software patents

  geraldkrug 07:06 19 Jan 06
Locked

I am an intellectual property, IP, owner. I have copyrighted 56 computer programs. I can sue anyone who re-produces my work for commercial gain that didn't get a license from me for my permission. The reason why I haven't sued un-licensed companies is because I didn't want to stiffle the computer revolution. I think copyrights (not patents) are the tool to use for computer programs. Patents are granted to stimulate the market place and if the patent owner does not market a product based on the patent he loses his right to the patent to a company that will produce a real product. This rule was brought by president Ronald Regan so patent owners could not just "sit" on patents
and then sue if some company brought out a product based on "their" patent.
Two companies did bring a similar patented product to the market at about the same time and the courts choose one company to market first, until one million products were sold, then the other company could enter the market legally. It's easier to get investor money for patents than for copyrights, sadly, so I see a need to change that so smaller companies with truly new computer programs will get to market on a national scale.
I believe if I enter the fray on this issue I could bring alot of clarity.
I also believe that computers have matured to the point that truly new marketable products will become more and more rair so why bother with the software patent issue at all.

  €dstowe 09:13 19 Jan 06

"Patents are granted to stimulate the market place and if the patent owner does not market a product based on the patent he loses his right to the patent to a company that will produce a real product. This rule was brought by president Ronald Regan so patent owners could not just "sit" on patents
and then sue if some company brought out a product based on "their" patent."

Could you direct me to the official citation of this rule please?

  DieSse 13:49 19 Jan 06

*I have copyrighted 56 computer programs.*

As an actual copyright owner, what's your personal view on how long such copyrights should hold good for?

  ShalafiStudios 14:26 19 Jan 06

After all, programs are grooves on a piece of plastic or numbers on a hard drive, anyone can reproduce them. As an amateur software designer, All my software is freeware. I believe that software should be free for all, it is a tool, no one copyrighted a hammer, after all!

  SG Atlantis® 16:00 19 Jan 06

"After all, programs are grooves on a piece of plastic or numbers on a hard drive, anyone can reproduce them."

If you look at everything that way, then art is just canvas and paint swirled around on it, music is just sounds arranged a particular way. Doesn't mean anyone can just copy it, legally!

"no one copyrighted a hammer, after all!"

no one gives them away for free either...

  €dstowe 16:20 19 Jan 06

Before this moves into a free for all, I genuinely would like to know the answer to my question above.

  wee eddie 16:24 19 Jan 06

"I also believe that computers have matured to the point that truly new marketable products will become more and more rare so why bother with the software patent issue at all."

I can remember someone in the late 60's saying that all the possible songs possible had already been written and that pop music would stultify and die. Fat chance, but they hadn't heard the Gallagher Brothers.

Computers are unlikely to cease, their format will change, radically. The writing is already on the wall for the standard box PC, although what will form follow it is not yet certain.

  Haol 16:49 19 Jan 06

and certain types of licenses aswell.

  Rigga 16:57 19 Jan 06

As you state you are an amateur software designer, so presumably you make your living from something else?

I am a professional software designer and writer, and I make my living through people paying for the programs I spend eight hours a day writing, and I am extremely protective of my software, which is all copyrighted.

I do however disagree with patents on software and processes!, but agree with geraldkrug copyright should be enforced rigidly.

R.

  geraldkrug 20:18 19 Jan 06

I searched yahoo with "President Ronald Reagan Memorandum on Government Patent Policy"
found...

click here


“march-in rights” This is a very obscure rule to be sure.I remember the place I found this.Let

me find it again for you.Oh!Here it is.


The third taxpayer protection included in Bayh-Dole is the government’s retained “march-in

rights.” These provisions entitle a funding agency to issue nonexclusive licenses or to require

a contractee or exclusive licensee to grant nonexclusive licenses to other applicants if the

agency determines that:

“(1) Such action is necessary because the contractor or assignee has not taken, or is not

expected to take within a reasonable time, effective steps to achieve practical application of

the subject invention in such field of use;

(2) Such action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs which are not reasonably

satisfied by the contractor, assignee or their licensees;

(3) Such action is necessary to meet requirements for public use specified by Federal

regulations and such requirements are not reasonably satisfied by the contractor, assignee or

licensees; or

(4) Such action is necessary because the agreement required by paragraph (i) of this clause

has not been obtained or waived or because a licensee of the exclusive right to use or sell any

subject invention in the United States is in breach of such agreement.” 37 C.F.R. § 401.14(j)

(emphasis added).


The term practical application is defined as:

“to manufacture in the case of a composition or product, to practice in the case of a process or

method, or to operate in the case of a machine or system; and, in each case, under such

conditions as to establish that the invention is being utilized and that its benefits are, to the

extent permitted by law or government regulations, available to the public on reasonable

terms.” 37 C.F.R. § 401.14(a)(3) (emphasis added).


The march-in rights were intended to prevent two outcomes: First, where a private entity sits

on a taxpayer-funded invention and fails to commercialize it in a timely fashion; and, second,

where a private entity takes advantage of the exclusive license and charges an unreasonable

price for the product. Although no specific formula was put forward to calculate what

constitutes an unreasonable price and profit, it is fair to say that the march-in provisions were

intended to protect against corporate windfalls. Of course, the Act certainly contemplated

some return on investment, for such a return is necessary to induce commercialization.

  geraldkrug 20:43 19 Jan 06

For example,I want to produce a smart wristwatch
to do a fun calculation for the wearer/user.
It is impossible to get an LCD maker to produce this for my company to my liking.The technology exists, but not for me, WHY?
Corporate Facism?
“march-in rights” makes severe penalties to any companys that do not sell (patented) goods to buyers.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro 5 News - release date, UK price, features, specs

Microsoft Surface Studio hands-on review: the iMac killer is here

Best Mac antivirus 2017