patently absurd
It looks like Apple may end up paying royalties on every iPod sold - to Microsoft, no less.
Apple apparently neglected to file for a patent on every idea that crossed every employee's mind within 3.1 nanoseconds of said crossing, and Microsoft beat them to the punch on patenting an element of the iPod's interface. But you know what makes the whole scenario truly ridiculous? The iPod was released in 2001, and Microsoft filed for the patent in May 2002. That's right, Microsoft patented an element of a product already released by another company. And not only is the US Patent office upholding this patent, but the industry is chiding Apple for not being "on the ball in terms of filing the patent at the right time." They released the product. Isn't that better than filling out the paperwork?
This is what's wrong with patent law, and why patents for software just don't work. Patents are designed to foster innovation by protecting inventors from being ripped off. But when the "invention" being patented is 4 lines of code - or even the idea of writing 4 lines of code - the main investment is the patent application itself. There are entire companies whose business model is to brainstorm simple ideas that they never plan to implement, translate them into legalese, patent them, and then later sue for royalties from the people who actually do the work. How, exactly, does that foster innovation? "Technology" companies comprised entirely of lawyers offend me. The system is seriously broken, and needs to be fixed.
Apple apparently neglected to file for a patent on every idea that crossed every employee's mind within 3.1 nanoseconds of said crossing, and Microsoft beat them to the punch on patenting an element of the iPod's interface. But you know what makes the whole scenario truly ridiculous? The iPod was released in 2001, and Microsoft filed for the patent in May 2002. That's right, Microsoft patented an element of a product already released by another company. And not only is the US Patent office upholding this patent, but the industry is chiding Apple for not being "on the ball in terms of filing the patent at the right time." They released the product. Isn't that better than filling out the paperwork?
This is what's wrong with patent law, and why patents for software just don't work. Patents are designed to foster innovation by protecting inventors from being ripped off. But when the "invention" being patented is 4 lines of code - or even the idea of writing 4 lines of code - the main investment is the patent application itself. There are entire companies whose business model is to brainstorm simple ideas that they never plan to implement, translate them into legalese, patent them, and then later sue for royalties from the people who actually do the work. How, exactly, does that foster innovation? "Technology" companies comprised entirely of lawyers offend me. The system is seriously broken, and needs to be fixed.
