What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
105 Comments
- CrudE, on 02/11/2009, -2/+36IBM put out 4,186 patents in 2008 alone...
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/01/14/ibm- ... - floort, on 02/10/2009, -18/+51Software patents stifle innovation. They should all be disallowed.
- IceSabre, on 02/11/2009, -1/+33DING! Achievement unlocked 10G
- TheMidnight, on 02/11/2009, -1/+31It's over 9000!
- Emachine, on 02/11/2009, -0/+18That's a lot. But Audi filed 9,621 patents developing just one car, the A6. They must have filed every single component on the car, including The Wheel.
- zad1, on 02/11/2009, -7/+22Only 10,000 patents from a company of 90,000 employees?
Thomas Edison had 1,093 patents. - digitalpencil, on 02/11/2009, -1/+14Yeah, but Edison stole a *****-load of ideas (remember Nikola Tesla; radio, electricity, lightbulbs, microwaves etc. etc.) so it's not exactly the same thi...... oh, i see where you're going ;)
- jonnyboy88, on 02/11/2009, -3/+14Why would anyone create anything if they get no recognition for their work?
- SpanishMongoose, on 03/02/2009, -2/+13you do realize that you are referring to yourself too, by using digg?
- Repeater2000, on 02/11/2009, -2/+12Yes, you are totally justified in stealing their intellectual property. Keep patting yourself on the back fella.
- Zippo, on 02/11/2009, -0/+10A patent is fine, so long as a) it's not vague and could be interpreted as a thousand different things, and b) is actually created.
If a working prototype isn't created within five years, the patent should expire. And if that prototype isn't turned into a real, commercial product within 10 years, the patent should expire. - Myztry, on 02/11/2009, -0/+9Certainly not without a working prototype. The chain gun approach to 'inventing' is rather crude.
- theaceoffire, on 02/11/2009, -0/+7Right now, IP holders don't create because patent pirates will sue them if they make money.
"You might have the patent to make Windows, but I have the patent on Clicking! Pay up!"
"You might have the patent on clicking, but I have the patent on movement! Pay up!"
etc. - jivatmanx, on 02/11/2009, -2/+9They would get recognition, but not right to sole profit.
Somehow, I don't think civilization would be further off if we'd allowed patents since ancient times. - Spor, on 02/11/2009, -7/+14How are software patents different from any other patent? It takes a lot of money and a lot of time to make any great innovation. No one is going to spend that time and money if there is no way to protect their work.
I'll wholeheartedly agree that the current situation is bad. But it isn't the general concept of software patents that is the issue. It's the USPTO. They are constantly granting patents that shouldn't be granted, patents that violate the prior art and non-obvious requirements. Throwing software patents out the window entirely isn't the solution.
If someone wants to give me resources to enlighten me to the other side of this argument, please do, I would love to read them. - EricAnderton, on 02/11/2009, -0/+7"including The Wheel."
Patent Synopsis:
A device by which a moving platform is supported off the ground, and whereby forward linear motion is converted into a radial motion on the device, which makes continual contract with the ground, keeping the platform suspended while in motion. Said device is of mostly round character, and fixes to the platform by way of a round shaft, supported by a suitable rotational bearing. - inactive, on 02/11/2009, -3/+9Yes, because innovation is more important than a persons rights. I can imagine the world you want to live in where intellectual property holders don't create because if they do someone will loot it and profit from.
Nice world. - gcnaddict, on 02/11/2009, -0/+6Edison pushed patents for things created by his teams of inventors. He didn't invent most of his stuff.
Microsoft works similarly, except it's not a person. It's a collaborative entity which owns the patents pushed by its employees, which means (to a degree, but not entirely) that anyone with a stake in Microsoft has the same size stake in all of Microsoft's patents. - digitalpencil, on 02/11/2009, -0/+6* 'their ideas'
and no, it doesn't.. the US patent system doesn't work as it should. Blanket software patents are being issued and they do need to be reformed but people here seem to be completely misinformed on a) how to read a patent application and what it actually summarizes (apple for example, have not and did not attempt to patent 'multitouch'. You couldn't patent that anymore than you could 'singletouch') and b) how patents work as a form of intermediary currency between competing firms..
I came across this today and I thought it quite aptly summarized the usage of patents as a form of IP stalemate. Given how many diggers responded with "OMG!! Apple are evil! They're going to sue Palm before the Pre's out the door!! Those Bastards!" and now that the same uninformed, reactionary ***** appears to be falling on MS's doorstep as well, it seems pertinent to share this.
"The reason you do that is to have a defensive position. It's like two little porcupines going around, and you don't want to touch each other because you might get stung. You peacefully coexist and everything's OK and you keep working together. We're very respectful about people's intellectual property, we believe we're huge innovators and have been for a lot of years and that this product has an enormous number of innovations in it. If something does happen there, we do have the portfolio, we think to defend ourselves and to be successful doing that. But nothing's happened to date, so we're really just focused on getting the product out the door."
- Ed Colligan at the TW-T&T Conference on Palm's Pre and their current IP stalemate with Apple.
Competing firms patent everything they can get their mits on to fill out their portfolio, that way they have something to barter with. Basically, Company A doesn't sue Comp.B for infringing on their IP, because CompB. is also infringing on another piece of CompA's IP. Not all IP is equal of course and some of it weighs up as more valuable than others.
Tech companies are infringing on each others' IP all the goddamn time. They're rarely enforced as it's easier (and more effective) to simply share them under the table (that way you get something in return). Of course in the case of blatant rip-offs, the company can choose to enforce their patent rights and screw company b in the ass but on the whole, people just try to avoid pissing on someone elses' lampost.
Hope that breaks things down and sorry for being short, i'm just tired of all this patents are evil *****. - timusca, on 02/11/2009, -0/+6Please learn to choose an appropriate preview image. Thank you.
- solid12345, on 02/11/2009, -2/+8Um why shouldn't they be allowed sole profit? I'd be pissed if I spent years developing something and someone just takes my plans, makes a cheap knockoff and makes 5x more than me.
- MtheoryX, on 02/11/2009, -0/+6@volleytennis: "You can't grossly exaggerate the situation and then use that exaggeration for your argument as if that is fact"
Actually, you kind of can. He didn't merely "exaggerate the situation," he assumed what was said was true, and found a contradiction.
Its called a Reductio ad absurdum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
"Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd"), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result."
I'm not saying it was executed perfectly, but you are incorrect in assuming this kind of thing can't be done in an argument. - theaceoffire, on 02/11/2009, -2/+7Microsoft is the Looter.
Using their all reaching monopoly to destroy competition, gut standards, and kill innovation. Woot. - Myztry, on 02/11/2009, -0/+5If you didn't know, and couldn't see - the article would just appear as if it was from any other bloke.
- Spor, on 02/11/2009, -0/+5Jobs at the USPTO suck.
With the same qualification you can go work for a firm making 3 times as much and doing better work. That's the problem with the USPTO, a lot of the less qualified people who can't get firm jobs end up working there as a last resort. - DirtyVicar, on 02/11/2009, -0/+5This is ***** ridiculous. In my sphere of software development I've seen a slew of patents issued for basic math algorithms, like moving stuff around in simple matrices, and tied up with 150 lines of flowery "whereas, whereas, whereas" language. I'd like to introduce someone named GAO to USPTO.
- inactive, on 02/11/2009, -1/+6Patents don't stop piracy!
- solid12345, on 02/11/2009, -2/+7I disagree. Patents exist to protect business people from OTHER business thieves, not discourage a community.
Case in point, after all these years no open source free software has been able to match the quality of the software Adobe puts out, i.e Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator, After Effects. Why is this? Because Adobe hired the best programmers and paid them a great salary, it is worth the money that went into it, meanwhile the Gimp is barely getting close to what Photoshop can do alone.
If Adobe were forced to open their source, the ones who would benefit most are competitors who would just take it and rebrand their own software with stolen code and sell it. Adobe has a right to guard their code. - VipeNess, on 02/11/2009, -0/+4During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft.
- KibibyteBrain, on 02/11/2009, -0/+4I agree they stifle innovation. But I think things would be far worse in a world where anyone could easily clone any good idea as soon as it was released. This would lead to one of two things:
1) R&D companies going under as they couldn't justify research(unlikely)
2) Companies moving away from adopting and using open standards and back to obscured trade secrets(my bet)
And two is the last thing we want. - ConfirmedCynic, on 02/11/2009, -0/+4Ten thousand patents sink hard work and creativity. Realistically, who can even be expected to be aware of all their stilted content. And then it only takes a lawyer seizing upon one of them and twisting the wording to assert there's similarity to your product to tie your fledgling company up in the courts, draining it of legal expensives Microsoft can afford but your small company can't.
Of course this generally only happens -after- you've developed the product and start to market it too.
Hardly conducive to innovation.
Not to mention that most of the patents shouldn't have passed the obviousness test.
I can just see what would have happened if someone was developing the alphabet now. Capital letters and punctuation would have been patented before he could finish. - joshhan, on 02/11/2009, -0/+4It's a really cool steering wheel though.
- ultrafez, on 02/12/2009, -0/+4volleytennis got owned.
- digitalpencil, on 02/11/2009, -5/+9you're an idiot.. not everything is open-source hugs and cuddles.
just because the US patent system is broken, doesn't meant that we should abandon IP protection completely.
Patents don't stifle innovation, they inspire it. Without them all we would see was occasional forward progress and a lot of ***** rip-offs. When you're forced to think outside the box, approach a problem from a different angle, we see different solutions, we see innovation. Competition inspires innovation and IP protection is necessary to ensure that competition thrives rather than reconciling to simply copypasta existing ideas. - MtheoryX, on 02/11/2009, -0/+3NO U!!!
- MtheoryX, on 02/11/2009, -0/+3Who diggs this down, seriously?
- mousky, on 02/11/2009, -1/+4@solid12345:
First, if there were no patents, there would be no "plans" to take.
Second, if someone is able to quickly replicate your invention once it is 'presented' to the world, it shouldn't have been granted a patent in the first place.
Third, if someone was able to make 5x more than you, then you should be looking at your business model.
Fourth, the current system does not recognize that an invention may be 'invented' by different people around the same time. It only recognizes the party the files first. Why shouldn't the other inventors be allowed profit from their investment of time and money? - Stingwolf, on 02/11/2009, -0/+3I believe the word you are looking for is "infringing." If someone steals my wallet, I no longer have my wallet. If he "steals" my IP, I still have it.
Theft : Criminal matter :: Infringement : Civil matter - inactive, on 02/11/2009, -2/+5"The company gives workers up to $1,500 each time they apply for a patent as well as a cube with details on the invention. Once a patent is granted, Microsoft workers get a plaque that includes a copy of the first page of the patent application. "
$1,500 prize? I think Wong got jipped! - ConfirmedCynic, on 02/11/2009, -0/+3Ten thousand hooks to snag anyone trying to develop new software and get them mired in patent disputes due to "similarity".
- BradHAWK, on 02/11/2009, -0/+3Maybe they should just have a much shorter lifespan, and actually be examined by people who understand software, and there should be incremental fees - first patent free, and the fee goes up from there.
- pgouy, on 02/11/2009, -0/+3I guess it all comes down to how the patent system really works.
Software patens should always be submitted with some kind of "working" prototype. - Ascus, on 02/11/2009, -0/+3You mean others will think of more creative ways to market, use and produce your product.
Most patents software I have seen, are more like guess on the way technology may go than actual innovation. The 10K patent is pretty much a classic example of one of these. - xR0e, on 02/11/2009, -0/+3Quality, not quantity.
Am I right?! - zeromerk, on 02/11/2009, -0/+3"Logging the 10,000th patent really is a testament to all of the innovation that has been taking place"
It's not really innovative unless it's implemented. - inactive, on 02/11/2009, -0/+2that may be. but that is very different from thje original post saying all software patents are inherently bad and should be abolished
- MtheoryX, on 02/11/2009, -0/+2What you did there...
I see it. - Narrwald, on 02/11/2009, -0/+2I will keep pirating their software and not feeling bad about. If they needed my money, or would at least use it to produce a product superior to something I could get for less, I would feel more inclined to pay for it.
But right now, I feel that giving Microsoft my money for software that is only updated visually from generation to generation is an utter waste. - Myztry, on 02/11/2009, -0/+2Because markets saturate causing demand to plummet. New products would continue without protectionism. The cost of patents just cause an artificial barrier for entry to innovative small companies.
The highest profit is garnered from 'early adopters' who pay a premium. The companies that are the first to release products (not the 'mimics') reap significant financial benefits of innovation. - ultrafez, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2Get a life, asshat.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is