Slashdot Log In
Is The Lone Coder Dead?
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Nov 16, 2004 08:36 PM
from the rms-played-by-anthony-hopkins dept.
from the rms-played-by-anthony-hopkins dept.
CyNRG writes "The little guy. The one-person software company. Can it still exist today? That's me. I'm once again, after many years, writing my own commercial software to sell. A few things have changed: the patent feeding frenzy. This is my main concern. My perception is that one must verify that you don't infringe on any patents when developing new cool software, and that the explosion of patents granted by the USPTO has reached epic proportions. If this perception is true, then that makes it almost impossible for the Lone Coder to create something new that doesn't infringe on other patents. The amount of money required to perform the due diligence research seems like it would be greater than the amount of money needed to develop the software, or even the total revenues that the software could ever generate. Please someone tell me I'm wrong!" Is he?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Someone has to do it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Someone has to do it (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Someone has to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Someone has to do it (Score:5, Interesting)
Lone programmers still exist in specialised areas, the company I work for buys some geophysics software from a one man company.
Parent
Re:Someone has to do it (Score:5, Interesting)
American IP laws have been getting gradually worse for the better part of a decade.
But seriously,
With a couple of exceptions I can think of. Namely the e-commerce shopping cart patent, there hasn't been much of a threat to smaller development houses. I'm not saying it's not there, but I don't know if it's as bad as people think it is.
Small software houses pose problems for IP lawyers. First, they don't have any money. They barely make any money. They might make enough for the initial developer to get by, but when you're talking about the kind of money these companies are looking for, that's nothing. They'll spit at it.
Secondly,
Smaller firms are a lot more likely to find pro bono defense. There are a couple of non profit organizations like the EFF that are set up to do just that. Then there's the problem of groups of smaller companies banding together to cover legal costs. Any way you cut it, the smaller the firm you go after, the more likely you are to end up in court. Might sound good if you have genuine innovation at risk. But if you hold several hundred questionable patents on business processes, it's bad news.
If I were a patent hording firm, I would be going after the Sonys and IBMs of the world. That's a sure bet.
Parent
Re:Someone has to do it (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for inquiring about our line of exciting products, including "Land of the Free", "Land of Opportunity", and our most popular product, "American Dream". As you can well imagine, our products are in very high demand and can often be difficult to obtain. For this reason, we have recently expanded our distribution channels and partnered with some very fine retailers. We hope that this information will be of use to you in your searching.
Since 2000, "Land of the Free" has been distributed by GOP Industries and is now marketed under their brand "Land of the Wealthy". A second, more modest version of this product is also available as "Land of the Drive-Thru-Please".
Long regarded as one of our most cherished offerings, "Land of Opporunity" is now available exclusively thru Wal-Mart. Enrollment in their "Greeter" program is required.
Without question, "American Dream" is our most popular product. Now available exclusively through the USPTO, this exciting product will make a fine family heirloom for generations to come. The MSRP is 3 congressmen and, due to the recent devaluation in Democratic Senators, we can only accept Republicans at this time. If you would like to own a piece of this exquisite product, please have your attorneys or lobbyist contact us directly.
You might also be interested in our latest prodct addition, a beautiful coffee-table book titled "A Guide to Ethics in American Politics". Weighing in at a hefty 2.5 ounces, this is a volume that anyone would be proud to display on their bookshelves.
We look forward to hearing from you soon,
Sincerely,
Karl Rove
US Customer Service Representative
Illuminati Corp.
Parent
The Details (Score:5, Funny)
A carefully worded post praising Suse Linux netted him a score of 4 he briefly basked in his own reflected glory. Unfortunately his very successs was also his downfall. Unable to handle the thought of another 1 point post after gaining acceptance for the first time through
On his computer were found many text files containing various drafts of "In Soviet Russia", "Imagine a Beaowulf", and other unposted commemts along with his predictions on their possible scores.
He leaves behind No Friends [slashdot.org], No Foes [slashdot.org], No Freaks [slashdot.org], and No Fans [slashdot.org], and no forwarding email.
Remember his final words: SuSE rules!! [slashdot.org]
Parent
Re:Someone has to...PRELIMINARY AUTOPSY RESULTS (Score:5, Funny)
In a later news release of the Preliminary Autopsy Results:
1. He had Type II diabetes from the consumption of Mountain Dew/Code Red.
2. He has extremity palsy from the intake of Jolt Cola.
3. He was having Grand Mal epileptic seizures from the MSG in his local Chinese takeout.
4. He had become reclusive with the shock of finding out that real, live women DIDN'T have staples in their navels.
5. He hands had become claws due to the carpal tunnel and tendonitis from his non-ergonomic keyboard.
HOWEVER, the proximate cause of death was...
6. He attempted to read the entire set of Don Knuth's TAOCP (The Art of Computer Programming) AND "Regular Expressions in PERL" in the same evening and HIS HEAD EXPLODED!!!
LATE BREAKING NEWS:
In a joint press announcment, Microsoft, Sun, Apple and SCO announced that they were SURE that the Lone Coder's work infringed on their IP, and they would be seeking redress beyond the grave, from the appropriate authorities, saying "If ANYONE thinks that merely by DYING they can escape the reach of our lawyers enforcing our intellectual property rights, they will find out just how far we will go to make sure that every line of ever written has the protection it deserves!"
He is survived by his parents, who will be paying off his student loans from MIT for the rest of their natural lives, and his high school sweetheart, who, unknown to the Lone Coder, due to lack of consortium, became a lesbian several years ago and moved to North Beach.
Richard Stallman has annouced that he's quite sure the Lone Coder's work was pretty much something that he had written in LISP on a napkin, one lunch 30 years ago at the Lampoon, but he was kinda buzzed and "...wasn't sure what i did with the *&)&*(&)( napkin...!"
Parent
Re:Someone has to...PRELIMINARY AUTOPSY RESULTS (Score:5, Funny)
Sheesh, kids these days :-)
Parent
Of course not (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course not (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Of course not (Score:4, Insightful)
The current trend is to take obvious ideas and add the phrase "on the internet" and boom, new invention.
Old Idea. "I want to buy something"
New Idea. "I want to buy something on the internet"
Old Idea. "I want to auction something"
New Idea. "I want to auction something on the internet"
Old Idea. "You can find things with a table of contents"
New Idea. "You can find things with a table of contents on my web site, which is on the internet"
Parent
Re:Of course not (Score:5, Insightful)
Except what will happen is something like:
Microsoft: "You have a patent we need."
Lone Coder: "OK. It'll cost you a million bucks."
Microsoft: "Forget it, we're going to use your stuff without paying."
Lone Coder: "Then I'll sue you."
Microsoft: "But our defense will be that our code is a tiny but significant bit different from yours. So we're not infringing."
Lone Coder: "I'll get a really good lawyer who'll show that you actually ARE infringing."
Microsoft: "That will take years. Lawyers are expensive. In the meantime, we believe that you are infringing on several of our patents. So we're going to unleash our army of lawyers onto you. Can you really afford the legal costs?"
Lone Coder: "You bastards."
Microsoft: "Now now. There's no need for ugly language. We're your buddies. We're here to help you! If you just sign over the rights to your patent to us, we will allow you to continue using it yourself. Of course, when our new blockbuster software comes out, your market is destroyed, but until that time you will be able to make a living."
Lone Coder: "Arghhhhhh!"
Microsoft: "And you pay us a million dollars, just so that we won't have our lawyers start sueing you for infringing our patents, as soon as we have thought up a couple that you probably are infringing."
Lone Coder: *whimper*
Parent
I hope not ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Count me as a fellow Lone Coder (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not easy -- you have to stoop to doing stuff like adding gratuitous links to your Slashdot posts.
This isn't going to be a popular sentiment here, but I'd say that the GPL and P2P generally make it tougher to make a living.
Parent
Re:Count me as a fellow Lone Coder (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny - I make my living by writing, integrating and providing valueadd support for BSD & GPL'd solutions (mostly web-based).
Most software is a commodity now so it's just the reality of the situation that providing services around opensource is more efficient than the ol' model of selling a piece of shrinked-wrapped artificial scarcity, or a license for same.
--
Parent
Re:Count me as a fellow Lone Coder (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to the GPL, I agree that is a restrictive license, and "less free" than the BSD/X11/MIT/Apache licenses. I can't say I agree with the rest, though.
GPLed works generally belong to no one person or organisation, true. This doesn't always have to be the case (take Asterisk or all FSF software, for example) but generally is. The difference is that I don't see how that's a problem, if all authors/contributors have decided that that license is appropriate for their work. In fact, surely it's much the same as a distributed group of people working on closed source software - the codebase doesn't belong to any one of them - except that the GPL developers let you use their work under a different set of conditions?
You do not lose the rights to your work if you incorporate GPL code. You will generally have the option, much the same as for any other copyright infringement, of removing and rewriting that portion of the code. You may have to pay damages or settle for other remedies, especially if the copying was knowing. The difference between the GPL and a proprietary license is that it offers you the
The point is that in many ways the GPL is just another proprietary license, it just gives you different options and a different set of restrictions. Many find it much easier to agree with than other licenses, many others find it impossible to accept. So what? Your own view undermines your complaints - if the authors of GPL works had wanted their work free for everybody to use however they wanted, the would've released under the BSD license or similar. Complaining that they didn't has as much validity as if I complain that your work isn't released under the BSD license, because I want to use it in my work without offering you any compensation.
Parent
Re:Count me as a fellow Lone Coder (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL can never cause you to lose any rights to your own work; only to derivative works of other works that you would not have any right to incorporate without the GPL. Now, if you incorporate GPL'ed code into something you've written, you still only own the part you wrote, not the whole shebang. And if you release your work under the GPL, and someone contributes improvements to it, you only own the part you wrote; you have rights to the contributions only under the GPL.
Complaints about the GPL "taking away my rights" basically amount to the vocalizations of people who want to use other people's work without abiding by the terms (based on giving back to the community) that the author of that work set. Basically, GPL-hatred is a kind of looter-mentality.
Parent
Re:Count me as a fellow Lone Coder (Score:5, Interesting)
There are reasons for this, but you could think them up as easily as me. More relevant are the implications. In this case, since the grandparent was able to swap to a GPLed version tells me you've got something close to a commodity. And this means you're going to have to keep innovating, staying ahead of the GPLed version, or else users will gradully shift to the cheaper, more flexible alternative.
If you want to continue selling shrinkwrapped software as a one-man team, then I suggest you look at where the free software movement has traditionally done badly -- areas where the software cannot be totally free (due to integration with non-free data), very expensive products for a small market, etc.
But I think a more viable long-term option is to start adding software modifications/consulting and the like to your portfolio.
Of course, there is no hurry for any of this, I just expect every year will be a little harder than the one before.
Parent
Re:Count me as a fellow Lone Coder (Score:5, Insightful)
not hostile at all - more sardonic than anything else.
simply pointing out that you opened yourself up to losing a potential customer to a gpl product precisely because you did not offer what open source does - the ability to modify the software for one's own needs.
maybe doing that keeps you some customers, but obviously it loses you others.
Parent
I am not a lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent enforcement is the job of the patent holder. You do not need to do "due diligence" unless you are basing your design on someone else's patented product. Or you are attempting to publish your own patent.
Re:I am not a lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I am not a lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
That makes sense, doesn't it? Looking up and citing other work in the field is certainly the way that academic publishing works. Unfortunately the unintended consequences of patent law make it such that it doesn't work out that way.
When I was (forced by my boss to be) applying for a software patent, my boss told me to look around for other things that might be similar to what we'd done. And as soon as the patent lawyers heard that he told me that, they went through the roof, and immediately told me to stop. Here's why:
Patent law says that you're legally required to reference any potentially overlapping work that you know about in your application. If someone can show that there was something that you knew about and didn't cite in your application, it's grounds for revoking the patent. It's very hard to write laws that talk about what someone ought to know or be aware of, though, so you only have to include things that you are actually aware of. But the more citations you include in your application, the greater the chance that the examiner will reject the application because of one of those related patents you cited. (You can see where this is going...) So, from a legal standpoint, the best situation is one where you honestly have no knowledge of any other work in the field, so you can submit an application with no citations. So you never do any kind of "due diligence" searching when you submit a patent, because all it can do is decrease the chances that it will get granted.
So you really probably shouldn't ever read patents (see my other post in this article about why it's a bad idea for programmers to look for infringing patents). Which is kind of strange and sad considering that one of the main points of the patent office was supposed to be to provide a legally protected way to publicize information about technology to encourage further growth and development.
IANAL, either. Just a disappointed observer, discouraged at how terribly out of control our patent office and patent law has become.
Parent
Re:I am not a lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
Parent
Re:I am not a lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, all the patent does is allow someone to sue you if they believe they can prove in court your work infringes the patent. This requires several steps to have a real effect on you.
1) They have to notice you
2) They have to care somewhat about what you are doing and analyze it in some detail to determine it is in their patent library
3a) You have to be perceived as a threat to be shut down
3b) alternatively, you could have deep pockets to be emptied.
4) They have to contact you/make the first move
5) They have to decide to sue you
6) They have to be successful enough in court to
7a) bankrupt you
7b) make you empty your deep pockets
7c) make you stop and do something else.
At many points along the way, the process can break down in your favor.
- A lone coder can easily stay under the radar while making a comfortable living for one person.
- Unless they hear about your product, and are able to gather enough information, they won't know it infringes their patents.
- If you are successful enough to have deep enough pockets that a patent-holder notices (and patent holders have to be big enough to spend many thousands of dollars to file a defensible patent, not to mention R&D for real innovation), or to be perceived as a threat, you've made enough money to hire a good lawyer. Or, enough money to give up without a fight and retire on your savings.
- When they contact you, you can counteroffer. Lawsuits are risky. Maybe you can create a win-win situation which they would prefer to a possible lose-win situation favoring you. You probably have some code they would like, or skills they would find useful. Offer to come work for them, or license the code to them, or some other kind of collaboration.
- If they decide to crush you instead of accepting the offer, you can just walk away. Agree to cease & desist, and move on. If you don't have enough money to walk away, they what the hell are they suing you for?
Patent holders are either
1) huge companies that don't care about the little ants scurrying around beneath them unless the ant looks like its going to grow into something big. Then, they would rather buy it than crush it.
Mostly, they get patents to cross-license as protection or to protect their market niche from the other huge companies or *aggressive* startups.
2) small companies looking for a big company to sue for violating a patent. They are an ant themselves, looking to take down one of the elephants. Other ants don't have enough money to make enticing targets.
Neither of these cases really cares about crushing some lone coder just for the savage thrill.
Plus, (IANAL) the damages they can get are related to the profits they would have had but for the infringement. If you are some small potatoes guy, the revenue you suck away would be tiny, unless you are obviously going against some cash cow like Microsoft Office or iTunes Music Store or a commercial data base. Creating a commercial product dedicated directly to putting MS out of business is obviously asking for trouble. But is also beyond the lone coder.
Don't waste psychic energy worrying about the remote risk that a patent lawsuit will crush you. You'll have plenty of other reasons to fail, anyway. Life is too short to worry about this kind of thing before the C&D warning shot comes over the bow.
Parent
Re:I am not a lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
Honda has a patent regarding the routing of the front brake line on their motocross bikes. Yamaha is forced to use an alternate (longer) routing to keep from infringing the patent, which ends up decreasing sensitivity on the front brake.
Suzuki ignores the patent. Honda doesn't care. They aren't nearly as concerned about losing sales to Suz as they are to Yamaha.
And I have a bunch of short brake line kits for those yams, if anyone wants better brake feel.
Parent
You're wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously though, the one good thing I can think of about all this ridiculous IP litigation is that it actually can drive a good 'lone coder' to really innovate as opposed to create the same old mouse trap in a different way.
In either case, good luck to you. Make us proud.
Yes! (No) (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I've seen of the software market today, one-man teams still seem to be a way to make money. You just have to find the right market, and avoid overextending yourself - do a good job on the things you can manage, instead of trying to do everything and doing a crappy job of it. I've seen lots of developers succeed by marketing shareware or selling software over the internet (especially as far as indie games go, for example Starscape).
Re:Who's going to sue you (Score:4, Funny)
Why that would be like billion dollars music corporations suing 12 year olds for listening to bootleg music...
What an irrational, ridiculous, and fuitless waste of time and legal process that would be, eh?
-- Genda
Parent
Bittorrent (Score:4, Interesting)
If that kind of success is not enough, I don't know what is.
Re:Bittorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
==Skills==
*Bittorent: Imagined, designed, coded, deployed, and now maintaining the Bittorent protocol and OS-independent Python client. 12 million users since 2003; 500,000 gigabytes of transfers per day on average.
==Objective==
Build a world-class, industrial-grade extranet messaging and collaboration protocol for your company.
==Requirement==
$180,000/yr, total combined annual work hours not to exceed 2300. Cost of living adjustment based on consumer index no later than April 1 of each year. Choice of location.
I tell you, if this guy works for a company 4 years and costs them $1M, they will have gotten themselves a bargain. This guy is cheaper than an average team of 4.
Parent
Re:Bittorrent (Score:5, Informative)
Blizzard is the one using bittorrent to distribute its patches, and their implementation of it is exceedingly poor.
Parent
The Lone Coder is Dead. Long live the Consultant (Score:5, Insightful)
What's a coder to do?
Code away on an open source project, gove away all your hard work.
THEN...
Offer your services as an implemetation and customization consultant for said open source software for businesses.
Implementations are not fun, but pound for pound, you get serous cash. Especially if you wrote the software to begin with. You can charge the most.
Re:The Lone Coder is Dead. Long live the Consultan (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Not if you're Jeff Minter (Score:5, Informative)
So... no. That said, I know lots of other people that have two-three person teams that make a nice bit of cash here and there from coding.
As long as your code is good, it doesn't crash, and my grandma can use it without resorting to profanity, you'll make a nice piece of money.
Not alot, but maybe enough if you hire a good enough marketer.
Economist article (Score:5, Informative)
http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?sto
Not to worry... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not to worry... (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmmmn,
1) Some algorithms are easy to spot - you don't need the code.
2) Some patents cover business methods & possibly looknfeel.
3) The DMCA does not make all reverse engineering illegal.
I think patents are definitely a problem for all small software shops - closed or open.
Parent
Re:Not to worry... (Score:5, Informative)
Second, according to the DMCA reverse engineering is NOT illegal. Breaking copy encryption is.
Parent
Don't search for possible infringement (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes and sell out to the big boys, get that indemnification and let them worry about the suit.
Spiderweb software, and others... (Score:5, Informative)
See http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/ [spiderwebsoftware.com].
Thomas Warfield, author of Pretty Good Solitaire, Pretty Good Majongg, etc., is also a Lone Coder.
See http://www.asharewarelife.com/ [asharewarelife.com].
See generally discussion on "micro-isvs" at http://www.microisv.com/ [microisv.com].
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same as any other mature industry. A single person can't really build a car from scratch either. At least not one that has any hope of competing with the product of a large design team.
I mean I don't like software patents anymore than most people on Slashdot, but your argument doesn't appeal to me.
-Spyky
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
The situation's simultanously better and worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Even if you ARE clear of existing patents, what if a big company decides to fight you in court? Again, a small or medium-sized company could never afford to fight this.
3. Then again, it's not always in some big company's interest to shut you down or sue you out of existance. Often they probably just want a chunk of your profits. (and a chunk of zero is still zero, so they don't make money if you fold, either)
What a fucking country.
Setup a freaking corporation! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, really. If you incorporate (for $800 or so), then the worst that can happen is that your little company is made non-existent.
At least I don't think they'll pierce the corporate veil over a small company. It's simply not worth their time.
Don't worry about it (Score:5, Insightful)
B. As a small operation, you're not the target of infringement lawsuits.
C. If you're doing closed-source software, they probably won't be able to tell you're infringing unless it's some patented video or audio codec implementation.
Keep in mind that you don't go straight from infringement to a lawsuit. The patent holder may well just want you to take a license, which can be negotiated as a royalty paid to them on copies of the software you sell.
If you can't afford a license, or they won't sell you one, you will have to rework your code not to use the patented idea.
The sky isn't falling. There are all manner of different liabilities that can pop up for any business at any time. There is no way to predict it. That's what insurance and indemnification are for.
ignore the IP - just do it (Score:4, Interesting)
what's the phrase, 'its better to ask forgiveness for an act than to ask permission, beforehand'.
IANAL, but this is almost exactly what the big corp lawyers told us, when we gathered at a group meeting and were asking about how to go about developing code that doesn't infringe.
no, temper this with the fact that they have a team of lawyers which is bigger than your whole company. so I'm not sure their advice still sticks. ymmv..
EUROPE!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
The new IP-laws will lake just a little longer to pass, now that 10 new countries joined the EU. They need to negotiate and vote over it again.
Re:ok - you are wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
"You know I can't promise that."
"If you did, I'd make love to you right now."
"I promise. I will never die."
Parent
Re:ok - you are wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)
step one Incorporate.
step two pay yourself a salary
step three you are safe.
Incorporating is to protect you from bullshit, it costs less then 100 dollors.
MS set the president that companies are not guilty for the infringemeant of their users.
There are additional taxes though, the corporations income and your income.
Parent