A decentralized ordering system allows a customer to track order status from a centralized order status system by providing a single, easily remembered identifier (such as a telephone number) without having to log in and without having to specify which local system is handling the customer's order. The central system communicates with each local system to obtain order status information. The central communication function handles all login and authentication requirements on the local systems, if necessary, and reformats the order status data, if necessary, to a common format for storage at the central location. The system also may notify the customer, via telephone, text message, instant message or electronic mail, whenever the order status changes or when the order status changes to a predetermined condition (such as “out for delivery”).
I know about software patents but what’s the point when somebody can achieve the exact same functionality from the user’s perspective using totally different code. Just seems like a waste on a patent lawyer.
Can someone give an example of a time when software patents are good for everyone? Because I can only think of software patents that have prevented the widespread adoption of ideas, and not the opposite.
I think the original intention was to motivate people to create new technologies. If you spent your life savings designing and prototyping a new product in your shed you don’t want a giant company being able to go “cool, thanks I’ll make them myself and run you out of business”.
The whole point is that you’ll invest into it because you’ll be able to profit off it afterwards
Isn’t that the point, though. Allow someone to profit from it rather than make it free to use. If there is another way to do it, that is not patented but free, they will use that, even if the code is objectively worse. See media codecs for example at the moment.
Can someone give an example of a time when software patents are good for everyone? Because I can only think of software patents that have prevented the widespread adoption of ideas, and not the opposite.
I think the original intention was to motivate people to create new technologies. If you spent your life savings designing and prototyping a new product in your shed you don’t want a giant company being able to go “cool, thanks I’ll make them myself and run you out of business”.
The whole point is that you’ll invest into it because you’ll be able to profit off it afterwards
Isn’t that the point, though. Allow someone to profit from it rather than make it free to use. If there is another way to do it, that is not patented but free, they will use that, even if the code is objectively worse. See media codecs for example at the moment.