THE lead patent story today relates to a subject that we covered a few days ago [1, 2]. It is about someone special who has been benefiting/profiteering from software patents and now attempts to defend their existence. TechDirt says that his essay "actually raises questions about all computer patents" and adds:
Honestly, in reading through his arguments, what struck me is that there is no explanation for why even computer hardware should be patentable. It's just taken for granted that computer hardware patents must be good, and since software is the equivalent of what's done in hardware (not really true in many cases, but...), software patents must be good. But shouldn't the original question be whether or not the hardware itself requires patents and whether or not that helps to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts"? Goetz never bothers to explain how any of these patents promote progress.
Can a science-fiction movie infringe a tech patent?
Imagine if NASA sued Stanley Kubrick for "2001: A Space Odyssey" claiming dominion over space travel. Or, better yet, fancy the patent-holding inventor of virtual environments going to court to claim James Cameron's "Avatar" is a rip-off. Sound far-fetched?
APPLE HAS BEEN SLAPPED with another lack of originality lawsuit, this time over its QuickTime movie player.
Emblaze, which is a group of technology companies, claims that it owns a patent that describes a system for streaming media and that Quicktime infringes it.
--Oracle Corp Chairman Larry Ellison
Comments
Needs Sunlight
2009-12-04 09:21:44
Roy Schestowitz
2009-12-04 10:58:29