I find I disagree though, if you don't have the resources to put things into practice you shouldn't be excluded from having a patent. Most software patents should be thrown out because they don't have any real ingenuity to them, or are too vague.Ray7 said:Mmm .... so folk don't think that this is worthy of discussion?
Unfortunately for Shanantu and Corona Coder, this is actually great news for Microsoft, Apple and IBM.
The reason that these companies take out so many patents is to prevent them getting sued by patent trolls; those companies that pop out of the woodwork after an idea has been implemented and selling for years, claiming that they have a patent on the idea, even though they have done nothing to implement it or put it into practice.
What this does mean is that if a company comes out with new technology, say (time travel), then they would have to be able to demonstrate it before attaching a patent to it. No more of this:
'a device or apparatus for moving forward backwards or sideways through time.'
without showing that they can make it work.
So how does this affect software patents? Well, looking at this, it doesn't. If a company can demonstrate that they have come up with a new software based idea, then they can still apply for a patent for it. All it means is that they have to be able to show it; not a bad idea in my opinion.
This is a step in the right direction for everybody, and should save Microsoft a whole pile of legal fees in the long run, and we will no longer have to worry about paying some sort of royalties because some idiot reckons they have patent on the internet.
So how does it affect MS and their claims that Linux uses their tech? Well if we ignore the fact that MS has NEVER made public which technology they believe is theirs, then this ruling shouldn't make a difference, as long as MS can provide a working model of the software they have patented.