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


Difference between revisions of "The disclosure is useless"

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(scbIsLqrchZvtrdsv)
(rv spam)
Line 1: Line 1:
  http://www.memcel.com/ ambien buy %OO http://www.resistancenorge.org/ propecia ipu http://www.calciofossacesia.com/xanax.html xanax >:DD
+
{{navbox}}
 +
'''(new page, work in progress''' - possibly too similar in scope to [[Software patents are unreadable]])
 +
 
 +
:"''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>
 +
 
 +
==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==
 +
 
 +
For software, the ideas published in patents are not useful. Publication is the benefit the public supposedly gets in return for the 20 year monopoly given to the patent holder.  For software, this is a very bad deal.
 +
 
 +
The publication is unnecessary.  This is evidenced because if the idea wasn't copyable without documentation, then companies could monopolise their software ideas simply by not publishing documentation.
 +
 
 +
==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}}==
 +
 
 +
* [[Quality of software patents is particularly bad]]
 +
* [[Incompatible delays and durations]]
 +
* [[Silly patents]]
 +
* [[Why software is different]]
 +
* [[How to read patents]]
 +
 
 +
==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)
 +
 
 +
==References==
 +
{{reflist}}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{footer}}
 +
[[Category:Arguments]]

Revision as of 02:22, 20 December 2010

(new page, work in progress - possibly too similar in scope to Software patents are unreadable)

"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".[1]

Contents

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

For software, the ideas published in patents are not useful. Publication is the benefit the public supposedly gets in return for the 20 year monopoly given to the patent holder. For software, this is a very bad deal.

The publication is unnecessary. This is evidenced because if the idea wasn't copyable without documentation, then companies could monopolise their software ideas simply by not publishing documentation.

Microsoft tells employees not to read patents

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.[2]

Related pages on en.swpat.org

External links

References

  1. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2107481,00.htm
  2. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/eric_brechner/archive/2008/11/01/nihilism-and-other-innovation-poison.aspx


This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (Main ESP website) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)