Talk:Patent: Difference between revisions - Consumerium development wiki

Line 1:

I don't think there is anything to be feared about patents in regard to the development of [[Consumerium]] itself, because Consumerium simply isn't patentable anywhere. Naturally these news about [[GMO]]s being [[patent]]able here and there are quite disturbing as if GMO in itself weren't disturbing enough. I won't get all dystopic just now and I hope no-one else does either.

I don't think there is anything to be feared about patents in regard to the development of [[Consumerium]] itself, because Consumerium simply isn't patentable anywhere.

:That's just not true. The scope of patents has expanded in recent years everywhere. [[Business process patent]]s, for instance, would clearly be able to cover the [[Consumerium Services]]. And, even if those processes are fully revealed to the [[public domain]] via say this [[R&D wiki]], there may be other ways, some more efficient, to deliver a [[Consumerium buying signal]]. These may be patentable implementations, and they may prevent some future [[improvement]] we want to pursue if we don't take steps to prevent it.

:Also, more general elements of a [[healthy signal infrastructure]] may be patentable, and, we may come up with specific [[hardware requirements]] that can only be met by producing new hardware that would be patentable for sure.

:It's also very hard to tell where a [[software patent]] is going to apply. [[Encryption]], compression, etc., all these things. Also see [[Talk:DMCA]] for a whole nother issue of copyright abuse.

Naturally these news about [[GMO]]s being [[patent]]able here and there are quite disturbing as if GMO in itself weren't disturbing enough. I won't get all dystopic just now and I hope no-one else does either.