Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   a patent on 50-year old technology?

   

   aNonMooseCowherd, May 4th, 2004 @ 11:41pm

   
   

   A "patent on downloading data onto a physical object"? How is this different from printing? Computers have been connected to printers of one form or another for about a half a century. And not just text -- COM (computer output to microfilm) was a big deal a few decades ago.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Chomper, May 5th, 2004 @ 12:55pm

   
   

   I used to work at Corbis, good luck trying to sue a company owned by Bill Gates.
   
   On top of that, this patent would have anyone who is a image maker and selling their images, would be in violation of this ridiculous patent.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   patents on download technology

   

   Joan L. Brewer, Dec 13th, 2005 @ 4:40pm

   
   

   Under patent law, to inforce a patent, you must sue everyone who violates the patent. Xerox attempted to patent the concept of photocopying and found this out after wasting a lot of money. Book publishers sued them first claiming copyright. This was really humiliating for Xerox. The actual cost of copying a whole book with 300 pages at 10 cence a page and you have two sides to the pages, was about $50-60 depending on how many pages. But what is even funnier is that Hollywood had settled the whole issue with movies first. And before them it was photographers and painters. As a result, we can use as much as 25% of anyone elses intellectual property in our own without worrying about lawsuits. Since we have lost data in any compressed file, this gets even more interesting. You can patent a device design but you can't patent an idea like flying or commnuicating over an electric line.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment