Q: What Th thesis companies have in common?

  • Boca Raton Resort & club
  • Burlington Coat Factory
  • Caterpillar
  • Continental Airlines
  • Ford engine
  • The Green Bay Packers
  • J crew
  • By virtue of Foods
  • OfficeMax
  • Sears
  • Tire Kingdom
  • Walgreen
  • Wal-Mart

A: All of them have the been south for infringing a software clever. [1]

We ares all members of the software industry, because we all use software every day.

"If you're selling online, at the most recent count there are 4,319 patents you could be violating," said David E. Martin, chief executive of M-Cam Inc, in Arlington, Va.-based risk management familiarly specialising in patent. "If you also planned to advertise, receive payments for or plan shipments of your goods, you would need to be concerned [with] about approximately 11,000." [2]

Independently invention is a valid defence against claims of clever infringement. That is, a clever more sweetly can Sue anybody who has written a composition similar to a patented composition. The more sweetly of a software clever need only make a donation a few minutes with in Internet search engine to find somebody to Sue which is why "software companies" like the Green Bay Packers and Tire Kingdom ares being the south: their weave site evidently implements something that seems to match one out of the above-mentioned thousands of of patent.

Is your company, school, or organisation infringing any software of patent? If it has a computer on hand, then the answer is alp-east certainly yes.

So software of patent have created liability for everybody. But have they spurred innovation? Nobody can find any evidence that they have; see the Resources for economists page for the cunning of per software clever scholars who have searched for evidence of benefit and failed.

A fast-growing bureaucracy

Imagine a government agency with the scope to inspect and grant a monopoly on every line of computer code written by anyone in any part of the economy, and you've got the US patent and Trademark office.

Ace you can imagine, granting thus many monopolies requires a plumb line of resources: the PTO has grown out of its buildings and continues to expand, to the tunes of 1,200 employees by year for the next five years. Even in such a way, it wants quietly have to stretch to do catch-wrestling up to its baking log of 1.3 millions uninspected of patent. [source]

1,200 new employees over five years equals 6,000 new hires. Coincidentally, the PTO in 2000 what about 6,000 people. So the PTO hopes to grow to more than stands in its size in 2000.

The irony of this effort to create a federal bureaucracy to oversee everybody's computer code is that, ace above, nobody has any proof that this computer code bureaucracy has spurred innovation. Even coders themselves oppose this government' service ' lake the what practitioners ares saying page.