29-Nov-2020 10:51 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Forum] Internet TV patentANN.lu
Posted on 17-Jul-2004 09:33 GMT by Amon_Re62 comments
View flat
View list
Yet another software patent that shouldn't have been granted :( See here
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Kolbjørn Barmen17-Jul-2004 10:14 GMT
Comment 2Amon_ReRegistered user17-Jul-2004 10:38 GMT
Comment 3NekoRegistered user17-Jul-2004 10:43 GMT
Comment 4Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user17-Jul-2004 10:45 GMT
Comment 5Amon_ReRegistered user17-Jul-2004 12:20 GMT
Comment 6NekoRegistered user17-Jul-2004 12:22 GMT
Comment 7Amon_ReRegistered user17-Jul-2004 12:24 GMT
Comment 8Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user17-Jul-2004 12:24 GMT
Comment 9Amon_ReRegistered user17-Jul-2004 12:25 GMT
Comment 10Amon_ReRegistered user17-Jul-2004 12:26 GMT
Comment 11Bill Toner17-Jul-2004 13:24 GMT
Comment 12Andrew Korn17-Jul-2004 13:25 GMT
Comment 13Joe "Floid" Kanowitz17-Jul-2004 13:29 GMT
Comment 14Don CoxRegistered user17-Jul-2004 14:06 GMT
Comment 15Rafo17-Jul-2004 15:07 GMT
Comment 16Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user17-Jul-2004 15:11 GMT
Comment 17Bill Hoggett17-Jul-2004 15:43 GMT
Comment 18Amon_ReRegistered user17-Jul-2004 15:44 GMT
Comment 19NekoRegistered user17-Jul-2004 17:45 GMT
Comment 20Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user17-Jul-2004 18:00 GMT
Comment 21Bill Hoggett17-Jul-2004 19:09 GMT
Comment 22Amon_ReRegistered user17-Jul-2004 20:44 GMT
Comment 23Kolbjørn Barmen17-Jul-2004 22:56 GMT
Comment 24Darrin18-Jul-2004 02:52 GMT
Comment 25Kronos18-Jul-2004 04:45 GMT
Comment 26Darrin18-Jul-2004 05:11 GMT
Comment 27Amon_ReRegistered user18-Jul-2004 06:16 GMT
Comment 28Amon_ReRegistered user18-Jul-2004 06:28 GMT
Comment 29Darrin18-Jul-2004 07:22 GMT
Comment 30Darrin18-Jul-2004 07:40 GMT
Comment 31Amon_ReRegistered user18-Jul-2004 08:23 GMT
Comment 32Kolbjørn Barmen18-Jul-2004 08:34 GMT
Comment 33Amon_ReRegistered user18-Jul-2004 08:38 GMT
Comment 34Kolbjørn Barmen18-Jul-2004 08:59 GMT
Comment 35Darrin18-Jul-2004 09:17 GMT
Comment 36Darrin18-Jul-2004 09:19 GMT
Comment 37Kolbjørn Barmen18-Jul-2004 09:25 GMT
Comment 38Darrin18-Jul-2004 09:46 GMT
Comment 39Amon_ReRegistered user18-Jul-2004 09:51 GMT
Comment 40Amon_ReRegistered user18-Jul-2004 09:57 GMT
Comment 41Darrin18-Jul-2004 09:57 GMT
Comment 42Darrin18-Jul-2004 09:59 GMT
Comment 43Darrin18-Jul-2004 10:01 GMT
Comment 443seas18-Jul-2004 11:09 GMT
Comment 45Darrin18-Jul-2004 11:29 GMT
Comment 46RAG18-Jul-2004 11:59 GMT
Comment 47Darrin18-Jul-2004 13:02 GMT
Comment 48mark18-Jul-2004 20:40 GMT
Comment 49Olegil19-Jul-2004 08:50 GMT
Comment 50ujb19-Jul-2004 13:43 GMT
Comment 51Darrin19-Jul-2004 14:23 GMT
Internet TV patent : Comment 52 of 62ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 19-Jul-2004 14:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (ujb):
>Don't you think the current author's copyrhights are enough?

I don't know and to be honest, I really dont care. Someone obviously does and that's why it's being proposed.

>I can't afford to search for potential patents I violate when designing my usb
>devices (easy things).

I agree that if this does happen then there needs to be a quick, easy and free method of checking for such patents.

>I even can't afford to pay those licenses.

If you can't pay the license than don't develop it. "I can't aford it" is no excuse for stealing something in a court of law ;-)

> let's just take that gif patent again.

OK, but please remember to put it back again where you found it.

> It waas licensable in batches but not in small numbers. if I write an
> application here in university for our internal use which needs to process
> gifs (say I got gifs as raw material) I just can't pay the license. Our
> bughet is too small. Should I really stop my research?

In that case, you need to request the data in a different format or write a different application.

>I assure I see teh aspects that one must get benefit from his/her work, but
> softwarepatents are just not the right way. It's too obvious that abuse will
> be too much. Wait until the day one patents thinking, if you can't pay the
>license you'll have to live a dumb life.

I see exactly what you are getting at, except you think that everyone is going to abuse the system. As long as safeguards are put in place to avoid "pointless patents" then the system sould be OK. Instead of stopping patents which SOME people feel are needed, put your energies into making sure that such software patents have to meet certain condition otherwise they will be rejected.

>Another story are patents on natural goods (e.g. plants -> some companies are
>patenting natural plants because the developed some application on basis of
>that plant.

How can they patent a plant? I can see them having a patent on their produced product or on the process of producing the product. Are you sure? Damn!!!

> That just must not happen (I am a biologist I know the raesons of thst
>companies -> i developed an application on basis of chick peas do I have the
>right to patent chick peas then? No ,no and another no!!!)

Agreed.

>Darrin read again the http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html Something IS wrong
> with that patents. Witht the exististing methods it's just possible to
>protect your work, no need to change that law.

I'll read it. Thanks.
Jump...
#53 Fabio Alemagna #55 Amon_Re #57 ujb
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 53Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user19-Jul-2004 15:48 GMT
Comment 54Darrin19-Jul-2004 16:14 GMT
Comment 55Amon_ReRegistered user19-Jul-2004 20:03 GMT
Comment 56Amon_ReRegistered user19-Jul-2004 20:07 GMT
Comment 57ujb20-Jul-2004 06:38 GMT
Comment 58RAG20-Jul-2004 09:04 GMT
Comment 59Amon_ReRegistered user20-Jul-2004 10:10 GMT
Comment 60Darth_XRegistered user21-Jul-2004 22:18 GMT
Comment 61Darth_XRegistered user21-Jul-2004 22:23 GMT
Comment 62Darth_XRegistered user21-Jul-2004 22:38 GMT
Back to Top