Audio programming - programmer needed

[No_Use]

Without it you have two problems..

1) Less invention, the possibility of a patentable and profitable invention is what drives a lot of research and development.
2) What is invented is more likely to be kept secret, if they can keep anyone else from knowing how it's done, then they can have something that is profitable forever, without patent protection that's really their only option if they want to protect their profits to some degree.

The main problem with patents is when they get granted for things that aren't really innovation, such grants would probably fail if properly challenged in court, but in such lawsuits it's often the guy whos money to pay lawyers runs out first that loses.

Sure, because in capitalism profit wins over altruism and any other form of non-profit activity.

[Meffy]

HPC's over that way. *points downforum*

[tony tony chopper]

For me the problem with a patent is that it prevents re-inventing things. And since people manage to slip in patents about things as simple & stupid as a "one-click to buy button", you just can't DO anything legally unless you're in a giant company, who has its own share of lame patents to grab everyone by the balls.
There are things that come naturally & are in no way inventions, discoveries at worst, natural evolution at best, that shouldn't be patentable.

[No_Use]

HPC's over that way. *points downforum*

Understood.

[Meffy]

It's a perfectly valid topic for discussion, just belongs elsewhere.

[AdmiralQuality]

For me the problem with a patent is that it prevents re-inventing things. And since people manage to slip in patents about things as simple & stupid as a "one-click to buy button", you just can't DO anything legally unless you're in a giant company, who has its own share of lame patents to grab everyone by the balls.
There are things that come naturally & are in no way inventions, discoveries at worst, natural evolution at best, that shouldn't be patentable.

Dang, I guess nobody's going to want my "10 clicks to buy" technology now. Back to the drawing board... Zero clicks is the new holy grail!

[Borogove]

Dang, I guess nobody's going to want my "10 clicks to buy" technology now. Back to the drawing board... Zero clicks is the new holy grail!

There's prior art for zero-click to buy.

[AdmiralQuality]

Dang, I guess nobody's going to want my "10 clicks to buy" technology now. Back to the drawing board... Zero clicks is the new holy grail!

There's prior art for zero-click to buy.

[valhallasound]

For me the problem with a patent is that it prevents re-inventing things.

If you are reinventing something that ends up being patented, odds are good that it is obvious to those "skilled in the art," and you can probably find evidence of it being invented beforehand.

For example, I remember being bugged by a patent from 1998 that claimed techniques as new inventions, that had been published in an obscure paper by Michael Gerzon in 1972 (allpass FDNs). Well, the patent got challenged based on these papers, and was eventually revised to remove the claims in question.

It is also worth seeing if the inventions were published or used before the patent was filed. Another example: There was a patent for using "Absorbent Allpasses" in a reverb, filed in 1999 or 2000. However, these same building blocks were published by one of the authors in their PhD thesis from 1992. This patent would clearly be easy to contest in court. In the US, there is (or was) a 1 year deadline between publishing and filing a patent, while in Europe there is no deadline - if you publish, you can't file a patent on the concept at any time thereafter.

The tricky part is when a patent is filed for something that was being used as "secret sauce" by another company. In such a situation (and IANAL), I have heard that the original company can continue to use the technique, but I don't know if disclosing the earlier use of that technique would invalidate the patent.

Sean Costello

[aciddose]

not anymore in the united states. the us has moved to a "first to file" system. if you are using a technology in secret and somebody else patents it, you're out of luck.

this is considered good because it encourages inventors to patent any technology they create and through that leads to faster expiration of patents on the technology and thus quicker integration into society's list of available technologies.

if you invent something and publish it and it's specifications, that will act as prior art and protect you from having someone else patent out the rug from under your feet.

i think i've seen some arguments against this, but i'm not sure any of them actually made sense.

[DaveHoskins]

The patent office simply makes money from people and does nothing in return.
Like a big expensive filing cabinet - in the broadest sense of course.


Dave.

[xoxos]

i'm not sure about that the $5 i spent for my archbishop accreditation with universal life church was worth every penny.

[DaveHoskins]

i'm not sure about that the $5 i spent for my archbishop accreditation with universal life church was worth every penny.

But they will ordain you for free online!
(And no, I'm not going to put a link.)

Dave.

[whyterabbyt]

i'm not sure about that the $5 i spent for my archbishop accreditation with universal life church was worth every penny.

But they will ordain you for free online!
(And no, I'm not going to put a link.)

Dave.

It didnt cost me anything to become a Pope.

[AdmiralQuality]

Pastafarianism is also free to join. All hail the most holy Flying Spagetti Monster!

http://www.venganza.org/join/