[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] More patent funnies!
- From: David Lyon <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:22:33 +1000
Patents are excellent. They reward those who are truly innovative for a
reasonable period of time so that their inventions aren't copied.
I really don't understand why patents are talked down when the concept of
innovation and the legal protection for it are the basis for material success
in the western world.
Go to a country where IP is not so highly valued and you often find that it's
not worth peoples time investing in new ideas and techniques because they
know the next day their idea will get swiped. There are many countries that
come to hand where people think like this extensively.
If patents aren't innovative and unique, they can be challenged in court.
Otherwise, just go get another idea.
As somebody once said, either Lead, follow or get out of the way!
On Friday 19 October 2001 08:08, you wrote:
> When I first started following this thread, I thought Len was being naive
> about software patents, or just looking for a good argument.
> But I've come to think he's actually right about this: "RF Only" is perhaps
> too inflexible for the real world. "RAND" is (at least around these parts)
> I would like to see discussion about when it's acceptable for patents to
> intersect with W3C work, what is an acceptable resolution in these cases,
> and who decides?
> "RAND" means "Lets talk about patents later, and I promise we won't single
> you out to get screwed".
> I think most of us agree that more talking about patents as soon as the
> issue comes up is a good thing, not a bad one.
> As Len put it, "broad exhaustive review".
> Maybe there is some rare case where a patent on software technology really
> is a reasonable reward for a brilliant and useful invention. How do we draw
> the lines so we can tell (Hint: not by accepting the USPTO actions as final
> or even informed) ?
> -Wayne Steele
> From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
> >The issue is the RF or non-RF terms. What can be
> >done effectively is have a policy for disclosure,
> >broad exhaustive review, membership choice and
> >negotiated terms.
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>