Re: Artistic License upheld by court

[swampyankee]

(Then Kamind filed for a patent based in part on functionality from that code, then sued the original project for violating the patent, but let's not get too far into the gritty details.)

That just about sums up the failing of the US system of software patents, which has (reportedly) issued software patents where the patentee was trying to get protection for techniques well within the commonly known state of the art. Getting a patent on something stolen from somebody else's existing program should be impossible; filing a patent application which is stolen from existing, well-known, work should be fraudulent. If the US Patent Office is to continue issuing software patents, they should get quite a few more diligent patent examiners who are cognizant of the the state of the art.

Hopefully, this character's patent application was rejected after he lost his court case, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[jhourcle]

Although the US hasn't been diligent enough in looking for prior art, at least we don't have a first-to-file system like most other countries (although, there was a a bill to do that last year), in which I would assume stealing someone's work and patenting it would be even more encouraged.

I'd personally prefer the times on copyrights and patents be reduced ... possibly a tiered system (as the drug companies insist they need more time to make money off their stuff, make it so that their lobbying doesn't affect all forms of patents).

(I admit, I once tried to figure out what was required to file a patent, so I could submit a 'Apparatus for Dispute Resolution', with a schematic of 'Thunderdome' attached.)

update: fixed missing closing parenthesis