Tim Bray Finds An Affinity Between Patents And OSS 209
Manuzhai writes "Tim Bray, of XML co-invention fame, is writing about software patents and Open Source software today. While he deprecates the 'business-method' patents like one-click ordering, he thinks some (Open) source code could tell the truth about a patent application: 'In fact, in an ideal world, I'd rewrite the law to allow software patents but require a working Open-Source implementation as a condition of getting one.'"
At least... (Score:2, Insightful)
I like it provided there's no more 1-click-purchase involved.
Hum?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent system really is broken. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Eliminates patent benefit. (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand his point, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I still think that software patents stifle innovation. The average useful program is made up of numerous components, not like an improved butter churn. Imagine if every little part of a program were patented: people would be way too caught up in liscensing fees to be able to write anything, especially a large application. If the patent system were to ever reasonably be applied to software, it will definitely need standards, something it sorely lacks now.
I do agree with him that anything software that is patented should be open source. At least this way, the company is forced to essentially put their idea in the public domain. Don't they make inventors of mechanical systems publish a blueprint?
I sure hope we get this figured out soon, because with multibillion dollar lawsuits flying around, I don't see how even giant corporations can feel safe doing business here in the US
Re:Eliminates patent benefit. (Score:2, Insightful)
You can patent parts of the engine. Everyone can look at how you did it, and maybe create a better solution for it. The only thing patent protects the owner from, is using the same exact implementation in products that are sold for profit.
IMHO this is an excellent proposition
Re:Eliminates patent benefit. (Score:5, Insightful)
ie. The patent applicant not only has to write some code showing how his invention works in detail, but also has to show it to anyone who wants to see it. Those people who see it may not use it in their own applications (or they'd be violating the patent) so all the benefits of having a patent apply, but no-one would be able to patent anything that didn't have a concrete implementation (like 1-click for example).
I think that's the idea, but if you think about it - if you wrote code for 1-click, either you'd be restricting people from using the same techniques but they could implement 1-click in a different way, which I think does invalidate the idea of a patent after all.
Imagine I come up with a novel way of toasting bread, and I have to create my 'toaster'. If patents are to work, that'd have to stop other people from inventing the 'grill'. If that is true, then my way of implementing 1-click would stop other people from implementing 1-click in their own way.
The alternative, if my software only applies to my way of doing 1-click, then someone could legally invent the grill even though I have the toaster patent.
(I think I'll go lie down and wait for someone knowledgeable about patents to tell me what I mean
Re:Novell (Score:3, Insightful)
As for your last remark, well... Perhaps if slashdotters relied on providing spamming services to viagra and penis enlargement companies, as I do, they wouldn't be so critical of spam.
Re:No, it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as this might disappoint the Perl hackers, there isn't always one way to do it. Sometimes there's only one good way of doing things (MP3 decoding comes to mind), and if the single-path bottleneck is patented then things might get difficult.
Why does free software have to be subjected to patents? It's not a commercial enterprise. If commercial entities stand to lose money from the competition of free software, surely that's their problem and not the free software coders'?
I think this could only work if the duration for which software patents were valid was shortened considerably (to, say, 3 years).
Re:Self-Contradicting? (Score:3, Insightful)
A patent is a promise by the state to enforce your exclusive rights on an invention in exchange for your publishing its details. Similarly, you are granted a copyright by the state on something in exchange for publishing it. In both cases it has to be "useful" to be protected - you cannot patent trivial ideas as you cannot copyright gibberish.
If you could just keep the inner workings of your invention secret, you would not need a patent to make money out of it, but then nobody else could learn from it and improve upon it. In that sense, open source and patenting are indeed the same idea .
Re:No, it doesn't (Score:2, Insightful)
And if you want to pin down patents to a "specific algorithm", how precise do you need to be? If you get too specific, patents effectively become almost identical to copyright. If you become too broad, you have... almost what we have now.
Imagine the code submitted along with a patent for a codec like MP3. Does your patent now cover just exactly that one way of encoding in MP3, or does it cover encoding in MP3 per-se? Or something in-between?
Why does everyone keep (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have (Score:4, Insightful)
( It should be clear to us that, without very strong safeguards against it, that is what patent lawyers would tend to make out of writing source code for software patent applications, just like what they have made out of the descriptive text for normal patent applications. )
Re:Novell (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course if your income depends on something, you'll be automatically biased. But the fact that you rely on it doesn't mean you should.
To make an extreme example: Say, in some country there was passed a law. This law states that you can get a killer license (which are sold in a limited amount by the state), and after aquiring that license, you are allowed to kill about everyone you like (with some exceptions for government members and similar). Some people bought those licenses and now legally make a living as professional killer. Of course there are people against this law, but the killers just say: "If your income depended on killing other people, you wouldn't be so critical about it." Now, would this killer convince you?
Note that I don't equate software patents with killing people (while pharmaceutic patents indeed can cause the death of people in some cases), but this is just to demonstrate that the fact that you rely on it as primary source of income doesn't tell anything about if it is right or wrong to have it.
Re:public patent license (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically it works like the GPL. A licensee can use the licensor's patented invention provided that, among other things, he grants back to the licensor a right to use any relevant improvement patents the licensee invents.
Tweak it a bit, and there's your GPL for patents.
But it doesn't help much, since the scope of patent protection is amazingly broad, and most people willing to invest into getting patents aren't likely to then want to let everyone use them. So so long as any GPL-Patent developer could still stand a good chance of infringing a non GPL-Patent invention, the problem remains.
open vs. free (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where "Open Source" meets "Free Software" and the two don't agree, not in the least.
Free Software is incompatible with patents, both from the license terms (the GPL even explicitly mentions patents) and the spirit (sharing of knowledge).
Open Source allows such abominations as "you can look, but if you copy we'll sue you from Alaska to Hell".
Isn't that essentially what DRM is trying to do?
The idea is nice at first glance, much like patents of old required a working mechanical model. It does fit well to the basic idea behind patents, which is essentially "tell us all how it works and we'll give you some rights for teaching us".
It doesn't fit with Free in any sense. Whether or not it fits with Open Source depends on your philosophy. Mine certainly isn't one of prison-but-with-walls-of-glass. I prefer not having to live in a prison at all.
Adaptation (Score:4, Insightful)
Take, for instance, the fire service. My dad's a career fireman and sits on several technical committees that draft and approve the specifications for different types of equipment used in firefighting (specifically, breathing apparatus). Every time the specification changes (recently, to include a visual warning device in the face mask to display the percentage/amount of breathable air left in a tank), the vendors have to build new functionality into their gear. Each one has to design something that meets the standard, and each one patents their implementation of the standard, or licenses an already patented mechanism that meets the requirements. Point being, the vendors can't patent the CONCEPT of having a heads-up display, just their particular electro-mechanical implementation if it's something novel.
Software, on the other hand, has been allowed to patent a CONCEPT (such as one-click ordering) rather than a particular implementation simply because they claim that exposing their particulars with respect to implementation (source code) would give someone a competitive advantage against them.
Hogwash. In fact, it's easier to modify a physical device enough to get a new patent... it's harder to modify software to make it apparently distinct from the original patented source, esepcially if it's written in another language where someone is going to make comparisons not on a line-by-line basis but a method-by-method basis, and get into comparative analysis.
I agree that the system is broken and needs to be fixed... and I think the way to do that *is* in fact to require software patents to include their source code as well as a solid description of the methods used (perhaps an object model, as well?)...
Re:Not sure this will help (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they fail at this, there are still two things that this does:
1. A defendant in an infringement suit can read the actual software and use it in the defense. If the code is non-functional, then it will be easier to invalidate the patent in court (since a valid implementation is required).
2. After the patent finishes, the code is available. Currently, a software patent offers no new information.
nope - too expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are unbelievably expensive compared to copyright. There are two ways that they are expensive.
The second point makes the system entirely un-workable as there are so many patents that it is impossible for any one person to be sure that they aren't stepping on someone else's claimed invention. What makes the system just laughable is that now ideas are being patented (software and business processes) which are vague by nature. On top of this ridiculous situation is the notion of triple damages if you are almost aware of a patent that you later infringe upon (so you are horribly punished for trying to play by the rules and read through ambiguous patents). The system is horribly broken and stacked many times over against the little guy. I deeply wish that the case law that made software and business process patents legal is overturned quickly.
Godspeed EFF, you fight for all of us little guys and gals.Re:At least... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I pour years into my (supposedly) new variation on the theme of moving information in a binary sort of way, and someone pulls something from their colostomy-bag of tricks?
Or is this another one of those new 'security' things I keep hearing about?
Re:first post? (Score:3, Insightful)
I also think that because of that its power could also be eroded by the patent lawyers and it could be equally subject to attacks as the current system has been.
Therefore, other than the benefit of seeing the working example of the patent and being subject to searches by the engineer, it is of marginal benefit. There are many other factors contributing to the patent problem. They must be addressed [groklaw.net] as well: