Is the Tide Turning On Patents? 172
Glyn Moody writes "The FSF has funded a new video, 'Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system,' freely available (of course) in Ogg Theora format (what else?). It comes at a time when a lot is happening in the world of patents. Recent work from leading academics has called into question their basis: 'The work in this paper, and that of many others, suggests that this traditionally-struck "devil's bargain" may not be beneficial.' We recently discussed how a judge struck down Myriad Genetics's patents on two genes because they involved a law of Nature, and were thus 'improperly granted.' Meanwhile, the imminent Supreme Court ruling In re Bilski is widely expected to have negative knock-on effects for business method and software patents. Is the tide beginning to turn?"
When I applied for my patents... (Score:3, Informative)
My attorney encouraged me to focus not on the software aspects, but how the software interacted with the surrounding system (sensors, hardware, users, etc). It's been suspected for a while now that the vise was going to tighten up against patents on algorithms.
And good, IMHO.
Re:When I applied for my patents... (Score:4, Interesting)
as it has been shown before, when it comes to software it's better to innovate than waste time on patents. [techdirt.com] Unfortunately a lot of people think it's a great idea to get something patented and don't even consider that hundreds of other people may have done the same thing before.
I work in an industry where I hear the phrase "I'm applying for a patent on my product" all day long. It doesn't mean shit, and you can get sued for claiming a patent on a product that doesn't get approved. You're applying for a patent for x? guess what, so are the other 25 people for doing the same thing. This goes double or triple for anything involving software in any form.
Re:When I applied for my patents... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, tell me that patents don't matter when *you're* being told by potential investors that, gosh, you're a software company with an innovative product but you only have an app out for *one* patent? What are you thinking?
Regardless of that particular lawyer's minority position, potential investors and even state and federal grant boards look strongly to whether you're taking steps to protect your IP. We have product *and* are patent pending. The product was developed privately before the patent was applied for. Most software companies launch on sweat equity. Early on, cash is for hardware, lawyers, travel, things of that nature.
As for this "use the money to innovate instead" argument? Filing for a US patent costs about $10k, including attorney fees. An entry-level programmer costs you perhaps $65k after benefits -- we're talking entry level. So that's two months worth of salary + benefits. How much innovation do you think an entry level programmer is going to do in two months?
Furthermore, all of the costs aren't upfront. You may only spend $6k or so up front, but more when you need to actually defend your patent. So that gets pushed down the road, which in a startup, is a *very good thing*. So off the bat, it's one month of a starting programmer's salary you're talking about.
This is just the way business works. You either play the game or you get out of the pool. Many people here don't like patents because of their stifling effect on free software, and rightly so. But your anger needs to be directed at those who defend or seek to strengthen our current patent system rather than those who want it to be more reasonable but don't have a voice in the matter.
Here's an issue that most people here probably aren't aware of. The patent system is skewed toward helping the Big Boys. Startups aren't your problem. Startups have less money, yet they have to pay more for patents because they don't have a big team of lawyers lying around. Startups often aren't familiar with all of the risks and intricacies of the patent process and may screw themselves over by talking in detail about what they're doing too soon or things like that. Startups *definitely* can't afford to patent troll, to file a bunch of random patents and see what sticks. Startups may not be able to afford to extend their coverage to new markets or cover their tech as well. So the whole system is biased in favor of big companies.
What would I like to see in patent reform?
* Shorter terms for software patents. The term on a patent of a given type should be proportional to the typical length of the product cycle, such that the term is, let's say, however long it generally takes for the third generation of said product to hit the shelves. So if you say the typical software innovation cycle is 2-3 years, then perhaps 5 years. From time of granting, not of filing.
* Greater leniency for filing errors, but stricter standards for what's innovative
* Faster processing times
* A *higher* filing fee. This will make the percentage-difference in cost between patents from the big boys and startups smaller, as well as helping fund more people to review them faster and better.
And you know... a lot of the business world would probably consider me a radical for this, but I'd like to see there be funding -- perhaps from the patent fees themselves -- for a governmental legal defense organization for nonprofits and individuals. That wouldn't mean that nonprofits and individuals would get a "violate patents risk-free" card. But it'd help stop meritless bullying from companies who know that their targets are too weak to fight back.
Re:When I applied for my patents... (Score:3)
"Many people here don't like patents because of their stifling effect on free software, and rightly so."
I don't like patents because it hinders innovation and impedes the building upon of what could be knowledge known and shared by all. It's effects on free software are secondary to this.
I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a lot of parallels between Bilski and Eldred v. Ashcroft [lmgtfy.com]. They are both IP cases where the Court was asked to step in and do Congress's job for it. In Eldred they refused to issue any opinion whatsoever as to what would constitute an unreasonable extension of copyright terms. I see no Constitutional basis for them to hand down any other opinion in Bilski. IMHO the majority will refuse to state anything definitive on the issue, and mumble something about it being Congress's prerogative to interpret the "progress of science and the useful arts" clause in any way they see fit.
At that point lobbyists will descend on Congress with checkbooks in hand, and we'll all end up worse off than we were before the case was ever brought.
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:2)
D'oh, not sure how that clipboarded link got confused with an earlier one. Should have been Eldred v. Ashcroft [wikipedia.org], for the Wikipedia-challenged.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
Sigh, and now they won't let me fix it. Morons with a copy of PHP For Dummies...
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe not! Hard times have changed the public attitude in some strange and unpredictable ways. People feel betrayed by businesses in many ways and for many people revenge is about a wink away. I would think that our politicians may not wish to be seen as business friendly right now.
MPAA news (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think that our politicians may not wish to be seen as business friendly right now.
All five major TV news networks (CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox) are owned by a movie studio in the MPAA. People who believe the TV news (and there are a lot of them) will believe a story that spins any consideration of narrowing copyrights or patents against bedroom authors and inventors.
SC has plenty of ground to stand on (Score:5, Informative)
The US Supreme Court has never upheld a software or business method patent. All they said in Diehr [swpat.org] is that things that are patentable can be managed/controlled by a person or a robot/computer. The CAFC and the USPTO ran with this and approved all kinds of programs for such a robot/computer, but they're not the authority here. The Supreme Court is now taking over again for the first time in 30 years, and all they have to do in order to abolish software patents is to clarify and repeat their previous rulings.
The Supremes have always said that math isn't patentable, it's a fundamental truth that can't be "invented", and they've said that putting instructions, including math onto a computer is an obvious step.
Re:SC has plenty of ground to stand on (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the tendencies of the Supreme Court have changed dramatically over the last 30 years. There also is an easy legal argument: "30 years ago, no-one could envision what computers are doing today, and the founding fathers even less so"
Re:SC has plenty of ground to stand on (Score:2)
Re:SC has plenty of ground to stand on (Score:2)
I'm guessing it's because the hardware version is patenting the physical process of implementing an algorithm, whereas the software version is the algorithm itself?
Re:SC has plenty of ground to stand on (Score:2)
You're assuming the FPGA version is both a) outside the classification of 'software', and b) patentable. Remove those assumptions and the solution becomes obvious: neither is.
Re:SC has plenty of ground to stand on (Score:2)
What makes you so sure that the hardware (FPGA) implementation is "deserving" of a patent? If a mathematical algorithm can be translated in a straightforward manner into HDL, which can then be automatically converted into a bitstream for an FPGA, then I would say that the resulting hardware design is just as obvious as the equivalent software running on a computer, and similarly ineligible.
You might have a better case if you had to invent a novel and non-obvious process to map the algorithm to an FPGA bitstream, or if you employed a new, more efficient way of mapping parts of the algorithm to hardware. However, if all you did was translate a known algorithm into a logic circuit using well-known techniques, then there really is nothing new, process-wise, to be patented.
As for patenting the algorithm itself, independent of any hardware or software implementation, that path leads inevitably to thought-crime: if the patent were to cover the algorithm itself, then calculating RSA in your head would infringe on the patent just as much as implementing it in an FPGA or computer software. This is one of the reasons pure math is not subject to patents in the first place.
Re:SC has plenty of ground to stand on (Score:2)
Often said by patent defenders, but not true. [wikipedia.org]
Re:SC has plenty of ground to stand on (Score:2)
Exactly, because one of the earlier claims will be "a device that implements the algorithm as described in Claim N". Which is basically the same as patenting the use of the algorithm on any platform.
It may or may not stand up to the Supreme Court. But who has the finances to take a case that far that wouldn't feel safer settling out of court lest they dilute the stomping power of their own patent portfolio?
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:4, Interesting)
The main difference is that this isn't a constitutional case. The law says that there shouldn't be patents for software or business methods, and the courts have interpreted this in a very strange way. What we are asking the court to do is interpret the law as congress intended it to be interpreted, not over-rule it.
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:3, Informative)
The main difference is that this isn't a constitutional case.
Except for the fact that patents are laid down in the US Constitution, sure. Of course, that shouldn't make it a constitutional issue, should it?
The Supreme Court certainly can and should decide whether or not restrictions placed on patents are constitutional. All laws are based on the constitution, and must not violate it. The SCOTUS's primary purpose is to ensure that this is the case.
Now, the portion of the Constitution that allows for Patents and Copyright is small, and it's the US Patent and Copyright codes that determine how we use it, which are both external to the constitution, so I couldn't tell you how the SCOTUS would go on this. The usually seem to err on the side of caution, so don't be surprised if they maintain the status quo.
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:3, Informative)
Except that neither party in the Bilski case is presenting a constitutional argument.
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody as far as I am aware is arguing that Congress were acting outside their powers in allowing patents to be granted. As far as I'm aware, Congress could pass a law allowing the software patents if they wanted to.
They are arguing about whether or not a computer program that calculates the price of energy derivatives and buys or sells them in response to energy trades is patentable under the existing rules made by Congress.
This invention appears to me to be part mathematical algorithm - calculating the price of the derivatives, and part business method - business operating procedure about how to run their business.
If you employed someone to do this manually, it wouldn't be patentable, and the position in Europe is that it would mean it isn't patentable to do it on a computer either. We call this the "little man" defence. I think we are hoping for a similar ruling from the US Supreme Court.
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:2)
It seems as though you believe that appeals courts only concern themselves with what is "Constitutional" (and therefor in the actual Constitution) and not with applying all the laws that congress makes. Did I read that incorrectly?
Courts deal with all laws - in addition to previously decided case law - not just the Constitution.
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:2)
Courts deal with all laws - in addition to previously decided case law - not just the Constitution.
The courts seem to be primarily concerned with not contradicting anything else ever decided at their level. So if one party gets away with something, then that's cool for any opportunist for all time. Right? Beuller? Anyone?
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:2)
That's the case law part of what I wrote, so yeah I'd agree with that statement. :-)
Prevailing jurisprudence does change over time though, which can be good or bad (textualist jurisprudence being a particular retarded legal theory).
Theora or VP8 (Score:2)
Google VP8.
Re:Theora or VP8 (Score:3, Informative)
It's still a rumor that hasn't been confirmed by Google.
Re:Theora or VP8 (Score:2)
Can't be (Score:2, Funny)
Yes and No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but barely, and could easily return to the No side with big money backing it.
That being said, whether it's next week or next year or 20 years from now, software patents will be be pointless. They will be ignored by everyone and their dog because countries like China and Russia completely ignore them and to compete with them, we will do the same thing.
Open source is the future, believe it or not.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes and No. (Score:2)
If open source is the future, and hardware can be made dirt cheap anywhere on the planet, how is anyone going to make any money?
I make good money designing custom software for my employer, as do something like 98% of programmers who develop in-house projects.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes and No. (Score:2)
We do, for a while (as a society).
At first it's all good - we have robots doing everything for us and no need for money for basic necessities.
After a while, the dumbing-down begins... After people have gotten used to robots literally wiping their asses for them their entire life, complacency will set in, the only quest will be for more entertainment and the bliss of ignorance, leading eventually to converting the race to mindless, caged animals. Pets of the robots that the people themselves once built.
This will continue until the day comes when some event occurs that is outside the scope of the machine consciousness, leading eventually to the end of this wave of civilization. A few humans will escape their caged lifestyles (Not by choice, but pure survival instinct) and a new cycle will begin, once again starting from primitive caveman life and reaching for the stars until they are reached and lost again. The only good thing [messagebase.net] is that it's been said that each age of man usually surpasses the previous age, reaching a bit higher enlightenment before once again crashing down like storm waves beating on a rocky cliff; eventually the waves win.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:2)
One problem with your hypothesis: If the entire race goes into a machine-aided trance of mindless hedonism and nothing breaks by the time the last man goes into his VR chair, then machines must be able to run the world all on their own. There would be no possible event that would destroy the machine civilization that wouldn't have destroyed a human civilization.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:2)
There would be no possible event that would destroy the humans that wouldn't have destroyed the dinosaurs, either.
The "Analog Hole" of humankind will always beat out the regimented thought processes of a machine.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:2)
Machines powerful enough to run the world would have to have some human-like processes.
Remember that humans are also a machine, and there is absolutely nothing special about a human that a sufficiently powerful robot can't replicate.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:2)
We do, for a while (as a society).
So nobody has to monitor and maintain the machines? Really? EVERYONE gets to do nothing?
Re:Yes and No. (Score:2)
Everyone. Haven't you watched star trek?
Re:Yes and No. (Score:2)
So who gets to do nothing?
Those who build their robots first.
Actually, scratch that. It will be those who builds their robots best armed.
bilksi due soon; I'm optimistic (Score:3, Informative)
I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson [swpat.org], Flook [swpat.org], Diehr [swpat.org]. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.
Re:bilksi due soon; I'm optimistic (Score:2)
I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case.
I wouldn't hold your breath. It's highly likely that Bilski's patent application will be tossed, and quite likely that business methods would be held nonstatutory, but almost certain that software, in some form - performed by a computer, tied to a machine, etc. - will be held statutory.
There are two policy arguments at work... The first is that we don't want to make it possible for people to infringe in their heads - that would make thinking a thoughtcrime. So we don't want it to be possible to patent an abstract business method, a mathematical algorithm, or a diagnostic method that involves "noticing the patient has elevated X; realizing the patent has disease Y." That's what the CAFC was getting at in Bilski when they said it had to be "tied to a specific machine": if the claim requires a computer, then you can't possibly infringe in your head. This is a good thing.
But should we throw out all software patents because in the abstract sense, not tied to a computer, they're mathematical algorithms? That's where we get the other policy argument: the Supreme Court is a political body. Software is worth a lot and represents a huge portion of the GDP. We're just starting to come out of a recession. If the Supreme Court invalidates business method patents, that's fine, because people will still keep using them if they're economically efficient, and 'business methods' are not products that are sold. But if the Supreme invalidates all software patents at a swoop, they just slashed the GDP by a significant amount, and the resulting market crash will make the Great Depression look like a minor blip.
Re:bilksi due soon; I'm optimistic (Score:3, Insightful)
But should we throw out all software patents because in the abstract sense, not tied to a computer, they're mathematical algorithms? That's where we get the other policy argument: the Supreme Court is a political body. Software is worth a lot and represents a huge portion of the GDP. We're just starting to come out of a recession. If the Supreme Court invalidates business method patents, that's fine, because people will still keep using them if they're economically efficient, and 'business methods' are not products that are sold. But if the Supreme invalidates all software patents at a swoop, they just slashed the GDP by a significant amount, and the resulting market crash will make the Great Depression look like a minor blip.
How exactly would eliminating software patents have *any* effect on the GDP? Software will *still* be protected, as it always has been, by copyright law.
The US is an exception in allowing software patents in the first place. The rest of the world has gotten along without them just fine.
Re:bilksi due soon; I'm optimistic (Score:2)
Software will *still* be protected, as it always has been, by copyright law.
This explains why no one bothers filing for software patents, right? After all, they cost $20,000-40,000 to get, while you can register copyright for about $35.
Or, maybe not. The patent protects the idea. Copyright only protects one specific implementation. Rewrite a C program in C+ and copyright doesn't help.
The US is an exception in allowing software patents in the first place. The rest of the world has gotten along without them just fine.
People like to say this, and like to claim in particular that places like Europe ban software patents.
You're wrong. Europe bans pure software patents, in exactly the same way as the CAFC Bilski decision bans patents on software that isn't tied to a machine. You most certainly can patent inventions embodied in software in Europe, provided you're reciting structures in the computer, too - processors, memory, etc.
patents (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree on your economic analysis with software patents. Patents on software are a type of "broken windows fallacy" argument, and as such, are a hindrance to the economy, not any sort of positive asset.
This is *precisely* the time we should be abandoning outdated (**AA type numbers and agenda, the entertainment distribution "industry") /harmful(software and living things patenting) /useless(casino gambling banks and created out of thin air financial "products") /parasitic(governmental make-work mc jobs) "businesses".
Yes, there would be an adjustment period if we eliminated the bulk of those "jobs" up above, but after a short time, you would find people would be concentrating on real wealth production work, which in turn contributes to real wealth creation, an economy that doesn't need sham official figures to try and sugar coat reality, or one that relies on ..shoot..bingo cards as somehow all that valuable. This "IP" stuff is all well and good in some extreme moderation levels, but you can't run a huge nation the size of the US on services, patenting everything possible, every little tiny nuance of anything, even abstract concepts, and then high stakes financial gambling. The rest of the planet is starting to route around those bottlenecks now, that is why we are having a financial crisis, because we have been doing things "that way". So it is "that way" that needs to change, not just do more of it.
Re:bilksi due soon; I'm optimistic (Score:2)
I wouldn't hold your breath. It's highly likely that Bilski's patent application will be tossed, and quite likely that business methods would be held nonstatutory, but almost certain that software, in some form - performed by a computer, tied to a machine, etc. - will be held statutory.
Isn't that still a step in the right direction? The abolishing of business method patents even if it doesn't weaken Software patents is still a Good Thing.
Is it possible that the bilski ruling could strengthen software patents? If so, then that would be someting to worry about.
I hope so! (Score:2)
A program is one big damn algorithm.
An algorithm is a mathematical/logical THOUGHT set to words.
You can't patent thought.
Aaaaaaaaargh!
Re:I hope so! (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the trouble with patents, delineating intellectual property from reductionist components. It can be argued both ways.
Re:I hope so! (Score:2)
I can copyright my original expression of the algorithm and you can copyright your original expression of pigments, but who is either of us to tell the brilliant kid in the basement that he cannot independently create the same algorithm/cartoon!
This is progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cited as evidence of a sea change in patent law: the FSF makes a Youtube video. Some academics wrote some papers.
This puts patent law reform at about the same level of public interest as this video [youtube.com] on pouring shampoo out of a bottle.
I'll wait for in re Bilski, thanks.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, if you were starting a business that provides a software solution, would you want to be able to protect your solution from the competition?
Patents protect small businesses and innovation from competition, including big companies that will do anything in their power to stomp little companies with disruptive technologies. Open source is great, no doubt about it. But if you invent something, even if it is software, it deserves protection. Patents are part of capitalism, so no, there's no tide turning.
Re:No (Score:2, Informative)
Patents protect small businesses and innovation from competition, including big companies that will do anything in their power to stomp little companies with disruptive technologies.
Nonsense. You want to know why? Because lawyers charge $500 an hour, and that includes the time they spend dreaming about the case while asleep. A small business does not have the money to litigate a tricky case against a large incumbent, unless the lawyers decide to take the case pro-bono. And even that's not a given, because even lawyers have to eat at some point, and can't run a pro-bono case forever. In other words: lawyers and customers protect a small business against a larger one. Patents are only marginally tied into that system.
Patents are part of capitalism, so no, there's no tide turning.
Patents are a government-granted monopoly. To be exact, they are actually the complete anti-thesis of capitalism.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exactly. They are the exact antithesis of a free market. They are a form of market regulation. But they are an example of capitalism, since capitalism is the system of owning things, and exchanges based on that ownership. Increasing the scope of things one may own, therefore, increases the scope of capitalism.
It's unfortunate that it's so common to conflate "free market" and "capitalism." The two are related in a paradoxical way. A free market isn't regulated, but no such market can exist, since you can't own things without some kind of legal structure that says that you own the thing. Without that structure, at best you can possess a thing; you can't own it. And of course in that scenario patent and copyright can't exist--you can only have in your possession things that are excludable and rivalrous, but you can own anything the law says you own.
So in a free market, there are actually very few things you can exchange, and therefore very little capital.
Re:No (Score:2)
Video codecs (Score:2)
I have yet to see a software patent that isn't obvious, except for public-key cryptography.
How about video compression? Was the choice to use an in-loop deblock filter obvious when H.264 was being built?
Re:Video codecs (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the formula to calculate the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter obvious? Neither is E=MC2 obvious, but no algorithm can be patented. Why should be an algorithm for video compression be patentable?
Only because you implement it in software and you run it on a general purpose computer, you argue it should be patentable. So you can implement the calculation of PI and E=MC2 in software and run it on a general purpose computer.
Software are mathematical algorithms, nothing more. It's just that you write the software in a so called "language" and you have multiple languages in which you can express the algorithm. But in the end is all goes down to the work of Turing and his Turing machines.
Re:Video codecs (Score:2)
Problem is, if you go far enough, everything is math. Any physical process, implemented in a machine built of sturdy wood and iron, can ultimately be described by a set of particle wave functions - which is pure math.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and in that respect, drawing it between "software" and "hardware" really is rather arbitrary. Those who argue against patents in their entirety are much more consistent, IMO.
Re:No (Score:2)
No they don't, no they aren't Mr. Shill.
Re:No (Score:2)
Right. A Small business with one or two or ten patents (at anywhere from 50 grand to 100 grand apiece) is protected in what way from a single patent in the hand of a patent troll? The patent troll has no product to infringe on the patents held by this hypothetical small business.
IBM and Microsoft and HP and Adobe and Amazon and Oracle all have thousands of patents. Each. Does your hypothetical small business have enough fire power to take any of these guys on, should they care to "stomp" you?
In the 1980's we used to complain about the "patent thickets" built up in Japan around any interesting patent filed by a U.S. Company. Little modifications and changes to a patent. Even if you had a patent, you couldn't produce a product in Japan without infringing on one of the patents that cropped up around your own IP.
Under the current system the U.S. is WAY worse than Japan ever was. Not even Microsoft has enough patents to allow Word to ship with an XML Editor!!!!
What hope does your Small Business *really* have.... That's easy. They could get BOUGHT by someone big.
Small == defenseless. Same as in nature, the best defense of the small is to hide, or make peace with something bigger and badder than you.
Re:No (Score:3, Informative)
The question is, if you were starting a business that provides a software solution, would you want to be able to protect your solution from the competition?
How about you ask Microsoft, Oracle, or Adobe that question? Since they all managed to become very successful software companies well before software patents became common, they probably have an answer.
Re:No (Score:2)
The question is, if you were starting a business that provides a software solution, would you want to be able to protect your solution from the competition?
I'd rather the competition couldn't protect themselves from me.
Patents protect small businesses and innovation from competition, including big companies that will do anything in their power to stomp little companies with disruptive technologies.
Prove it. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of patents are awarded to the 'big companies' you speak about, and I can't recall the last time I heard of a small business being on the winning side of patent litigation without being a patent troll (and therefore, not producing anything on which to base the enormous counter-lawsuit that typically follows from messing with the big guys).
But if you invent something, even if it is software, it deserves protection.
Prove it.
Patents are part of capitalism
Wrong.
Re:No (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No (Score:2)
Sure, sometimes.
Good Idea but Too Nerdy (Score:2)
Law of Nature (Score:2)
I support the ruling, but that sounds like a weak justification. Every technological discovery involves the laws of nature, whether it be the force of gravity, the propagation of electricity or radio waves. The entire field of engineering is the field of using the laws of nature to accomplish a purpose.
Re:Law of Nature (Score:2)
The point of most patents is that they do something with the law of nature. The patents in question are for essentially discovering the law of nature and not letting anyone else do anything with it.
Re:Law of Nature (Score:2)
Come on, this is a Slashdot summary of a 150+ page dense legal ruling distilled down to one single sentence. Of course it missed the point.
genetically modified food (Score:2)
You know, we'd very likely solve all problems with genetically modified food, monocultures, etc. if we simply declared life unpatentable. We might even see Monsanto rushing to congress with anti-monoculture laws designed to force farmers to buy the ten distinct products they've just developed recently.
Patents make sense when you must building a factory. Patents don't make sense when government grants paid for your R&D and your marginal cost is zero.
Re:genetically modified food (Score:2)
I thought the problems with genetically modified food were: a) food safety and b) taking over other farmer's crops like weeds (then suing the farmer for "stealing" the company's "IP"--which would be where the patents come in, but this is only a minor part).
I agree patents do not make sense for government paid R&D. The government should contract out research and "own" the patents themselves, which they allow everyone in the country to use freely.
I am not sure where I stand on if they should collect royalties for use in other countries. It would help pay for more research, and balance any deficits, but who are we kidding? The politicians would probably find a way to blow it all...
the tide changed before and will change again (Score:4, Informative)
Fed-Soc.org - Patents: Legitimate Rights or Grubstakes that Obstruct Progress? - Winter 2000 [archive.org]
As I said before [slashdot.org] The 2000-2010 "Intellectual Property" boom is about to go the way of the "Subprime" Mortgage, Dot-Com vapor startup, Junk bond and Dutch Tulip futures. The Patent Troll Business Model is inherently flawed, and just like the aforementioned others, add nothing to a nations REAL economy.
Software patents can help certain industries (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a bit troubled by Slashdot's blanket reaction to software patents.
In the line of work I am in (broadly: statistical analytics), almost all innovation comes in the form of creating improved methods that are implemented in software. It takes a large amount of resources to come up with these improved methods (they are generally far from obvious), and they can easily be transferred across the industry. Most companies in my industry would refuse to pay for innovation if they knew people could join, learn every recent innovation in two months, and then leave to the highest competitor bidder, effectively destroying any competitive advantage. Non-compete agreements are legally useless in my state, and NDAs are tenuous and practically hard to enforce. Patents (or stealing IP) are really the primary methods companies in my industry survive.
tldr: software patents can and do vastly encourage innovation in several competitive and useful industries.
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
The reason a company would develop new ideas is to gain an advantage over the competition. However developing new ideas takes time and effort to develop and put the ideas into practice (resources). There is also a risk the idea might fail, having a negative impact. If your new ideas are instantly copied by others you have spent resources and taken risk but have not gained a competitive advantage there is no point in developing that idea. You actually end up worse off having used the resources and taken risk while your competitors get the idea without all that bother.
The only way to recover the invested resources is by being able to practice the new idea without your competitors being able to do the same. That requires keeping the idea secret (trade secret) or some legal mechanism that constrains your competitors from practicing the idea (patent).
Now here is the fundamental problem with abolishing patents - without patents all that would be available is trade secrets. Ideas would not be made public as they are now in exchange for the legal monopoly. The ideas would be kept secret as much as possible, and tied by contracts, non-disclosure agreement and various forms of physical security. We are already seeing this in the realm of copyrights where enforcements of copyrights is ineffective pushing publishers develop other mechanisms like DRM to reduce copying.
So be careful when you advocate abolishing patents. The alternatives are likely to be worse. We have a history of what innovation was like before the introduction of patents. There is also the odd coincidence of the introduction of patent laws with the start of the industrial revolution.
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
I see VERY FEW patents that are truly worthy of the protection they have been granted. Most seem to be so ridiculously obvious to anyone skilled in their fields that if they were kept as trade secrets there would be no net loss to the advancement of the state-of-the-art in that field.
I believe that patents have their place, but that the bar must be raised considerably higher than it has been set historically. And by considerably higher, I don't mean just a couple of rungs, I mean way above the scale as it currently stands. And additionally a significant reduction in term length would also go a long way to mitigating abuse of the system.
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
And to top that off, if someone did innovate, but kept it to themselves, how long would it take everyone else to 'catch up'?
In reality 99% of the things I see patented are barely an advancement of the state-of-the-art at all. IMO if something would be invented in short order by numerous other competing players, then that invention is effectively obvious (or at least obvious enough) to anyone skilled in the art.
The real purpose of a patent is for those incredibly clever inventions that even other experts in their respective fields will openly admit to being sparks of pure brilliance. Anything less than that and there's no reason to grant someone a monopoly.
This doubly applies to software patents. You can pretty much guarantee that anything you thought was super clever was already conceived numerous times by many other programmers working in your field of engineering. Those ideas may not have yet been implemented, but they are definitely not original discoveries or inventions that deserve 'protection' under a patent.
The higher the bar for allowing a patent, the less of a problem patents become. A high bar also stops patents being taken out with only marginal improvements on a pre-existing patent (or art).
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
I think your argument is faulty. You can still COPYRIGHT your ultra-complex original algorithm--just like an author can copyright his story.
Nobody can then COPY it.
But why should you be able to prevent somebody from independently deriving tht same algorithm? They'd have to go through the same expensive creation process that you did. . .
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
We aren't a software company, you could implement our patents in 500 lines of code. It's not the implementation that is hard to come up with, it is the idea. I mean a stroke of genius to come up with it and dozens of hours to prove it is worth doing. Once you prove the idea is worth doing, anyone can learn it and implement it in a working day.
These are the kinds of things that are worth protecting, and exactly what patents are made for. But they still fall under the insanely broad category of "software patents".
ideas aren't patentable (Score:2)
In the days before IP patents, ideas were not patentable--only implementations of ideas. You couldn't patent the concept of "a machine to distill alcohol from fermented grain" only the physical implementation of a still. Other people were completely free to build their own design (using the same laws of physics) as long as it wasn't sufficiently like yours.
In the software world, other people should be able to implement the same idea as long as they don't copy your code.
Re:ideas aren't patentable (Score:3, Interesting)
The abstract process to produce alcohol from fermented grain is in fact patentable. The specific implementation is protected by copyright. Chemical engineering is full of both patents and copyrights. There is nothing special about algorithm patents in this regard. You are not copyrighting the algorithm, just a specific reduction to practice. All types of patents are like this, abstract designs being patentable and reductions to practice having copyright protections.
Chemical process patents are pretty much identical to algorithm patents except it is molecules instead of bits. If you develop a unique process (the algorithm) then that is patentable in the abstract and always has been. Industrial chemistry is full of (often formerly) patented processes designs. The implementation of a particular process design is copyrighted. Both pieces, the design of the process and the design of the implementation, are independently valuable and protected.
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
You can still COPYRIGHT your ultra-complex original algorithm
You can't copyright an algorithm. You can copyright code implementing that algorithm, but then the algorithm itself can still be copied by clean-room reverse-engineering - get some guy to look at the code and write down the description of the algorithm (in English), and then let another guy read that description and write code from it.
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
You kind of missed his point. Once an algorithm has been worked out, it's usually pretty easy to see how it works, or at least comparatively easy. So the first producer pays for the innovation, and everyone benefits.
This is a real problem. However, when you solve it with a government-sponsored monopoly on your discovery, it creates a host of new problems. And there are other ways to solve this problem that don't create that same host of problems. After all, as a previous poster pointed out, Einstein managed to figure a lot of cool stuff out, without having the ability to patent it. Who paid for that work? Why did he do it? Not because he was expecting to get rich, clearly.
Re:Software patents can help certain industries (Score:2)
Most companies in my industry would refuse to pay for innovation.
They will if it gives them some short term advantage, even if it's eventually going to be copied. Businesses do this every day.
tldr: software patents can and do vastly encourage innovation in several competitive and useful industries.
What you're saying is the improvement in your industry only comes in sufficiently large quanta so that businesses won't engage in incremental improvements to get short term improvement until they're copied. I strongly doubt that that is true.
---
Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.
It doesnt take two brain cells (Score:2)
it was evident that when you started to allow patent on thoughts and logical constructs, patents would eventually start to infringe upon nature's laws. because, in the vast space of thought, nature's laws are nothing different than any other thought/logical construct.
patents need to be abolished. imagine someone patenting "if a b and b c then a c" in a bundle with other logic constructs. you would say that its a simple basic logical operator and it cant be patented, but once numerous patents like these are issued, you would be surprised how fast it would become the 'established norm', like it happened with many civil and criminal laws throughout history.
stem the tide before it hits the shore. abolish patents.
Why our patent system is flawed (Score:2)
Keep algorithms off client systems (Score:2)
It seems like one of the biggest justifications for software patents is this:
Say I develop an algorithm that performs some task better than other existing algorithms. As soon as I ship my software, it can be reverse-engineered by my clever competitors who figure out my algorithm and implement it in their own software, where they can presumably undercut me on price because their reverse-engineering was less expensive than my original development. This makes me unhappy, because I feel like I've wasted my money on a new innovation. So I want to patent my algorithm so that I have a government-granted exclusive right to use it (or license it to others) for a period of time.
We have already identified several problems with this pattern. First, we feel like patents are granted inappropriately by the USPTO: the running gag (which is not all that separated from reality) is that a person can take any ordinary activity or item from real life, append 'on a computer/on the internet' to the end, and patent it. Second, we're only supposed to be able to patent 'non-obvious' things, and the determination of what's obvious in algorithms (as well other areas) is not clear. Third, since computer algorithms are isomorphic with mathematical algorithms (which are arguably not patentable), we think there's justification for software patents to be invalidated.
Now, I don't think it serves the public interest for algorithms to be patented. But here's an idea of how companies can get around this whole mess. And I apologize for the buzzwords, but this is a great opportunity to go for Software as a Service or Cloud Computing. Google, for example, has their pagerank algorithm, the specifics of which they keep secret. And since they don't deploy pagerank to customer sites, there's little opportunity for reverse-engineering. They get to keep their algorithm secret, there's no need for patents, the consumer gets the benefit of using Google's software, and competitors have to develop their algorithms on their own. Everyone wins, right?
I'm not really a big fan of always-on-line software. I don't want my stats analysis system to have to outsource its processing to another machine across the Internet. But if the makers of the software want to keep their algorithms secret, this seems like the only way to do it. And let's ditch software patents, because I think they do more harm than good.
The notion of patenting music makes it all clear (Score:2)
Slashdot has long been a forum where two intelligent sides present their perspectives on an issue. Often, this issue has been about software patents and patentability. There have been, and likely still are (let's face it, no amount of fact will change a person's mind when it is in his best interest to believe otherwise) people who see software as an invention and should be patentable. The video goes into great detail as to why software isn't and shouldn't be. But the real point that drives it home is in the creation of music. After all, people who create music are just as proud or even more proud of their results than programmers are. But music has been around a LOT longer than software has and we already have a basic understanding that ALL music is derivative in nature and borrows from other music on a regular basis and even when some music is thought to be quite original, we have seen where completely unrelated musical creations are quite similar in the end.
Perhaps we haven't reached that level of understanding with software yet because the spectrum of elements and factors in music are extremely well defined and understood. Software is only understood by a very tiny few and everyone else sees software as pure magic... and patenting magic is okay because they don't understand it otherwise.
I appreciate that someone may have spent their lives developing an idea for software. Effort doesn't make it patentable. Creativity doesn't make it patentable. How much of a wordsmith you are doesn't make it patentable.
I hope the revolution against software patents comes about and soon. It would enable F/OSS to compete with commercial software. (The GiMP needs CMYK... Adobe won't have it. Fedora needs to be easy and feature complete, but RedHat is afraid of being sued.) It would also be a HUGE relief for companies who spend millions on their own patent arsenals.
And then next up, photographers and copyrights...
Re:The notion of patenting music makes it all clea (Score:2)
That is silly. All works of man, not just music are derivative. The question is what is the value of your contribution, which of course is an extension of the work of others.
As a small developer, I want software patents!!! (Score:3, Informative)
It is well known that small businesses are innovators. Software patents are necessary to allow small businesses to compete with the large corporations which might otherwise copy, repackage, and sell the innovations of small businesses. There are definitely problems in the patent system, it is all too frequently abused. The negative attitude here on slashdot is, I'm afraid, a result of a successful campaign by the Free Software Foundation. I love open source software, both as a user and as a contributor, and it is unfortunate that patents do negatively affect, in many ways, the work of the free software movement. That does not, however, make patents evil, they are a necessity for the continued growth of technology and of a capitalistic economy.
In regard, again, to free software, it does seem more and more like the comparison of communism versus capitalism. Surely, there is some innovation in free software, but much of that originates from commercial entities looking to upsell other products. It is reminiscent of how the only innovation in (classic) communist countries originated from a national agenda, such as the Russian space program. However, even in the commercially supported open source software realm, many of the "good parts" are often kept under a lock and key, such as with Zimbra or SugarCRM. My point is, that without a capitalistic agenda, innovation does not happen. Innovation does not happen without a strong patent system, as inventors are motivated by money. It is not that companies and people won't invent without money, but that money stimulates and motivates in a way that pure interest, desire, and passion do not -- keeping in mind that the financial stimulation is in addition to, not in lieu of passion-based innovations!
The point? Do you work for free? What if you built a better mousetrap and began marketing it, but before you had the time to take it off the ground, a large national manufacturer began selling copies of your design? This wouldn't be protected under copyright, but would be covered under patents. This same scenario can happen with software too and small independent developers need protection, or they'll stop innovating completely, sell their businesses, and get themselves hired by large firms. Without competition, the large firms will stop innovating as well, and we'll all just twiddle our thumbs as we wait for the rest of the world to eclipse our rotting corpse of an economy.
Re:As a small developer, I want software patents!! (Score:2)
Software patents are necessary to allow small businesses to compete with the large corporations
The same handwaving propaganda that first appeared on slashdot several years ago and is repeated on a weekly basis. Why are you pretending you didn't know that?
Patents are just a tool. They are used by large corporations as well as small businesses. They in no way change the balance of power between the two.
In regard, again, to free software, it does seem more and more like the comparison of communism versus capitalism. Surely, there is some innovation in free software, but much of that originates from commercial entities looking to upsell other products.
The same handwaving propaganda that first appeared on slashdot several years ago and is repeated on a weekly basis. Why are you pretending you didn't know that?
Open source, which includes academic research, is highly innovative. Your pretence that it isn't is laughable. The internet itself is just one example amongst many.
The point?
See this [slashdot.org] and this [slashdot.org].
Please, lift your game. Your arguments for patents are puerile. Until you can give quantitative and solid scientific evidence for why government should engage in this massive and extremely costly interference in the citizen's business in any particular area (billions of people are blocked from using an idea so that one person can get additional profit) you should go back to school before you say anything more.
---
Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.
Re:As a small developer, I want software patents!! (Score:2)
As a small developer, you can be absolutely sure that just about any useful software you write will infringe on numerous patents. The only thing keeping you 'safe' is that you are either flying below the radar of those that hold the patents, or those patents currently remain unenforced against small developers.
No one is saying that you have to work for free, but unless you're a supra-genius, chances are that your idea is not as original as you think it is. I have seen very few exceptions to this, and the ones that I have seen are so esoteric that reverse engineering is almost always less effective than hiring someone else that is skilled in the same field of expertise to implement the general concept properly.
If the bar is set high enough for the patent system to work effectively, you can be pretty sure that 99.9% percent of the people that think as you do will not be able to submit a patent that wouldn't be rejected due to obviousness/unoriginality. If the bar remains as low as it has been, then you suffer as per my first paragraph.
OTOH, if your invention is that good and original that it warrants being framed in the glass cabinet of the patent system, then I have no issues with allowing a patent for a reasonable term (17 years being far too long in light of the speed of innovation in todays technical climate).
almost completely un-related and off topic but.. (Score:2)
For some reason, when I read this, I did not see "patents" but instead I saw "parents".
So I thought it was somehow an article about how parents have lost control completely. I say this as my 2 year old (boy) is trashing my living room and screaming for no apparent reason.
So I put him to bed.
Come to think of it, there's a lot of patents that should be put to bed too.
There, not completely off topic anymore..
Re:Piling on (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Piling on (Score:2)
It's gonna be awful hard to get it viral if it can't be embedded.
Re:Piling on (Score:2)
This video is not going to go viral in its current form. I haven't seen so many frame errors since I tried to play a torrent that hadn't sully download. Yet more evidence that the Xiph foundation completely dropepd the ball when it came to Theora creation tools.
Re:Piling on (Score:2)
Remember, if you want to look creditable you have to give both sides fair play. People think that a "balanced" analysis is more credible than a polemic.
You could admit that patents encourage big pharma to do research, then point out that they aren't really research organization but marketing ones. Then you could ask whether public research would be more or less efficient than research carried out by a sales firm. Finally, you point out the pharma is one of the strongest pro-patent arguments, as the patent is the product. Stuff like hardware and software is protected by copyright, not patents.
FLV (Score:2)
Re:Tide Will Turn on Turning (Score:3, Funny)
If the supreme court strikes down software patents with their Bilski ruling, they shall become more powerful than we can possibly imagine!
Right??
Re:Tide Will Turn on Turning (Score:2)
The difference here is that the lobbyists on the pro-software patent side would actually be out-bankrolled and out-influenced by those against software patents. The people being blindsided by software patents are people like Apple, Microsoft, Google, IBM, RIM, eBay,etc. These people hold software patents largely for defensive purposes. They are not going to want Congress to reinstate a system where patent trolls or patent VCs can extort large sums from them at will.
Combine that with prevailing anti-corruption sentiment and you'll find that Congressmen and women won't want to touch the reinstatement of software patents with a ten foot pole.
Firefox, Opera, and Chrome (Score:2)
Re:Firefox, Opera, and Chrome (Score:2)
I work at the USPTO. You are not allowed to install any of your own software.
I wasn't aware that the USPTO had power to dictate what you run on your computer at home.
Re:Change Patent Law (Score:2)
Wonderful idea...until the product you are trying to sell contains 10 (or more) patents. 10 * 10% = all your income, and if the device is physical, how will you pay for materials? What about labor? Even the Chinese don't work for free.