Re: [DotGNU]IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover

[Barry Fitzgerald]

David Sugar wrote:
> 
> If one takes an existing standard, "estimates" things that can be
> implimented around them, and then starts writing patent applications for
> this, if the patent office actually did it's job such patents should not
> be granted or valid, even before considering how flawed the very notion of
> patents on software, on ideas, is.
> 
> A patent has to be both "original" and "non-obvious to people versed in
> the art".  If I look at SOAP, consider the current direction of the
> evolving standard, and then say, "hmm, it doesn't yet include encryption,
> clearly it is needed at some point as part of a future revision of the
> standard, let me patent that in front of them", clearly it is both trivial
> and something obvious.  Shotgunning a patent around a standard this way
> should be considered criminal behavior.
> 


I agree, but the law seems to be centered largely around making the
actions of individual people illegal, and not making the actions of
large corporations AGAINST those individual people illegal.  Laws like
the SSSCA (Now PCBTA or whatever the new name is - name changed to dress
it up to make consumers think that the law is being made for them) and
DMCA are centered around tying the hands of individuals and giving ALL
of the control and power to large corporations.  This applies more to
the SSSCA than anything else (SSSCA read: only allow large corporations
to produce software and kill Free Software public software production
because the RIAA and MPAA feel that freedom is detrimental to their
profit margin.)

That being said, it's all the more important to bust these patents wide
open.

        -Barry