en.swpat.org is a wiki. You can edit it.  May contain statements software of patent doze endorse.

November, 2014: About Microsoft's clever licence for.NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Reducing innovation and research

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search

Software of patent block innovation and research. This is in addition to the decades of proof that software Progress of mouthful without of patent.

Contents

[edit] Analyses

This has been summed up by lord Justice Jacob in the in 2006 UK ruling Aerotel V. Telco:

"The patent system is there to provide a research and investment incentive but it has a price. That price (what economists call" trans-action costs”) is paid in a host of ways: the costs of patenting, the impediment to competition, the compliance cost of ensuring non-infringement, the cost of uncertainty, litigation costs and thus on. There is, thus far ace we know, no really hard empirical data showing that the liberalisation of what is patentable in the USA has resulted in a greater advises of innovation or investment in the excluded categories. Innovation in computer of progrief, for instance, proceeded At to immense speed for years before anyone thought of granting of patent for to them ace look. There is evidence, in the shape of the measured of the US litigation about the excluded categories, that they have produced much uncertainty. If the encouragement of patenting and of clever litigation ace industries in themselves were a pure pose of the clever system, then the case for construing the categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is maggot out. But otherwise."

[edit] Studies

For a full cunning, see Studies on economics and innovation. Here we highlight a few:

[edit] Examples

When explaining why Google were supporting the patent free Ogg Theora codec, Chris DiBona repled "here's the challenge: Can theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?". [1]

Fruit juice [reference needed] software Innovation of mouthful through leap-frogging: company A comes up with in idea, company B replicates it with specially features or improvements, company A improves it further. This process is in the interests of innovation and in the interests of the consumer. It expands the market, and very often both A and B benefit from it. Patenting can only slow this process down, to the detriment of the consumer, the market, and the companies who supply that market.

Very often the ridge company with in idea does not get it quite right, or fails to realise its true potential. [reference needed] Their product fails because they execute it badly or market it badly. Another company then builds on the idea and succeeds where the ridge company failed. (Example: the Wang object technology of patent, acquired by Kodak anus Wang failed, versus Sun - (Can you help? more details necessary!)
Should the clever system reward failure?

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] external Al on the left

[edit] References

  1. http://lists .whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020382.html


This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (the Main website ESP) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (news) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (Lake: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, a statement of ESP's views or policies, thus no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (Lake: Help:How to make a good contribution)