Talk:Forum shopping
Four questions
Like to make a few questions/suggestions. I put it here, not sure this is the place.
Some companies create a standard, on the Internet usually by giving some things for free, so that they can (later) charge for other things, have advertising income, increase their relevance and so on. Once a unofficial standard is established those company are not always very interested in innovation or every evolution that could jeopardize the standard and their income. It may well be that better, cheaper, open alternatives become available besides such a standard without to be able to change the standard. One way such company's use patents is in try to avoid that alternatives are developed. An other way is for generating income from the standard. Sometime such a standard is created from a monopole position in an other market. If a program has a monopoly position it can in a simple way be selective in the supported formats. And so create more income for the monopolist from patents.
-> Is it legal in anti-trust law to use a monopoly in one market to create a standard and so some kind of second monopoly when selling of patent licenses?
- Using a dominant market position (doesn't have to be a "monopoly") to increase your market position in another market is illegal. That's why Microsoft was found in violation of anti-trust law in the EU. It would be difficult to apply this to the sale of patent licences though. Patent licences can only be sold by the patent holder, so there's automatically a monopoly. There's some info about this at Antitrust law isn't solving the problems. Ciaran 14:25, 15 January 2011 (EST)
-> Can a point of view not be defended that there is a conflict of interest between pushing a standard and owning patents needed for that standard. Especially when money is asked for the use of that patent. Even small amounts.
- Yes. Many standards bodies require contributors to sign something promising not to use their patents against implementers of the standard. But, sometimes these promises are weak, or narrow in scope. And they don't prevent a non-involved patent holder from enforcing her patent against implementers of the standard. More info at Harm to standards and compatibility. Ciaran 14:25, 15 January 2011 (EST)
Patents come with a description that strongly limit the scope. Probably to avoid that prior art is found.
-> Can that scope not been challenged? (I should read more about patents :-) )
Software patents have already implicitly their scope limited to software. Software could be seen as noting down a procedure, a way to do things. And a format is used that makes it possible to automate the execution of that procedure. Procedures could be written in different formats for different machines, persons, organizations. Those machines could be computers or not. Computers are tools that can be used to execute different actions. What is important, the action or the tool used? Different tool could be used to put a nail in a piece of would. This can be done in different ways and some of those ways can be done with different tools. So is there a fundamental difference between a certain idea done by a computer or outside a computer?
- There's no difference, but many judges don't understand this. More info at:
- Ciaran 14:25, 15 January 2011 (EST)
-> Can asking a patent for a method really be limited to the use of that method on a computer?
Not limiting it to software could produce more prior art and make clarify better the method to people not used to program computers. Some methods are so obvious they really should not be patented.
- All software patents can be implemented without a computer. The patent holders mention a computer (and thus limit the scope to computerised uses of their idea) because it makes the idea sound less abstract. In practice, the computer just speeds up their idea. A human could do it, but it would be too slow. Everyone using that idea will want to use a computer, so the "limited" scope (has to be done on a computer) covers all implementations. The "limit" isn't restrictive at all. Ciaran 14:25, 15 January 2011 (EST)
