MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-05-27 |
| FROM | From: "rc"
|
| SUBJECT | RE: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Nokia's tablet
|
Hi Steve,
This event is a very positive thing. "They" are patenting processes, not
code. While I don't fully agree with the current state of the patent
system, especially when it comes to software and business methods, it 1) is
founded on very solid and proven principles and 2) is here to stay, so we
must deal with it constructively (definitely not accept it blindly).
Nokia is pledging not to apply any sort of licensing scheme to their patents
in the Linux kernel (a good thing) and, additionally, to revoke that pledge
to anyone who applies their own patent pressure to Linux (another good
thing). This can only help stir interest and innovation in linux utilizing
Nokia's deep patent portfolio.
Some notes:
*Patents are designed to protect Inventors, not consumers - a big
difference.
*While Henry Ford may have patented the carburetor (I don't know frankly),
but Daimler-Benz invented the internal combustion engine, and their best
customer's daughter's was named Mercedes, who they named their new model
after to entice him to buy some. Henry Ford invented the use of a
production line to reduce the costs associated with manufacturing a car so
he could bring a rich man's purchase (horseless carriage) to the masses,
just as Mr. Hershey did with chocolate.
BTW, Ford Motor Co. was Henry's THIRD car company, the big, bad, powerful
custom horseless carriage building companies forced him out of business
twice before. So it goes to show, smarts & perseverance can overcome
anything.
~Ray
PS - Great flick the other night... Gotta go again for sure!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com [mailto:owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com] On
Behalf Of Steve Milo
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:24 AM
To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Nokia's tablet
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=1C9E2303-DD57-4CE3-BB38-D1717
C87C41D
The silly thing that is illustrated in this article are how companies are
'pledging their patents to Linux'.
What exactly are they patenting? The source code? When that is compiled
very often it is optimized for the machine so whatever 'innovation'
companies with software patents think they claim is marginalized
technologically. The idea behind a patent is to lay claim to something that
does not change or morph under operating circumstances.
Henry Ford patended the carburator when he 'invented' the internal
combustion engine. He licensed his patent to the other automakers, and
although the carburator had evolved over the years until it was finally
deprecated by fuel injection, under operating circumstances Fords design
stayed functionally the same.
The intent of a patent is designed to protect 'consumers', but even that is
not entirely true. The patent office was created long before the term
'consumer' was established. This may sound like hair-splitting, but it is
this kind of accuracy in the language that is missing and is necessary to
straighten out the patent abuse taking place. In fact there are lawyers out
of Stanford and Columbia who give speech's with the intent of encouraging
twisting the language.
This is the heart of pure evil, not silence and secrecy which are necessary
sometimes to protect society.
Anyhow, if a product is created with a fairly complex assembly process with
consequences of personal injury to the user of the product, and if the
process is not carefully adhered to, then a patent serves a purpose. Once
the process becomes commonplace that patent no longer serves a purpose. But
the patent should be filed on the product itself, not the assembly process.
Holding a patent on an assembly process automatically precludes innovation.
The idea of a process is something that is dynamic and changes to fit the
circumstances to improve on what it is acting upon. In short, evolution.
Software companies have come to expect patents to be seen as something
inhereted from one generation to the next. This fatalistic view on the
future is detrimental to the advancement of civilization.
But currently this patent silliness has lead to company's with less than
monopolistic intent to file patents as well in order to protect a free and
open society.
Steve M
|
|
