Re:Goliath v. David, AAC style
by jerf on Sunday March 25, 2012 @09:00PM
(#3754439)
There is a serious problem that this is the tip of the iceberg for, though. Certain types of technology essentially become part of you, either cognitively or physically, such as this. It is particularly cruel to install something into somebody or allow someone to effectively incorporate their software into their brain, and then yank it away because of patents or some other property issue. Does the company's societally-manufactured right to their IP fully trump this girl's right to speech? This question will become more important over time, but it does cover only a small subset of the Great IP Conflict.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Goliath v. David, AAC style
by wlesieutre on Monday March 26, 2012 @03:13AM
(#3755485)
To play devil's advocate, her right to speech is also societally-manufactured. Without our social expectation that we should use technology to make the world accessible to people with disabilities, she would have had to get by without a voice. Even the ADA is a relatively recent addition, at the expense of a lot of architectural freedom (like the necessity of designing around ramps and elevators).
The nature of patents leads to situations like this pretty frequently in medical technology, with the iPad app seeming analogous to generic drugs. Should we let the patents run their course and make assistive iPad apps eligible for insurance coverage? Limit the patent terms in cases like this? Abolish software patents altogether? There are a lot of arguable positions on IP, but issues like this one make it far more personal than most.