en.swpat.org is a wiki.   You can edit it.   May contain statements End Software Patents does not endorse.

November 2014: About Microsoft’s patent licence for .NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Editing The disclosure is useless

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in.

Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
+
tx3rKD  <a href="http://zgarzvqqoytb.com/">zgarzvqqoytb</a>, [url=http://ydfpncaarydy.com/]ydfpncaarydy[/url], [link=http://mwogcgxxbdbt.com/]mwogcgxxbdbt[/link], http://tavaiblrokay.com/
'''(new page, work in progress''' - possibly too similar in scope to [[Software patents are unreadable]])
+
 
+
==Disclosure happens without patents, and better==
+
 
+
In a 2008 [[in re Bilski]] brief, this quote is pulled from the [[in re Alappat]] ruling:
+
 
+
:"''[i]t is estimated that 85-90% of the world's technology is disclosed only in patent documents.''" (Newman, J., concurring)
+
 
+
Of course, using this quote when discussing software is disingenuous given the massive, complete, and freely reusable information disclosed by [[free software]] such as GNU/Linux, and given that many authorities have said of software patents that the disclosure is useless.
+
 
+
==Software patents are unreadable==
+
 
+
Example #1: Australian government survey
+
<blockquote>
+
There was an Australian government study of the patent system in the 1980's. It concluded that aside from international pressure, there was no reason to have a patent system -- it did no good for the public -- and recommended abolishing it if not for international pressure. One of the things they cited was that engineers don't try reading patents to learn anything, as it is too hard to understand them. They quoted one engineer saying "''I can't recognise my own inventions in patentese''".<ref>http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2107481,00.htm</ref>
+
</blockquote>
+
 
+
Example #2: A programmer talking about his patent US7650296:
+
<blockquote>
+
Brunner says software patents on his own work don't even make sense to him. "''I can't tell you for the hell of it what they're actually supposed to do. The company said we have to do a patent on this. ... Personally, when I look at them, I'm not proud at all. It's just like mungo mumbo jumbo that nobody understands and makes no sense from an engineering standpoint whatsoever.''"<ref>http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack</ref>
+
</blockquote>
+
 
+
Example #3: A [[venture capitalist]] talking about all existing patents
+
<blockquote>
+
There is no way for a software engineer or system architect to have any idea what exists out there to either copy or avoid (whatever the motivation).<ref>http://falseprecision.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/my-dumb-softwar.html</ref>
+
</blockquote>
+
 
+
==Microsoft tells employees not to read patents==
+
 
+
<blockquote>
+
When using existing libraries, services, tools, and methods from outside Microsoft, we must be respectful of licenses, copyrights, and patents. Generally, you want to carefully research licenses and copyrights (your contact in Legal and Corporate Affairs can help), and never search, view, or speculate about patents. I was confused by this guidance till I wrote and reviewed one of my own patents. The legal claims section -- the only section that counts -- was indecipherable by anyone but a patent attorney. Ignorance is bliss and strongly recommended when it comes to patents.<ref>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/eric_brechner/archive/2008/11/01/nihilism-and-other-innovation-poison.aspx</ref>
+
</blockquote>
+
 
+
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
+
 
+
* [[Incompatible delays and durations]]
+
* [[Silly patents]]
+
* [[Why software is different]]
+
* [[How to read patents]]
+
* [[Software patents produce legal uncertainty]]
+
* [[Software is too abstract, software patent quality is terrible]]
+
* [[The disclosure is useless]]
+
* [[Infringement is unavoidable]]
+
 
+
==External links==
+
* [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0135002767.shtml Microsoft Employee Admits That Patent Disclosure Is A Myth], 12 Nov 2008, '''techdirt'''
+
* [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070321/021508.shtml Can We Get Rid Of The Disclosure Myth For Patents?], 30 Mar 2007, '''techdirt'''
+
* [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/eric_brechner/archive/2008/11/01/nihilism-and-other-innovation-poison.aspx NIHilism and other innovation poison], 1 Nov 2008, '''blogs.msdn''' (quoted above)
+
* [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/08/recent-scholarship-do-patents-disclose-useful-information.html Recent Scholarship: Do Patents Disclose Useful Information?], 19 Aug 2011, '''Patently-O (Jason Rantanen)'''
+
 
+
==References==
+
{{reflist}}
+
 
+
 
+
{{footer}}
+
[[Category:Arguments]]
+

Please note that all contributions to en.swpat.org are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 (see en.swpat.org:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: