[Asterisk-Users] g.729 - licenses and opinions

[Steven Critchfield]

On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 12:07, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> > Just remember that you were given those patents as incentive to invent so
> > that ultimately your work would go into the public domain so we can all
> > enjoy it. We are buying your work with our tax dollars by protecting it
> > for a short period of time so you have a little monetary incentive.
> 
> BZZZT!  Wrong.
> 
> He was given those patents as in incentive to invent something that he could 
> SELL without everyone on the planet copying his hard work and competing on 
> his idea.  Patents put the process out in the public so that it's easy to see 
> when someone's infringing.

Lets please remember that this is a global mailing list now and the
history of patents may be different from place to place.

In the US, patent law is similar to copyright law. For a time you are
given exclusive rights to your invention. You are able to charge money
for it. You are able to do any number of useful things as the inventor.
The tradeoff for patents is that at the end of the patent term, the
public domain gets the benefits of your work. Our entire country is
built upon a rich and diverse public domain. If one chooses to invent,
yet does not choose to patent those inventions, they potentially loose
any advantage of being the sole gateway to the invention.

Look here and please don't be offended by the kid part, it isn't
intentional just a good list. 
http://www.uspto.gov/go/kids/kidprimer.html

> 17 years for software patents is FAR too long, IMO, but that's an entirely 
> different story.  IMO software patents shoudln't be for more than ~24 months 
> since the industry moves so blazingly fast.

I'm of mixed feelings here. I don't like software patents at all, but
without them, some of the voice compression that is out there would
possibly not have been developed. What would have been the incentive for
the telecoms to allow the public in on some of the voice compressions
with out getting paid for the work. So while I think it is important, I
also can't seem to draw a reasonable line. 24 months in most software
isn't enough time from day 0 to make any reward for the work, at least
not monetarily. What software project out there do you know had a major
roll out sufficiently under 24 months from beginning of programming to
have paid the programming staff off after say 1 year past the initial 24
months? 
-- 
Steven Critchfield  <critch at basesys.com>