"Wesley Sheldahl" wsheldahl@iglou.com schrieb:
True. However, the historical stated purpose of patents is to allow an inventor to profit from his or her invention for a period of time before everyone else starts profiting from the invention, and thereby provide incentive for further innovation. What other benefit would there be to patenting something? There needs to be some benefit to justify the expense involved.
Well, there is the technique of 'defensive patents'. The idea is to use the patents as a protection against paying royalties on other people's patents, by threatening to counter-claim when someone tries to do so. Problem is that to make it work, one will have to have a portfolio of very many patents, which is nothing that Wikipedia (or any .org, I think) can hope to get.
Andre Engels
On Friday, April 2, 2004, at 08:15 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
"Wesley Sheldahl" wsheldahl@iglou.com schrieb:
True. However, the historical stated purpose of patents is to allow an inventor to profit from his or her invention for a period of time before everyone else starts profiting from the invention, and thereby provide incentive for further innovation. What other benefit would there be to patenting something? There needs to be some benefit to justify the expense involved.
Well, there is the technique of 'defensive patents'. The idea is to use the patents as a protection against paying royalties on other people's patents, by threatening to counter-claim when someone tries to do so. Problem is that to make it work, one will have to have a portfolio of very many patents, which is nothing that Wikipedia (or any .org, I think) can hope to get.
Andre Engels
True, I had forgotten about those, which is why I asked. Patents don't seem worth the bother to me for a non-profit, but if someone really wants to go for it just for the bragging rights or whatever, more power to them.
Wesley Sheldahl wsheldahl@iglou.com
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Andre Engels wrote:
Well, there is the technique of 'defensive patents'. The idea is to use the patents as a protection against paying royalties on other people's patents, by threatening to counter-claim when someone tries to do so.
Actually given that Ward Cunningham now works for Microsoft and Microsoft is developing their own wiki software, it might be a good idea to get a patent on some of MediaWiki's unique features.
Imran
Imran Ghory <imran@...> writes:
Actually given that Ward Cunningham now works for Microsoft and Microsoft is developing their own wiki software, it might be a good idea to get a patent on some of MediaWiki's unique features.
Imran
... and maybe recieve a donation form Microsoft to WikiMedia for use of those unique features.
Walter
Walter Vermeir wrote:
Imran Ghory <imran@...> writes:
Actually given that Ward Cunningham now works for Microsoft and Microsoft is developing their own wiki software, it might be a good idea to get a patent on some of MediaWiki's unique features.
Imran
... and maybe recieve a donation form Microsoft to WikiMedia for use of those unique features.
Walter
You seem to be forgetting that the Wikimedia Foundation does not own IP rights to MediaWiki, except for perhaps the Yahoo XML feed. Some of it was placed in the public domain by Lee Daniel Crocker, the rest is owned by the developers who contributed it. Whether or not our code is patented is our decision. Personally I'm not fond of the idea of calling code "open source" but requiring that people get permission if they want to use it.
Even if Magnus Manske (or whoever it was) wanted to patent the language code thing, it couldn't be patented anyway, because it is not new. From http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html :
Novelty (Newness) Requirement: In order for an invention to be patentable, it must be new as defined in the patent law. This novelty requirement states that an invention cannot be patented if certain public disclosures of the invention have been made. The statute which explains when a public disclosure has been made (35 U.S.C. Section 102) is complicated and often requires a detailed analysis of the facts and the law. The most important rule, however, is that an invention will not normally be patentable if:
* the invention was known to the public before it was "invented" by the individual seeking patent protection; * the invention was described in a publication more than one year prior to the filing date; or * the invention was used publicly, or offered for sale to the public more than one year prior to the filing date.
Although the United States grants the one year grace period described in the last two rules above, most other countries do not grant such a period. Therefore, it is almost always preferable to file a patent application before any public disclosure of the invention. Most patent attorneys will try diligently to file a patent application prior to any public release or announcement in order to allow international patent filings.
[end quote]
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
Even if Magnus Manske (or whoever it was) wanted to patent the language code thing, it couldn't be patented anyway, because it is not new.
Theoretically speaking, yes, you're right, and we all know that. But the same applies to Ideaflood's patent. And yet, in practice, that patent was granted...
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org