BBC: Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth on shaking up system software

[MisterGaribaldi]

Software patents should *never* have been allowed. That was one helluva con job done on governments everywhere. Moreover, they are often overly broad (progress bar comes to mind), and there's nothing a patent legitimately does that copyright law doesn't already do.

[Smilax]

this patent/antipatent battle has been going on for a while, so maybe KiwiNZ idea might be a direction our idea's could be most effective, as in, some reduction on patent time limits is good start.


james watt: monopolist, he patented his/the steam engine back in the day, From to 1769 to (via act of Parliament) 1800.

defence: thought/worked on it from 1764 to 1768 with 'substantial borrowing'.

I believe that patents do serve a purpose, however having said that patents should be time bombed with a calculated to give a time period to allow a reasonable return on investment for the creator. With the nature of the software industry and the very high obsolescence rates two years should be a sufficient time frame to hold a patent.

[Paqman]

I think the European approach of disallowing patents for software per se, but allowing them for an algorithm is pretty practical.

[MisterGaribaldi]

I think the European approach of disallowing patents for software per se, but allowing them for an algorithm is pretty practical.

I could live with that.

[smellyman]

I believe that patents do serve a purpose, however having said that patents should be time bombed with a calculated to give a time period to allow a reasonable return on investment for the creator. With the nature of the software industry and the very high obsolescence rates two years should be a sufficient time frame to hold a patent.

Also they shouldn't be ludicrous....Like "a button to purchase items from an online store"...

Need more responsible people allowing these patents.

[aysiu]

I don't mind patents for implementations, but patenting ideas is silly. If you read a lot of these software patent descriptions, they're ludicrous.

[Smilax]

I don't mind patents for implementations, but patenting ideas is silly. If you read a lot of these software patent descriptions, they're ludicrous.

i think i agree.

for example, how far would we be along with maths if you couldn't think someone else's idea for X years,

[MisterGaribaldi]

Because the general public -- and it's the general public we need to take action as voters here -- is so unaware of, removed from, and uncaring about these (and many other) issues, that's why this needs to be elevated significantly in the public conscience.

I mean, not that I would wish this to happen, but if people were to start dying over software patents, it would be come such an embarrassment that governments worldwide would have to clean their acts up. Failing that, the general public would have to do something for a change, voter-wise, and MAKE the change happen.

[JDShu]

I don't mind patents for implementations, but patenting ideas is silly. If you read a lot of these software patent descriptions, they're ludicrous.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I believe the whole point of patents are for protecting ideas. Protecting implementations is copyright.

[aysiu]

I think I understand what you're saying, but I believe the whole point of patents are for protecting ideas. Protecting implementations is copyright.

If what you're saying is true, software patents should be abolished completely.