The WIPO Intellectual Property Forum - defend your right to Ruby.

[John Carter]

Here is an opportunity to fight the new Imperialism.
Intellectual Property.

Ruby exists in the narrow space provided by the fact it is too small a
target for patent challenges.

If(when) Ruby usage grows large enough to attract hostile attention, Matz
would not financially survive a flood of patent suits.

Asia should view WIPO as Imperialism and Colonialism taken into a new
domain, intellectual property.

The West is basically saying to Asia, as they did in the Bad Old days of
Colonialism, we will let you rent the property that we have stolen from
you.

They may be your own ideas, you may have developed them yourselves, but
you will have to pay us rent for them.

Please express, in a firm but civil manner, your opinions at...
http://www.wipo.int/ipisforum/en/


John Carter

 

[Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek]

Here is an opportunity to fight the new Imperialism.
Intellectual Property.
...
Asia should view WIPO as Imperialism and Colonialism taken into a new
domain, intellectual property.

The West is basically saying to Asia, as they did in the Bad Old days of
Colonialism, we will let you rent the property that we have stolen from
you.

They may be your own ideas, you may have developed them yourselves, but
you will have to pay us rent for them.

Hello

Either I have missed something or your view of the IP problem is
somewhat obscured and biased.

For one, the patents are awarded in certain country. So if you are
Japanese, you can get the wheel(!) patented in Japan before a corporation
does. But it is independent of the fact that it is already patented in
Australia.

The general problems with patents are
- You only pay to get something patented, there is nobody opposing
patantability of trivial ideas. Thus the number and significance of
patents is proportional to money invested in patent lawyers, not to
the amount of actual innovation contributed.
- Although you would probably lose if you litigated against car
industry that they infringe on your wheel patent, there is nothing
that would stop you from defending similar trivial software patents
in court, except lack of money.
- Even the most powerful corporations must fear a flood of patent suits
that they cannot financially survive. For an individual or a small
company even a single patent suit may be devastating. And it is not
about winning or losing yet, it is about paying the expenses for
several years of examinations at court.

Note that the corporations that own the large patent portfolios (either
to make money on suing everybody around the globe or to protect
themseves) are international. Even if larger portion of them was
originally founded in US than Asia it is irrelevant. Most hire people in
the parts of the world where people are cheap, and file patents in all
countries where it is possible.

How is this related to colonialism is beyond me. I'm sure that Asian
people own large portions of the stock of originally US corporations,
and vice versa. And all are stock holders are demanding that the value
of their stock should be kept as high as possible, even at the price of
devastaing free software, the environment, other people, or anything
else that can be devastated "profitably"

Michal Suchanek

 

[Kero]

For one, the patents are awarded in certain country. So if you are

Japanese, you can get the wheel(!) patented in Japan before a corporation
does. But it is independent of the fact that it is already patented in
Australia.

The "wheel patent" in Australia is *not* what you would consider a
"wheel patent" in USA or Europe. Since it has not been checked by a patent
officer (reducing costs for inventors??) it does not have the same status as a
"real patent".

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel/

in particular "The name should be changed to "Registered Innovation"
to avoid confusion with standard patents, Keogh says."

Regards,
Kero.

+--- Kero ------------------------- kero@chello@nl ---+
| all the meaningless and empty words I spoke |
| Promises -- The Cranberries |
+--- M38c --- http://members.chello.nl/k.vangelder ---+

 

[Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT]

Hi!

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 07:35:23AM +0900, John Carter wrote:

- You only pay to get something patented, there is nobody opposing
patantability of trivial ideas.

In Germany it is unlawful to issue a patent for something that is a
new invention *and* can be turned into money. It is especially
prohibited by law to issue patents for software. That is not my
personal opinion but an (admittedly somewhat sloppy) translation of
what is written in the German Patentgesetz (patent law).

Presently the EU comission is trying to railroad a bill about what
they call "harmonization of patent laws" but that in fact is "an a
posteriori legalization of crimes" - they should rather punish those
who consiously violated laws and abused their power.

BTW: That is one of the reasons for my signature...

Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT

 

[Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek]

The "wheel patent" in Australia is *not* what you would consider a
"wheel patent" in USA or Europe. Since it has not been checked by a patent
officer (reducing costs for inventors??) it does not have the same status as a
"real patent".

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel/

in particular "The name should be changed to "Registered Innovation"
to avoid confusion with standard patents, Keogh says."

OK, the wheel is some sort of simplified patent.
However, this is not:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html
in news http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2178

And the webshop showing some "quality" software patents:
http://webshop.ffii.org/

Thanks

Michal Suchanek