How software patents work

[BigBobsh2o]

So is there a patent for say, the idea of a word processor?

[winter32842]

Patent is a must for individual inventor. What would an individual inventor would do if the person come up with one of the greatest idea but don't money to support it. Not patenting allow a big company steal the idea and they have a lot of money to make a good product. It just screws the individual inventor.

[WavesOfTrolls]

The U.S. decided to patent software "inventions" because they could not compete with JAPAN.

[elchippe]

@WavesOfTrolls most of the software come form Europe and USA.

[jerthemessiah]

If the government objects to monopoly prices for new inventions, it should stop granting patents.

[DOlogunde]

what a biased video.

[medlock01]

Passing any code through the CPU and memory of a computer is USING THE DEVICE AS INTENDED. Rearranging the order of the bits running through it doesn't constitute an invention no matter how far you stretch the concept.

[MichaelRHead]

GNU is an acronym, not an initialism and is pronounced "guh-new"

[Welocy]

Patenting math is not acceptable.

[QuanSai]

This video is very biased. I don't like it. It sounds good to passive viewers who don't know anything about innovation and marketing, but it really doesn't cut the block for people who actually know things.

Rhetoric in this video is abundant. It's just as bad as the bible, and most viewers won't agree with me here because the narrator in the video says very nice-sounding things.

[TheGNUfan]

@QuanSai You have the floor, enlighten us about how wonderful software patents are.

[lawlinmockery]

@QuanSai Marketing sure... I can see that, but look up anything about patent trolling and you'll have your answer. I know the video sounds a bit 'preachy', but... it's on the right track.

Your views will change when something you've wanted to do, or are working towards gets shattered by a wall of legal text and threats... happened to me, you seem like a smart guy though, so I'm sure you'll figure things out :)

[kingoftarn]

I agree, the patent system desperately needsto be revised. As a layman, I think a five year patent might be more reasonable than 20 for software. Certainly it takes at least 2 years for a patent to be approved in the US, which is far too long.

[yallonb]

very true. let's hope they get abbolished.

[cisneroselias]

Hola amigos, ¿alguien ha traducido este video al español?

[dlmaniac]

Typical FUD produced by FOSS people.

[briangman3]

Unfortunately this video is completely wrong, and showing a completely bias view, I can name 1000+ small company in the US that would not have been able to success if it was not for their software patents. Patents in the US were created to give a small inventor an opportunity to compete and they still do. o not believe all the stuff you see on YouTube, things like this show very bias views of a very complicated subject and incorrect in the material they present.

[eruagnostic]

let's assume you're actually a software developer (given your bold statement). How would you guarantee your employer that the code your produce don't violate patents?

[briangman3]

Thank you for your comment, yet as a software developer you have problems, and often can not guarantee your work does not violate a patent. You should assume it does unless proven otherwise.

[eruagnostic]

Unless of course software patents are illegal as they have always been in Europe.

How do you "prove" that your software don't violate patents? What do you do if you can't prove that?

[eruagnostic]

Oh.. and one more thing:

How much does it cost a small "inventor" to prove that his software doesn't violate patents?

How does that compare to large companies who just cross-license?

[MyHugestFan]

lets hear them

[doodleflash]

F**k Micro$oft.

[rpalbrecht]

If this video is true then why is it only true for software? Your argument ignores the credible benefits of patents...that have led innovators for centuries to seek protection for their investments in their creative work. If you are any good as a programmer, you can design around most software patents. Let me guess...you also think books should be freely photocopiable and music should be freely stolen from artists and musicians, respectively? right?...

[Logician33]

With things as obvious as doubly-linked lists being patented, there's no way any programmer can work his way around software patents in any nontrivial program. I'd find it hard to believe one could work around software patents in trivial programs.

[brecke]

you really think it's the artists/musicians you "steal" from (lol, right.. moving along...)? wake up, "artist".

[eruagnostic]

That's an ignorant comment.

1) It's not only true for software. It's true for all areas where the products are immaterial

2) Claiming that it's equivalent to pirate music/books completely misunderstands the difference between patents and copyright.

3) "Work around the patents" -... yeah right. I'll see you "work around" patents covering data formats and protocols.

[cammyj1]

ignorant and one-sided

[dameramu]

What's the other side then? Do you work for IBM?

[bimhimbim]

IBM is not a strong patent advocate anymore. They have many patents and at least do support campaign.

[Jzarecta]

Really good video, more people should promote this.