minor modification to something that already exists or a math theorem, then i have no problem with giving them a window to take advantage of that before other companies swoop in.

The problem is with all the generic patents that cover everything, and the patents that cover obvious things that many people would inevitably come up with as soon as they start working in that field. That's a job for major patent reform, not necessarily abolishing them altogether.

[Adarion]

Aww, please let it be true!
See my signature.

Sure they are great, they allow small businesses to profit from their products rather than getting shafted when large multi-nationals come in and clone their products.

You forgot sarcasm tags here. A large enterprise (global player) has by far a longer breath for a patent / law fight than a small business. Patents are always in favour of the large fishes.

[justsumdood]

In the 18th Century, when the Founding Fathers established the United States, communications and distribution of a good were slow. The Founding Fathers felt 7 years was an adequate amount of time for an inventor/investor to recover their development costs and possibly ("POSSIBLY", mind you, not guarantee) make some profit. Fast forward to the 21st Century: communications are near instant, the time to distribute a good has decreased significantly, and patent terms have been extended. Extended. In a world where recovery of the development costs is also significantly reduced and a company CAN make a profit. Excessive profits even. Extending patent protection was not the answer, since now, instead of promoting the arts and sciences, patents now hinder said progress.

The correct solution should have been to decrease patent terms to 3 to 3.5 years: a suitable amount of time to recover costs and make a profit. Patents in the 21st Century are used as a means to lock others out of a market and stifle competitors(or at least make attempts to: see the recent Apple suits against everyone in the mobile computing device space). As it stands, when most patents expire nowadays, the technology/concept it covered has long since been abandoned by consumers, making the technology/concept worthless, except for any historical value it may hold. Think about it: what company in their right mind would now build a cellphone crammed full of tech from 1994? Consumers will say "Oh! How quaint! an antique cellphone!" and pass it on by.....

I don't feel abolishing patents completely is the answer(except software patents: software evolves too fast to be hindered by patents). Again, as I stated before: patent terms need to be reduced, not extended.

[Hephasteus]

Yes, once the patent(s) in question are indeed proven invalid then its good to go. Would be good to see the floating point HDR one get shot down too. Not sure if there's a final ruling yet but we got to wait and see

You can get HDR with an eye dropper and a clear oil. All it does is make it look like you have eye drops in or are taking drugs. I turn it off. Always.

[yogi_berra]

You forgot sarcasm tags here. A large enterprise (global player) has by far a longer breath for a patent / law fight than a small business. Patents are always in favour of the large fishes.

There was no sarcasm there because patents do not favor the large multi-nationals. The legal system based on who can pay for the best argument in front of a judge is what favors the large multi-nationals, and that is only because they can afford to pay for a high-priced legal team that can garner all kinds of benefits like being able to pay $0 in taxes.

Remember the US legal system is not based on right or wrong, it is based on who has the best argument.

[RealNC]

You can get HDR with an eye dropper and a clear oil. All it does is make it look like you have eye drops in or are taking drugs. I turn it off. Always.

You're wrong here. HDR is the natural way your eyes work. I think you're confusing HDR rendering with shaders that try to fake the "HDR-look" and are based on "bloom".

You read more about true HDR rendering on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDR_rendering)