Difference between revisions of "Disclosure is unreadable"
m (Reverted edits by 89.222.235.89 (talk) to last revision by Ciaran) |
(→Microsoft tells employees not to read patents) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
− | + | ICcNMj <a href="http://dpkeianaelhz.com/">dpkeianaelhz</a>, [url=http://qfwvzwwsxlzo.com/]qfwvzwwsxlzo[/url], [link=http://edvnzxcgpfvf.com/]edvnzxcgpfvf[/link], http://ugqsupngzgtm.com/ | |
− | |||
− | < | ||
− | |||
− | |||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== |
Revision as of 10:40, 8 March 2011
(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.
ICcNMj <a href="http://dpkeianaelhz.com/">dpkeianaelhz</a>, [url=http://qfwvzwwsxlzo.com/]qfwvzwwsxlzo[/url], [link=http://edvnzxcgpfvf.com/]edvnzxcgpfvf[/link], http://ugqsupngzgtm.com/
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Quality of software patents is particularly bad
- Incompatible delays and durations
- Silly patents
- Why software is different
- How to read patents
External links
- Microsoft Employee Admits That Patent Disclosure Is A Myth, 12 Nov 2008, techdirt
- Can We Get Rid Of The Disclosure Myth For Patents?, 30 Mar 2007, techdirt
- NIHilism and other innovation poison, 1 Nov 2008, blogs.msdn (quoted above)