Wait, isn't a patent on DRM which makes it less easy (or more expensive) for others to do a good thing?
IV response to TAL piece critical of IV. Summary: "Haters gonna hate."
"In his remarkable ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner stated that there was no point in holding a trial because it was apparent that neither side could show they had been harmed by the other’s patent infringement. He said he was inclined to dismiss the case with prejudice — meaning the parties can’t come back to fight over the same patents — and that he would enter a more formal opinion confirming this next week."
Funny. I suggested to some FSF folks that they might want to transcode an OGG file for TAL at a party on Friday. Quick work! :)
"We should legislate that developing, distributing, or running a program on generally used computing hardware does not constitute patent infringement."
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation announced a new initiative on Tuesday to seek reform of the United States patent system. But conspicuously missing from the list is the most direct and obvious way to solve the problem: exclude software from patent protection altogether."
The piece doesn't suggest that startups might really want patents because they are a signal to investors. It's a crap reason, and a good reason to change the system since it only costs startups valuable resources at time when they need them, but it's the reason I've seen in the research.
Nice little gloss on the TAL take on software patenting.
This is absolutely worth the hour. Intellectual Ventures really is that bad.
