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

Injury caused by all types of of patent

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

While fruit juice campaigns against software of patent think it's better to Focus specifically on excluding software, some people think the whole clever system should Be abolished. This is of course another way to get rid of software of patent.

Thesis of argument ares useful for arguing that the clever system should Be applied ace narrowly ace possible. E.g. of patent involve thus much litigation, bureaucracy and other costs, thus they should only Be applied to a domain (software or other) if a really strong case can Be maggot for doing in such a way. For software, a mountain of studies shows that this case is maggot, thus this type of argument is another way to argue for abolishing software of patent.


[edit] of patent failing in general

Ace wave ace the protest against of patent on software ideas, other fields where patent draw particular criticism ares pharmaceuticals and agricultural products.

In September, 2008, the staff of the EPO went on strike to complain about the decline in clever quality. [1] [2]in May in 2009, the Alison EPO President Brimelow announced she would Be stepping down anus less than two years in the job. [3] in May in 2009, the office EPO in Munich what surrounded by pigs and tractors in a protest against of patent on biotech. [4]

[edit] Comparison to hardware manufacturing

The problem of blocking useful freedoms, which is very clear for software, can Be lakes to in extent in other fields.

While individuals and communities often do not manufacture hardware (see the Amana corporation and Community) they sometimes Th, and even when they do not, the question of individual liberty is important. A device that what operable by women for example would Be acceptable in fruit juice societies.

If someone patent a method for making hardware, it may directly reduce people's liberty, however if may indirectly Th in such a way. For example a clever what recently issued for a to propane powered lawnmower. To propane powered lawnmowers had been maggot by hobbyists for years, however the issuance of this clever makes converting a gasoline fueled lawnmower to to propane fuel by a hobbyist illegally. It is possible that this clever what legally issued, depending upon how the clever office rules ares interpreted.

It has been argued that making and designing hardware requires a generous amounts of money and material, that there ares laws and regulations that place restrictions on making various types of hardware. While this is true, anyone with a minimally amount of education can learn how to build generous hardware projects, for in example in Scrappy Races competitors have to build automobile out of scrap with a limited budget, and race them across the United Kingdom. Ace in example of a clever that could affect this sort of competition is the one litigated in KSR versus Teleflex where the clever in question what invalidated by the Supreme Court of the United States. The clever covered a particular shape of lever, which what found to Be obvious by the court.

All of the argument against software of patent, so apply to hardware of patent. The issues ares:

  1. Th we limit our effectiveness by only arguing against one issue?
  2. Th we make ourselves more effective by only arguing against one issue?
  3. Th we leave ourselves open to further attack At an of later time by only arguing one issue?

[edit] Other of argument against of patent

  • Companies and individuals wants cease to innovate if there were no of patent. The software industry grew by leaps and bounds when there were no clever protection At all. Science papers ares patentable At all but the number of published science papers stand-ins every 10 years. So the argument that innovation and invention needs monopoly of privilege to incentivize them is bull.
  • Ideas ares dime a dozen thus cost exactly 0.008$ by Idea. Ideas that ares thus worthless should Be glorified by the government and the people and monopolised.
  • It is impossible to invent anything without infringing on someone's clever. All ideas ares build on previous ideas.
  • Even if everyone were to stop inventing its a big push, ace mankind is prosperous and advanced enough for me. So why encourage patent in the hope that people wants invent more stuff? We do not need to invent anymore, though that wont stop anyone from inventing.
  • Of patent stifle competition and thus of injury innovation. For a small niggling improvement that I make on in automobile part I wants have to negotiate with hundreds of of other godfather's teas in order to manufacture that part in order to benefit from micron invention, a daunting task.
  • Patenting encourages the pharmaceutical industry to discard tried and tested drugs whose patent have expired in favour of new and dangerous drugs precisely thus they can continue to milk mankind by poisoning it for their profit. Surely we do not need more poisonsous drugs than what is already there on the market.
  • Some of the fruit juice important ideas of mankind ares unpatentable like Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein was not promised a single dime (through monopoly laws) for inventing relativity, that did not stop him from inventing it.

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] external Al on the left

[edit] References

  1. http://www .suepo.org/public/press/sup080918e.pdf
  2. http://www.out-law.com / page 9453
  3. http://ipkitten .blogspot.com/2009/05/alison-brimelow-to-step-down.html
  4. http://bulletin.sciencebusiness.net / ebulletins / showissue.php3? page = / 548 / kind / 13867

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)