Svet ministrov sprejel sporno direktivo o programskih patentih

rad bi iztisnil iz zagovornikov patentov en preprost in očiten primer. Ki mu noben ne bi mogel oporekat.

Pomoje ga kar ne boš dobil. Koristnost patentov se pomoje težko dokazuje na posameznem primeru, ker gre za sistem. Ta sistem omogoča, da ima lastnik patenta ekonomske koristi od patenta. In ker vsi to vedo, so motivirani za razvoj novih rešitev in tehnologij - ker si od tega obetajo materialno korist.

Motor razvoja (tehničnega, znanstvenega, enonomskega, družbenega) je sebičnost. Pure greed. Patentni sistem je eden od mehanizmov, ki vpreže pure greed, da ta dela v korist splošnega razvoja.

Pa niti ni važno, če je izum razvijal Jože, potem pa Francelj kupi patent od njega in mastno služi. Jože že sam ve, koliko naj zaračuna za svoje izumiteljsko delo.

Očitno eni vidijo problem v tem, da "s patenti služijo korporacije". Ja seveda, saj v današnjem svetu pogosto rabiš korporacijo, da financira razvoj novih izumov, to so včasih milijonski stroški. Menda kdo ne misli, da bi mobilni telefon v enem tednu spacal skupaj profesor Umnik v svoji ropotarnici (kot je bilo v tistih Disney stripih).

Predpostavka, da ta sistem sux, ju samo predpostavka.

A so bili kakšni problemi kdaj kje? Konkretno?

Po drugi strani ... vidimo da jim tam, kjer ta sistem imajo, razvoj lepo špila.

Ne z dvoklikom in ne z dvomarelo. Če bi problem bil, bi ga najverjetneje razrešili na sodišču.

> Po drugi strani ... vidimo da jim tam, kjer ta sistem imajo, razvoj lepo špila.

Efekti trenutne (zadnjih 10 let) norije s patentiranjem v zda se bodo videli verjetno sele cez cas. Bomo videli, kaj bo cez 10 let recimo. Jaz nisem tako preprican, da jih ne bo to posteno po hrbtu vzgalo, ceprav jih bo indiachinasourcing verjetno se bolj.

> Microsoft ima 10000 patentov v cakanju (pending), 4500 pa ze prijavljenih in potrjenih. Se zdi to komu hm, normalno?


No, no, Biggy ... Klik!

Patents

Smart assets

Feb 17th 2005
From The Economist print edition

A successful strategy for intellectual property, now being pirated






PATENTS are proliferating, and ever profitable. Last year IBM was awarded 3,248 of them by America's patent office—a hefty 68% more than second-placed Matsushita. IBM has been top of the list for 12 years in a row, frequently winning over 50% more patents than its nearest rival.

In the past decade, Japan has regularly fielded the most firms in the annual top ten, and in 2004 boasted five companies among them. The only other country represented in the top ten is South Korea; Samsung first appeared in 1998, when the company began its transformation from a low-end, low-price manufacturer into a premium brand that competes on quality.

While the same Japanese companies have regularly featured in the top ten during the past decade, there has been more change on the American roster. Industrial stalwarts such as General Electric, Kodak and Motorola have given way to Micron Technology, Intel and HP—suggesting a certain fluidity of American R&D prowess.

The rankings shed light on both the past and the future of the technology industry. Generally it takes between three and five years to obtain a patent, so the 2004 crop reflects applications filed at the turn of the century. Patent protection lasts for 20 years from the filing date, giving successful applicants long-term exclusivity on their invention. Each of this year's leading patent winners has a backlog of over 1,000 applications at America's patent office.

IBM spends over $5 billion a year on R&D. It earns over $1.2 billion by licensing intellectual property (IP) protected by patents. “We built a model that lets us invest and identify ways to differentiate our products, and also to give others access to our technology. That lets us ensure we leverage the investment we make in R&D,” says Jim Stallings, IBM's vice-president of IP.

In January, IBM agreed to release 500 of its patents for use by open-source programmers, and Sun Microsystems freed more than 1,600 patents for open source, as well as its operating-system software, Solaris 10. The strategy is the opposite to that of Microsoft, which uses IP as a way to thwart competition from open-source software, such as the Linux operating system.

Ironically, for years Microsoft took no active interest in patenting its technologies, relying instead on much looser “trade secrets” protections. But that has recently changed. Bill Gates, the software giant's chairman, says that obtaining patents is now a priority. The firm even hired Marshall Phelps, who masterminded IBM's patent strategy, to develop its licensing business. Microsoft in 2004 ranked around 30th, with roughly 650 patents.

“The move to license out our intellectual-property rights more broadly,” says Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, is “a pillar” of the firm's future strategy. Microsoft spends around $6 billion a year on R&D and in 2004 it applied for more than 2,000 patents. This year it will apply for over 3,000, says Mr Smith—and it is expected to break into the top ten at last.

Ziga, saj ne da sem si izmislil, tako sem prebral...

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/03/...

Je pa hecno, MS se cez luzo 'bori' za drugacne patente... Zdaj bojo pa v EU rekli, 'ah, lejte. MS pa ja ni ko slab, kr dejmo sprejet tole...' Pol se bo pa MS smejal...

Microsoft also called for a patent system that is more accessible to small investors, and executives recommended that the U.S. Congress end patent filing fees for small companies, nonprofit groups, universities and individual inventors. "The system has to work for everybody," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft’s IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."

Citat iz linka, ki ga je dal BW.

Če EU sprejme patente kot normalne, je tudi reforma, ki jo predlaga MS v USA, čisto izvedljiva.

Sploh sem za večjo konvergenco med USA in EU, na vseh področjih. Sej mamo še "hecne" stvari, po katerih se lahko še nadalje razlikujemo. Recimo prepoved vožnje s tankom po ulicah je v ZDA stroga, v VB je pa dovoljeno. Recimo, take zadeve, da se bodo počutili Angleži dovolj free - ker ne smejo več loviti lisic - pa Američani dovolj varni, ker jih ne ogrožajo tanki na highways. Pa Kranjska čebela ...

No, vsekakor je zaščita intelektualne lastnine nujna, če in dokler ščitimo ostalo lastnino. Sicer so proizvajalci IL drugorazredni državljani.