To patent or not to patent, that is the (only) question.

[mikegonta]

To patent or not to patent, that is the (only) question.

[Brendan]

Hi,

To patent or not to patent, that is the (only) question.

Most of this is misguided and/or wrong.

The patent system is intended to reward inventors (for investing in research and development, and for disclosing their ideas) by granting them an effective monopoly for a period of time (so they may make profit from their ideas); and allowing competitors to bypass patent protections by selling "do it yourself in one easy step kits" would completely ruin the patent system.

Software patents do exist (but whether or not they are enforceable, and how, varies in different countries).

I very much doubt there's any legal distinction between source code and native executable code - they are just different languages (that can be understood and executed by machines). Source code (that is transformed by machines into native code) is no different to native code (that is transformed by machines into micro-code).

I can only assume that your motivation is to fabricate excuses for violating Microsoft's patents, and to make yourself feel a little better about your continued worship of (Microsoft's variations of) Microsoft's worst file system.


Cheers,

Brendan

[gerryg400]

If I give you or sell you software (either text to be compiled or an
already compiled binary executable) which contains features of the
patented "machine" no patents have been violated.

When you install this software on a PC (which constitutes the
manufacturing of the patented machine), for your own personal use no
patents have been violated since you are freely permitted to do so.

It is only when you install it on a device which you sell commercially,
that you require a patent agreement with the patent holder (which will
then involve the payment of royalties, etc).

I believe in most jurisdictions that the use of patented material must be BOTH private AND non-commercial for the exemption to apply. Therefore at the point where you 'give or sell' you have a problem.

[iansjack]

The emphasis on "commercial" use is completely wrong in UK law, as I understand it. Violation of a patent, whether for commercial or private use, is still a violation. In practice, the chances of a civil action being taken against an individual who violates a patent purely for his own use is unlikely. So, it is much like copyright in that respect. But the fact that you are unlikely to be prosecuted does not alter the immorality of unauthorised use.

If you want to violate someone's patent rights then do so, but don't try to justify it here.

[kutkloon7]

The emphasis on "commercial" use is completely wrong in UK law, as I understand it. Violation of a patent, whether for commercial or private use, is still a violation. In practice, the chances of a civil action being taken against an individual who violates a patent purely for his own use is unlikely. So, it is much like copyright in that respect. But the fact that you are unlikely to be prosecuted does not alter the immorality of unauthorised use.

If you want to violate someone's patent rights then do so, but don't try to justify it here.

I think you have to distinguish between immoral and illegal. Crossing a red light is illegal but not immoral, and one could claim the opposite for torture.
I would not regard private use of patented technology immoral, but it is illegal (in the UK at least). I would consider patenting completely obvious things immoral, but it is legal (e.g. Amazons patented one-click-checkout technology, or Apples swipe-to-unlock system).

[dchapiesky]

To patent or not to patent, that is the (only) question.

since no one answered the actual question....

To patent or not to patent... (your idea, algorithm, code, etc...)

To patent:

1) DON'T RELEASE IT UNTIL YOU ARE READY - you can't patent if you have already distributed it - 'patent pending' only applies if you actually are pending....

2) be prepared for a long hard slog - you have to describe your thing is a fashion that can be understood by those knowledgeable of the "art" - and there will be people who will read your patent application and call you out on far reaching claims etc...

3) go ahead and start a trade secret who saw what when and where log and make people SIGN IT....

4) go ahead and start making people sign non-disclosures NOW (google "palantir patent suit' for some fun enlightening reading)

5) put money away to get international patents so the Israelies will have to pause before deploying your product before you...

6) put money away for lawyers to sue Apple when they deploy your product before you AND push through THEIR patent of your product before you

7) be prepared for years of working on something while NOT working in the computer world because your employment contract states that everything you create whether on company time OR NOT is their property....

put money away to hire lawyers to deal with your former employer wanting a piece of the pie....

9) DONT READ LOOKAT THINK ABOUT OR OTHERWISE IMPLY any existing open source code was within a 100 mile radius of your research and development team because the FSF will sue your @$$... so put money away for that too...

10) enjoy having a monopoly on a technology that became obsolete 4 years after you applied for your patent and 1 year before it was granted....

To not patent:

1) get your cash....

2) get it fast as you can...

3) sell your company

I hope I have clarified the situation (from my own actual prior and current experience on both sides of the question...)

good day... and good luck