| I think the software patents regulation should to be reviewed but I see the current situation with software patents regulation very similar to what happens with copyrighted closed source software. To my understanding, they both prevent innovation. Wikipedia on copyright: gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights. Wikipedia on patents: The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission. To me it looks like Laminar Research decided to use their right to distribute the software with a license which prevented people from distributing the sources, from copying the binaries, from improving/redistribue the software, from studying the software. They decided to raise some money for their hard work forcing people to pay for the usage of such a software. Isn't Uniloc just trying to raise some money from a patented invention, forcing Laminar Research to pay for the usage of such a patent? To me it looks very similar to what Laminar Research did. They're playing by the same rules. If Laminar Research has rights to protect its source code, why hasn't Uniloc rights to protect its invention? What am I missing? I don't think the problem is just about who had invented firstly the technology. We shall all be paying Tesla for the AC current then! |