Comments on: Another Crazy Patent Decision http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/08/another_crazy_p.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: mjh http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/08/another_crazy_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3602 mjh Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:11:07 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/08/another_crazy_p.html#comment-3602 <p>No. It's not the hierarchical menu. Really. It's much more innovative than that. It's the hierarchical menu on "a portable media player". Significantly more innovative than some simple hierarchical menu!!</p> <p>Seriously, software patents are (IMHO) completely ridiculous. Software development is entirely about building on what someone did before. If there's a single piece of software that doesn't somehow involve patent infringement, I'd be surprised. IMHO, patents applied to software do not provide incentive for innovation. I think they disincent it because it's almost impossible to develop any software without violating a patent.</p> No. It’s not the hierarchical menu. Really. It’s much more innovative than that. It’s the hierarchical menu on “a portable media player”. Significantly more innovative than some simple hierarchical menu!!

Seriously, software patents are (IMHO) completely ridiculous. Software development is entirely about building on what someone did before. If there’s a single piece of software that doesn’t somehow involve patent infringement, I’d be surprised. IMHO, patents applied to software do not provide incentive for innovation. I think they disincent it because it’s almost impossible to develop any software without violating a patent.

]]> By: Matthew Brown http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/08/another_crazy_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3601 Matthew Brown Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:47:11 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/08/another_crazy_p.html#comment-3601 <p>Technically, Apple settled, not lost, I believe; they concluded it was cheaper and easier to pay Creative $100 million to shut up and go away than to fight it in court. It'd probably have cost more than that to defend the suit.</p> <p>However, that doesn't change the fact that you can shake down companies for hundreds of millions for patenting the obvious, and in fact the previously existing in a new context.</p> Technically, Apple settled, not lost, I believe; they concluded it was cheaper and easier to pay Creative $100 million to shut up and go away than to fight it in court. It’d probably have cost more than that to defend the suit.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that you can shake down companies for hundreds of millions for patenting the obvious, and in fact the previously existing in a new context.

]]>