Skip to main content

Senslessness of software patents...

Why I don't support them:

1) Patents in software tend to be granted for trivial, non novel solutions that any competent engineer with a few minutes or hours to think about the problem will emerge.

2) Innovations in software and hardware engineering are much more difficult to reverse engineer making them more stable when subject to attempts to copy. Reverse engineering much of software code (algorithms) is rendered impossible depending on how the code is implemented or made available for end use. The innovation is in the secret of the algorithm(s) which is locked in the implementation, as long as that is kept away from prying eyes it is a *defacto patent*. Reverse engineering such tech. is either very hard or impossible (especially for web services) so again lessening the need for formal patents in the space.

3) Once granted a trivial patent is like a hammer that prevent others from right to apply trivial methods and forces money into licensing deals instead of paying for more *innovation* in the form of R&D on new products and services.

4) Once granted and later defended or used to defend, large bulks of money go to lawyers...who in no way contribute to building innovation which can change human lives, it's wasted *human* investment.

5) In industries were patents don't apply there is rampant innovation (take fashion) and no shortage of competition or players willing to invest time to create new ideas (in clothing) ...if something is copied fine, they just innovate some thing new for the next season. We need that type of rapacious innovation to take hold in technology, and eliminating patents in the space (to some ironically) would do that.


Links:

Ted talk on fashion and innovation by Johanna Blakely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

the attributes of web 3.0...

As the US economy continues to suffer the doldrums of stagnant investment in many industries, belt tightening budgets in many of the largest cities and continuous rounds of lay offs at some of the oldest of corporations, it is little comfort to those suffering through economic problems that what is happening now, has happened before. True, the severity of the downturn might have been different but the common factors of people and businesses being forced to do more with less is the theme of the times. Like environmental shocks to an ecosystem, stresses to the economic system lead to people hunkering down to last the storm, but it is instructive to realize that during the storm, all that idle time in the shelter affords people the ability to solve previous or existing problems. Likewise, economic downturns enable enterprising individuals and corporations the ability to make bold decisions with regard to marketing , sales or product focus that can lead to incredible gains as the economic
1 comment
Read more

How many cofactors for inducing expression of every cell type?

Another revolution in iPSC technology announced: "Also known as iPS cells, these cells can become virtually any cell type in the human body -- just like embryonic stem cells. Then last year, Gladstone Senior Investigator Sheng Ding, PhD, announced that he had used a combination of small molecules and genetic factors to transform skin cells directly into neural stem cells. Today, Dr. Huang takes a new tack by using one genetic factor -- Sox2 -- to directly reprogram one cell type into another without reverting to the pluripotent state." -- So the method invented by Yamanaka is now refined to rely only 1 cofactor and b) directly generate the target cell type from the source cell type (skin to neuron) without the stem like intermediate stage.  It also mentions that oncogenic triggering was eliminated in their testing. Now comparative methods can be used to discover other types...the question is..is Sox2 critical for all types? It may be that skin to neuron relies on Sox2
Post a Comment
Read more

AgilEntity Architecture: Action Oriented Workflow

Permissions, fine grained versus management headache The usual method for determining which users can perform a given function on a given object in a managed system, employs providing those Users with specific access rights via the use of permissions. Often these permissions are also able to be granted to collections called Groups, to which Users are added. The combination of Permissions and Groups provides the ability to provide as atomic a dissemination of rights across the User space as possible. However, this granularity comes at the price of reduced efficiency for managing the created permissions and more importantly the Groups that collect Users designated to perform sets of actions. Essentially the Groups serve as access control lists in many systems, which for the variable and often changing environment of business applications means a need to constantly update the ACL’s (groups) in order to add or remove individuals based on their ability to perform cert
2 comments
Read more