denyerec.co.uk

Software patents bemuse me. Whilst I can see one side of the arguement, in that a software idea or concept should be judge no different to a physical one, it still doesn’t seem quite right. Take for example emoticons. Lets say someone tries to whack a patent on the system by which an ASCII emoticon is replaced in realtime or at parse-time by a small graphic. Given that people are trying to whack patents on scrollbars and text boxes I hardly think this idea is too outlandish, so, to continue… The problem is that these crazy lawyer-fuelled maniacs aren’t just protecting their own source code, they’re trying to protect with a thick wall of cash “intellectual property”, or ideas to you and I. Why is this bad? It’s bad because there are some fundamental ideas, some devices and methods of doing things that are so basic that not only is it difficult to attribute them to a single originator, it just doesn’t make sense to. I don’t pretend to be a legal expert, but given how the US legal system works (Whoever has the money gets the “justice”) there would be nothing to stop a certain software vendor buying up every patent out there and, BAM, all of a sudden if you want to write software to count to 10 you have to pay a fee to them, simply because they have rights to labels, text boxes, OK buttons and the concept of displaying information on a VDU in a box, or “window”, if you will.

Can I patent smiling? Can I put a patent on the reaction between having a humerous thought and conveying it to someone else using a visible physical medium? Didn’t think so, I’d be laughed out of court.

Maybe if I tried again with a few billion US dollars I’d have more luck. Then I could sue the arse off the judge I had to bribe with a billion US dollars for not paying his smiling licence fee.

The people at the Protecting Innovation Website know far more than I do, please check them out.