Comments on: http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/7/ Open Rights Group Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:33:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Gordon http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/7/comment-page-1/#comment-56 Gordon Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:44:10 +0000 http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/?p=7#comment-56 With embedded software, items are comeing onto the market which if patents are given will severely restrict others from using those products or developing new ones. This applies mainly to software patents as old products die out and are replaced with software embedde funtionality then unless licensed these products will be restricted and cost more. With embedded software, items are comeing onto the market which if patents are given will severely restrict others from using those products or developing new ones.
This applies mainly to software patents as old products die out and are replaced with software embedde funtionality then unless licensed these products will be restricted and cost more.

]]> By: James http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/7/comment-page-1/#comment-46 James Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:50:22 +0000 http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/?p=7#comment-46 The increasing complexity of high-tech products and of scientific research may also be leading to problems. Firms often need to use large numbers of existing patents to develop a new product. They may find themselves having to negotiate complex licensing agreements, often with multiple rights-holders holding overlapping patents, in order to emerge from so-called “patent thickets”. Delays in patents being granted can also lead to new products inadvertently infringing on patents issued after these products were brought to market. These problems are at their most extreme in high-tech industries such as computing and telecoms because of the complex and fast moving nature of the innovations concerned and the need to set formal technological standards and ensure interoperability. Err, quite! So, in the case of small companies / ad-hoc collectives (e.g., sourceforge.net) / individuals creating innovative high-tech software solutions (c.f., BIND, DNS, Sendmail, Apache, Linux, Firefox, GIMP etc.) how the hell are we to develop stuff without having to spend 99% of our time wading through dubiously granted patents? The increasing complexity of high-tech products and of scientific research may also be leading to problems. Firms often need to use large numbers of existing patents to develop a new product. They may find themselves having to negotiate complex licensing agreements, often with multiple rights-holders holding overlapping patents, in order to emerge from so-called “patent thickets”. Delays in patents being granted can also lead to new products inadvertently infringing on patents issued after these products were brought to market. These problems are at their most extreme in high-tech industries such as computing and telecoms because of the complex and fast moving nature of the innovations concerned and the need to set formal technological standards and ensure interoperability.

Err, quite!

So, in the case of small companies / ad-hoc collectives (e.g., sourceforge.net) / individuals creating innovative high-tech software solutions (c.f., BIND, DNS, Sendmail, Apache, Linux, Firefox, GIMP etc.) how the hell are we to develop stuff without having to spend 99% of our time wading through dubiously granted patents?

]]> By: David Mytton http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/2006-03/7/comment-page-1/#comment-8 David Mytton Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:36:12 +0000 http://gowers.openrightsgroup.org/?p=7#comment-8 Can IP law ever keep up with technological changes. Should it even try? Can IP law ever keep up with technological changes. Should it even try?

]]>