eruagnostic(Friday 2nd of November 2007 04:17:17 AM)
That's an ignorant comment.
1) It's not only true for software. It's true for all areas where the products are immaterial
2) Claiming that it's equivalent to pirate music/books completely misunderstands the difference between patents and copyright.
3) "Work around the patents" -... yeah right. I'll see you "work around" patents covering data formats and protocols.
briangman3(Tuesday 23rd of October 2007 08:26:29 PM)
Unfortunately this video is completely wrong, and showing a completely bias view, I can name 1000+ small company in the US that would not have been able to success if it was not for their software patents. Patents in the US were created to give a small inventor an opportunity to compete and they still do. o not believe all the stuff you see on YouTube, things like this show very bias views of a very complicated subject and incorrect in the material they present.
eruagnostic(Friday 2nd of November 2007 04:12:38 AM)
let's assume you're actually a software developer (given your bold statement). How would you guarantee your employer that the code your produce don't violate patents?
briangman3(Friday 2nd of November 2007 09:11:41 AM)
Thank you for your comment, yet as a software developer you have problems, and often can not guarantee your work does not violate a patent. You should assume it does unless proven otherwise.
eruagnostic(Friday 2nd of November 2007 09:17:33 AM)
Unless of course software patents are illegal as they have always been in Europe.
How do you "prove" that your software don't violate patents? What do you do if you can't prove that?
eruagnostic(Friday 2nd of November 2007 09:19:28 AM)
Oh.. and one more thing:
How much does it cost a small "inventor" to prove that his software doesn't violate patents?
How does that compare to large companies who just cross-license?
