The real deal SOPA PIPA IPP
As i am sure most people are aware of the recent commotion regarding the SOPA bill, yet something many have let slip by or have not realized has slipped by. Something that has been about for quite a few years that is imperative that it is confined to the furnace bin never to be exercised again.
Intellectual Property Protection, the biggest most frightening problem we have regarding our freedom on the Internet today. Its the real heart(root) of the whole need for SOPA.
If alarm bells are not ringing in your head by now well they should be. Intellectual property protection is known as software patents where its primary purpose is to patent software technology. This is to include things like software alogarythms or complex software design. Things like HTML language or mathematical applications such as Matlab.
The problem begins when someone patents a program like Matlab or Autocad. This patent allows them to become a monopoly. If you or anyone else decide to make a similar program it violates there patent and means you must pay them royalty. You probably think well this is ok, then how does healthy competition occur. There are more than one way to skin a cat meaning you could make something to do the same thing just in not the same way your they did it. All that said this is only implicated if someone intends to sell the product commercially. Rightly so as your invention deserves royalty paid to you, you did invent it after all. What happens when it is not an invention?
The above video is a great resource provided by google in regard to patents and its terrible down falls, highly destructive nature, specifically to the public. Although it helps to fuel investment for large corporations this is non focused on the public. A great example in this video was that a 20 year software patent is a strain on innovation, restricting future competitors resulting in stupendously high prices. When another competitor arrives on the market to offer a cheaper maybe even better solution they are then crushed by the exclusive large firm explained @20:18 in the above video.
- The video bellow is Linus Torvoids talking about Microsoft now in todays day being the infringing exclusive firm on our freedom and human rights.
Of course it is clear that granting exclusive rights to companies is a great way to bring in investment, share holders and the likes so that the technology and or software can progress to a further commercial stage. That said it is also clear that with the granted right comes detrimental destructive use that is used for monopolizing a product. Further more it infringes on our freedom in such a way that our choices are forced to have to comply with the companies exclusive rights. This is clearly seen in the open source Linux space where nothing is commercial or is sold, in fact it is yielding far more innovation than commercial software vendors. The open source space has taken a huge battering from Microsoft in that patent claims have cause very limited video and sound drivers, graphics and multimedia application innovation to a halt.
Even worst for those that did not catch it in the first video @34:13 what an amazing example of infringement of human rights if we can still call them that. A patent taken out not(NOT) buy the scientist who developed the abortion method but a random patent filed granting him exclusive rights to weather a woman in America can have a first trimester abortion or not, clearly infringing on her constitutional right. Do you still think this is not a problem?
Why? as mentioned in the video software innovation is driven buy incentive from customers needs. most software companies build a software package to a customers need so in all due respect it is the customer that is the inventor. Should he not own the patent?
There is a law within the UK that if anyone else knows about the invention it automatically becomes NON patentable no matter what you do it can not be patented as it is not unique anymore. Only the inventor and the patent office or persons directly involved in the patent know about it until the day it is filed. Therefore the above customer driven incentive/innovation would and could not be patented, obtaining a patent in this area would be void due to obtaining it under false pretenses. You falsified your claim stating that you were the sole inventor of the technology.
I may be further updating this post as and when new information develops or further study develops a worthy blog. Bellow is a video blog from a youtuber who shares his understandings and points about software patents. Very interesting video of his points many i agree with.