Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Can anyone advise this developer on commercial licensing?
40hz:
This despite the fact that I had publicly released my fully working software years before he claimed to have had the idea.
-mouser (November 22, 2014, 03:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately, US patent law was recently changed (3/16/2013) to match that of the rest of the world. Which is to say that the first to file, NOT the first to invent is awarded the patent.
First to file (FTF) and first to invent (FTI) are legal concepts that define who has the right to the grant of a patent for an invention. The first-to-file system is used in all countries,[1] including the United States, which switched to a first-inventor-to-file (FITF) system on March 16, 2013 after the enactment of the America Invents Act.[2] There is an important difference between the strict nature of the FTF under the EPO and the FITF system of the USPTO. The USPTO FITF system[3] affords early disclosers some "grace" time before they need to file a patent,[4] whereas the EPO does not recognise any grace period, so early disclosure under the FITF provisions is an absolute bar to later EPO patent.
--- End quote ---
More on that here.
Bottom line: Have an idea? File early. File often. :D
All the big companies and patent trolls do. :huh:
40hz:
That said, maybe open source is an option
-mmike (November 21, 2014, 05:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
Based on some other things you're saying, releasing as open source (which I assume you mean under one of the established FOSS licenses) would not be a viable option since you seem more concerned about defending yourself against possible litigation. A FOSS license won't help you there.
More importantly, a FOSS license won't allow you to retain control of who uses your code, or how it gets used. Once it's released, it's out there for all to use/modify/incorporate as they see fit. It's also what FOSS licenses specifically encourage them to do. Because that's the entire point of FOSS. It's altruistic and primarily for the user's benefit - not the developer's.
FOSS licensing is done "for the good of all mankind." Which is not a good thing if you eventually plan on releasing your product commercially.
mmike:
Thank you all for your responses.
It seems I took the right turn.
@mouser: I'm not afraid of life, but my goal is to reduce unnecessary risk and enjoy life. A nice job is also a very viable option for me.
dr_andus:
It seems I took the right turn.
-mmike (November 23, 2014, 05:36 AM)
--- End quote ---
Does that mean you are not going to release Vis-à-Wiki commercially then?
KynloStephen66515:
And beware, in this forum, there are unfortunately some people who happily take the side of governments - of governments of ANY mindset.
-peter.s (November 21, 2014, 03:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
Where did you get this idea from? We support freely expressing whatever viewpoint you want to... this statement makes this a lot of advise tempered by unwarranted negativity. If anything, most here are anti-government control, or lean that way.
-wraith808 (November 21, 2014, 04:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
Clearly he never visited the basement.
Getting back on topic...would a software publisher be a method you could use? Surely publishers have in house legal teams who would know all of this and would make sure you conform to regulations and laws and then just take a % of the sale price for every download? (I am taking a stab in the dark here)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version