Software Patent Demonstrations Taking Off 239
feklee writes "The preparations for the
rally against software patents
on Wednesday are running at full speed. Thanks to announcements in DWN, on KDE, in the Register, and
elsewhere, the Online Demo has already
more than 600 participants such as Savannah
and KDE.de. Now, what about your project?"
And flagboy writes "A group of economists from Europe and the U.S. specialising in patent questions have published a letter to members of the European Parliament calling on them to reject the proposal, accompanied by an analytical paper which casts severe doubts on the reasoning behind the directive and on the methods employed by its proponents." Here's the FFII Press Release.
Wishing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wishing (Score:2, Insightful)
will slashdot be gone tomorow? (Score:5, Insightful)
What will I see on slashdot.org tomorow???
Or is slashdot going to mention a great idea and ignore it the day after?
Jeroen
Re:will slashdot be gone tomorow? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:will slashdot be gone tomorow? (Score:2)
GIF patented (Score:3, Informative)
The patent may have expired in the US, but unfortunately it is still in force in Canada, France, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan.
But of course there are plenty of technical reasons for switching to PNG as well.
Burn all GIFs! [burnallgifs.org]
Re:will slashdot be gone tomorow? (Score:5, Insightful)
One can hope!
Re:will slashdot be gone tomorow? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:will slashdot be gone tomorow? (Score:2)
Re:will slashdot be gone tomorow? (Score:2)
Well, the GIMP website [gimp.org] is not hosted in Europe either, but a large number of GIMP developers are living and working in Europe. So I have replaced the home page by an appropriate message, as you can see by visiting it now.
Re:There? Where? (Score:2)
The big question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The big question (Score:4, Interesting)
Questions of innate intelligence aside, the Europeans I encounter seem much more well informed and aware of the world than their US counterparts. I just moved from the US to London and the difference is startling. The news here isn't just scare mongering (well, there is a little), there is actual content to be found in scientific stories.
Re:The big question (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and because (Score:2)
Americanization of the world is just furthering this. Almost wherever you go, you find American music, television, culture. This is because the US would much rather impress itself upon the world, than absorb that the rest of the world has something to offer. Unfortunately, such
Re:That, and because (Score:2)
I would wager that no matter where, when 3000 people are slaughtered on live TV, it's going to have a big impact. That it was the US just guaranteed a massive retalliation, is all.
Re:That, and because (Score:2)
There's a difference between passive globalization and active globalization. The US does do a lot just to make sure the world knows that they are there, and in many ways, in control.
And yes, any such event in a peaceful country would have become world news. But not necessarily such a long-
Re:That, and because (Score:2)
Re:That, and because (Score:2)
Maybe 3? Seriously the people you see on "Jay Walking" arn't typical Americans. Do you really think there arn't a few idiots in Canada too?
How many know a second language, or have even travelled out-of-continent? How many have worked abroad?
See the post you were replying to.
Re:The big question (Score:2)
Masked wrestler wins Japan election [cnn.com]
Re:The big question (Score:2)
Yup, that's a fine example--though it's partly related to the fact that candidates for local elections are only allowed to campaign for five days(!) before the election. How you can possibly make an informed vote among dozens of individuals with only five days to decide is beyond me. (I wouldn't be surprised if this were part of the reason for the apathy.)
Re:The big question (Score:2)
EP: take the protests seriously! (Score:5, Interesting)
While the opposite is generally true: why run Linux and OpenOffice.org instead of an easily obtained illegal copy of MS Windows and MS Office?
I just hope that the MEPs understand nobody has to gain from software patents as proposed in the directive, except a bunch of patent lawyers, patent pirates, and big software companies (and the latter not even in the long run).
Innovation will be stifled instead of promoted.
Small and medium sized software developers (not only open source) and the consumer will pay the price.
Let's see if the members of the European Parliament remember their mandate and vote in the interest of the European citizen!
Somebody contact the Munich delegation (Score:2)
Make sure that they know that you dislike software patents and why. Make sure that they know that this is likely to bite them on the ass in the near future -- in the form of more expensive software and less choice in software and software implementations.
Re:The big question (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Internet security is a point against software patents. What users of networked systems need more than ever are services helping them to secure their infrastructure against all kinds of threads, making boxed software packages less important both technically and economically. Just like an airline needs continuous maintenance of their fleet, a company running computers needs
Patents are here to stay (Score:5, Insightful)
What people are objecting to is that innovation is being stifled by large corporations; I'm not going to mention any names, because it doesn't really matter who the company of the moment is. It's been like that for a long time, the names change but the principle is the same. The market should have more choice, but patents, buyouts, and monopolistic practices are actually supported by the current (and previous) legislatory systems are just getting more and more power. Like the hippy movement in the seventies against government powers and personal liberties beginning really to make moves against the "establishment", the yuppie move in the eighties towards personal financial freedom against the common good, the nineties technological gadget and consumerism move... and now in the 21st century people are beginning to look at inflation, unemployment and their lack of free time and starting to think maybe there is a better way. But still the rich are fighting to keep everything they have, and middle class people are following the consumer trend like sheep, they're cooling their houses with aircon, running their cars, throwing away more and more tons of garbage every year, getting fatter, and generally using more resources than they really need.
Let us not forget that Free (as in speech) is what we are still fighting for. The medium changes, the spirit stays the same. We should not let corporate greed and a system where each year more profits need to be made become the pillar of our society, but it's been happening for years and years. Globalisation just makes this more blatent, more all encompassing, and more to the detriment of the world's poor.
The rich are still getting richer, the poor are still getting poorer, and however many examples you give me of "land of the free" and personal gain still being possible no matter who you are, the overwhelming trend is that the masses are still being screwed, and there really are people who are born into dead end lives, and it's not getting any better.
And still, many people will respond to my post and say I'm a socialist and the system won't really abide by that, because capitalism is here to stay and it's the only fair system. I'm not really saying that. Just ask yourself one question : are you recycling all that you can, giving a few extra minutes a day to help the looming natural resource problem? Are you using less water, using cooler washing cycles, hanging out your laundry instead of drying with electricity, keeping cool in the shade with iced tea instead of turning up the aircon a notch, eating just enough to keep your hunger at bay and giving a dollar to the bum on the street from time to time?
Re:Patents are here to stay (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know about you, but personally, I'm fighting for Free (as in beer) beer.
Re:Patents are here to stay (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Patents are here to stay (Score:2)
Right here http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html [eurolinux.org]
stealing intellectual property = bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are not capitalistic (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand why being philosophically against software patents is always equated with socialism, and that patents are the ultimate expression of capitalism. I don't agree.
Patents in general are entirely anti-capitalistic devices. Their primary purpose is to inhibit competition, by making it illegal to compete. They enforce monopolies at best, and at their worst totally destroy entire fields of endeavor due to their mutually-assured destruction effect. They are not just about protecting theft of trade secrets, dumpster diving, or espionoge; but about controlling both thought and activity. If I completely and totally independently discover the same trivial algorithm, but you patented it somehow I'm breaking the law...I certainly didn't steal anything. Is anybody else worried about how IBM is dealing with SCO? I'll be as glad as anyone when IBM flattens them, but using their patent treasure chest to do so really bothers me.
And it also drives me crazy when I hear companies say they obtain patents for defense only. Patents by their very nature always offensive, they prevent others from independently working even if they never harm you or your market in any way and you don't sue them. That's agression plain and simple. If you want a defense then publish, don't patent (go to ip.com's Prior Art Database [ip.com] as an example of this approach).
And another misinformed justification is that patents are only dangerous if you try to make money with the patented idea. That is so wrong, go read the actual patent law! (yes it is very long, but still more readable than most patents). Even if you "practice" a patented idea in your home for your own amusement you are still breaking the law. You may get by with it, just like speeding, but patents intrude on everybody's rights.
I had an employer approach me once with the idea of patenting some software I wrote for them, and I took it as a serious ethical threat, and I told them that too. But when that happens, you tend to be very careful about how you apply your talent afterwards...being careful not to invent anything new, which I'm sure has resulted in some less than optimal solutions. But again, this is not socialist thinking. My company makes money from selling software I write, and I give them ownership over it in exchange for a salary, and I'm not distributing this code to the world. But likewise, I'm definitely against preventing somebody else from independently inventing the same software.
And the only reasonable argument for patents (as eliquently stated in the US Consitution) is to discourage the hording of information, so that others may build upon and progress technology. But look at how the patent system really works to completely subvert and prevent that one goal: submarine patents (those that through legal trickery stay in a filed state for perhaps decades without ever being divuldged). Patent laywers make sure that patents are entirely unreadable...even most lawyers who don't specialize in patent law are completely inept at reading them, let alone inventors and technologists who supposedly should be benefiting from them. Also it's almost impossible to ever find anything or make any sense of all that knowledge as its locked up so tight that it's completely worthless for anything but legal agression. The patent office should operate like a well indexed library of human knowledge, but instead it acts like a black hole locking away information so it is illegal to use.
I for one mostly agree with the capitalistic society, not the socialistic view. But I'm still extremely anti-patent, especially for non-physicial inventions of thought and expression. Patents are an extreme offense to humankind, captialism is not.
Re:Patents are not capitalistic (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not really doing that, I'm drawing a parallel between the corporations that use patents as part of their arsenal in domination of capitalist (and socialist, and communist, and anarchistic) markets. More on why capitalist structures particularly in the conclusion. Patents are not an expression of capitalism, corporations are. To join the lot together, suffice to say that patents as originally intended have been subverted by large corporations that now have more say in world economic and social policy than politicians - and thus voters, who themselves are gradually more and more alienated from the politicians by many non voters' belief that abstaining from elections can still allow them to voice political opinions in public, and think they can still make change, when they forego their first, most basic politicial right to vote. So, patent law is suddenly standing up for these bastions of capitalism - the free market economy multinationals and large national tech firms - even though it is precisely this law that is supposed to support the little guy.
All in all, legislation is helping those that have, and oppressing those that don't. Add to that a growing litigation culture, and it's a spiral that only the most capitalist nations seem to be succumbing to. I wasn't fully clear in my argument because after a while of typing in SlashDot I suddenly have to go off and do something... but I'm reasonably pleased with some of the points I make and submit.
Re:Patents are not capitalistic (Score:5, Interesting)
Which might have made sense back in the industrial ages, when turning an idea into a product required considerable investments in terms of materials and tools to build prototypes, and manufacturing facilities for mass production. Software is different. To make it takes just a computer and a brain. After a piece of software is written down and debugged, it's done - no manufacturing required, hence no factories and machines. Modifying the design of any industrial good is likely to require reconfiguration of an entire production facility. Modifying the design of software takes just a branch on CVS and a little time.
Re:Patents are not capitalistic (Score:5, Informative)
Not so - the patent holder has to sue for violation of the patent. They can choose not to, and don't even risk losing the patent if they don't (as I understand it, I ANAL, etc).
If you want a defense then publish, don't patent
Let's say there are two companies, A and B, working in the same field. A patents everything, B publishes everything. Everything is fine, until one day B (perhaps unwittingly) violates one of A's patents. A makes demands that they pay a licence fee or stop. Now B has no choice but to comply - they cannot reply to A by saying "Ah, but *you* are violating *this* patent of ours, so let's call it quits, shall we?".
Publishing your work only protects you from others patenting it, it doesn't protect from violating another's patents, and that's the problem. As long as one company in a given field registers patents, they all must.
All Caps? (Capitalists, that is) (Score:2)
I'm not sure why it has occured but capitalism has come to be taken as synonymous with "free market". Which is not the case. Capitalism just means that the money (capital) is privately held, not in the hands of the government. Indeed the great "capitalists" were often those who held great monopolies.
"Free Market" is very different. A free market is one that permits competition.
Its quite possib
Re:All Caps? (Capitalists, that is) (Score:2)
That linguistic transition occured because the word "capitalism" does not convey useful meaning unless it also implies a fluid marketplace. There are two possible definitions of "capitalism".
By looking only at the word roots, capitalism would be defined as "the social system where capital (money) is in control". That's a content-free, circular definition, since money itself is defined as an abstracted m
Re:All Caps? (Capitalists, that is) (Score:2)
Actually, if you watch carefully, it seems that Gates is all about playing the game and winning. In truth, he would probably be happy to be erceiving minimum wage as long as
Re:Patents are not capitalistic (Score:2)
Re:Patents are not capitalistic (Score:2)
Ah, the old "ad hominem" attack. Don't worry if you don't know what that means. You attack the messenger because you can't fault the message.
Reiserfs is trying to innovate filesystem semantics, finally hoping to provide relational structure ACID capabilities and what not, like a dynamically-typed database.
What does ReiserFS have that NTFS hasn't had for a decade? Or that VMS didn't have since the late 70s? My point stands.
Re:Patents are not capitalistic (Score:3, Informative)
NO IT IS NOT!!!!
Otherwise Arthur C Clarke could've charged a NASA a trillion dollars for the priviledge of launching his invention, the communication satellite.
People like you should not benefit from the patent system. You thought up something that was impossible at the time... meaning it was "useless"... flying in the face of the "progress of science and useful arts" clause of the US Constitu
Re:Patents are not capitalistic (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, it once was a requirement, but no longer. You can patent things without a working model or even a schematic. A "Description of Preferred Embodiment" is needed, but can be quite vague, if a sharp lawyer writes it up.
So, you are saying that myself, an very small-time inventor, should have no right to protect myself against someone with more money that comes up with the same idea long after myself?
If by "protec
Re:Patents are here to stay (Score:2)
This is not true! The number of people living below the povery line is decreasing and has been for a while. And it's decreasing both in absolute numbers and as percentage of the population. Now this does not mean that they are still not very poor or that there are no people that are actually getting poorer, but on the whole... Well that's the actual statistics and you can look it up say on the Economist website.
I don't why do people s
and slashdot does it's bit (Score:3, Funny)
"We can show our concern by physical presence as well as by more or less gently blocking access to webpages in a concerted manner at certain times."
I think that was not quite the original intention
Why software patents are bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents are government grants to build a business around a specific invention. There is a general issue here, namely that all invention comes from a communual process, exchange and refinement of ideas over time, and the granting of "exclusive" rights is by its very nature an act that ignores the reality of the process in order to create a new reality that favours certain groups over others.
However, we tend to accept that patents are one way of rewarding intellectual endeavour. Why then, are they bad?
There are many technical issues that make patents complex to grant: knowledge of the area in question, searching prior art, preparing lengthy documentation. This means that patents are expensive - in the EU, for instance, 10,000 Euro is the starting price, before you start looking at defending a patent.
The huge price tag puts patents firmly out of the reach of smaller groups and individuals who are not already wealthly. It is ironic, perhaps that these are also the groups and individuals who work the hardest to create new products and ideas, since they have the most to gain.
It is larger groups that are able to assemble large patent portfolios, therefore. Presumably these are then used to protect and reward innovation? No, most patents go unused in the direct sense, and become instead instruments for patent negotiations.
What is this? It is when a small company with a patent discovers that a larger company is infringing. It raises the question, and the large company discovers a handful of its own patents - previously ignored - that the smaller company is also infringing. The innovater finds that the precious patent is not only worthless, but has landed them in a situation where they may go bankrupt or have to sell their products to survive.
Large companies seek patents principally for this reason: to protect their existing markets and businesses against innovators.
The role of legislators is clear: their mandate, sponsored by big business, is to make this process as easy as possible.
Software patents take this to a new dimension. Software development is - unlike most prodyct creation - a process of almost pure invention. It is almost impossible to develop a complex software product without finding and solving many problems that others have also solved.
Patents are already biased against innovation, but software patents can create insurmountable obstacles. A business with the cash and the lawyers can find hundreds, perhaps thousands of "new" inventions in any complex software product. Needless to say, most or all of these are multiple re-inventions, but have not been previously patented, so are legally open to patent.
Software development, like all creative processes, relies on a pure and unbroken exchange of ideas and techniques across space and time. Software patents pretend that this exchange does not happen, and worse, they make the exchange impossible, and sometimes illegal.
At the extreme, software patents spell the end of not just open source, but the freedom of individuals to create new software. When every software invention has been patented, writing unauthorized code will become a criminal offense.
Large business loves this scenario. They pretend that software patents are essential to protect their "innovation" and "research". But this is a lie, as any honest observer can see.
The EU is, like all governments, manipulated by lobbyists, and the person who pays for the music will choose the dance. Software patents will come into law in the EU, there is no doubt about this.
The realisation that software patents (and all patents, indeed) are tools for monopolists will only come when the West has lost most of its competitive edge. I only hope that India and China realise - from self-interest - that they are being given a silver plate with a blank cheque, marked "please profit, we are in the process of strangling our nascent software businesses".
You are right (Score:2)
You are right, I am concerned that these protests will devote too much attention to Open Source software, ignoring the fact that the small to medium commercial software industry will be hit hard too - this is much more relevant to the MEPs as when profit making companies are being hurt that means less taxes, and less jobs.
My advice to the protestors is not to make this whole thing about free s
one way street the wrong way (Score:4, Insightful)
As an additional (or alternative) action, people are encouraged to participate in an online demonstration that day, replacing the main page of their website with a text explaining the dangers of introducing unlimited patentability in Europe
Whoever wrote this should think twice before they word something. I took this as a call to hackers to replace their (meaning the people they're protesting against) webpage.
Oh well now onto my oh so eloquent commentary which is worth nothing... Why would anyone want to do something as moronic as protest the patent laws? Suppose you labor extremely hard to create something, it took so much of your time, might have cost you a marriage, every single penny in your account, and someone comes and swipes it from under your feet what would you do? Without patenting there wouldn't be much you could do now could you.
Look laws are sometimes unfair, in fact take a look at some historical quotes:
"Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but lets wasps and hornets break through" Swift 'A treatise essay upon the faculties of the mind'
"Wherever law ends tyranny begins." Locke 'Civil Government'
No one ever said the laws were perfect but trying to remove them is plain dangerous. Maybe tweaking them for kinks is a better idea, and in certain cases a judge should have the discretion to make decisions based on experience and ethics, instead of allowing miscarriages of justice to happen.
Having some country throw patent ideas out is rather lame, and in the long run is only going to hurt those who innovate more than anyone else.
As for this:
Doesn't make much sense. A body of people asking to close their websites to protest. As if people should lose money over something that sounds rather interesting on the outside, but in-depth makes no sense? I would rather pass on it. What will be protested after? Bandwidth usage that connects to the site which offended someone. Sure let's block Amazon's whole CIDR why not.Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as we are imagining things, how about this: You labor very hard (and independently!) on a graphical app only to find that a large corporation has a patent on "a method for conveying the intention for an action to occur on a graphical display" (ie. clicking your mouse). Who's fucked now?
Remember that corporations can trivially afford to patent anything which does not have prior art whereas your small inventor cannot.
In short: Read the fucking protest page and think. Please.
Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:2)
Spare me. This protest isn't someone personal protesting it's a group, and they're making it seem as if little boy blue is being targeted for assimilation. There's an old saying 'the early bird gets the worm' and I
Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't that what copyright is for? No patents necessary.
Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:2)
It sounds like what we really need is a law that keeps people from copying each others work but still allows them to use similar methods as long as they have been invented independantly.
Again, how would you like it if someone stole something from you, something you ALREADY developed, not something you had in mind, which someone may have
Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:2)
Read the fucking protest page and think.
This IS Slashdot. You're seriously expecting someone to not only read the article, but think about it? You should know better!
Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention what does have prior art, doesn't seem to stop them. But they can be reasonably certain that in their big portfolio, they can find some patent you violate as well. That's why you don't see many patent suits between corporations making real products, but mostly wtih patent holding companies *cough*rambus*cough*, individuals that have no product, only a patent and companies going to hell, switching from making products to essentially trying to cash in on their patents.
Algorithms should be patentable, IMO. They take real form and actually takes work to develop (e.g. an encryption algorithm, sorting algorithm etc.) But what I'm seeing patented in the software departent are mostly vague concepts or even business models. What bugs me the most is that I see no value in them whatsoever.
Patents were originally designed to disclose the workings to the public in exchange for a temporary monopoly, which is the "reward" for not keeping it a trade secret. The way the patents work today, they are more of a granted monopoly for "free" because they don't disclose any valuable information at all, at least not any software patent I've ever read (and I did try a few, really).
Kjella
Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:5, Informative)
Getting a bit emotional, are we? Try to stay with the facts instead of conjuring up heartbreak stories. (Alternatively pursue a career as Hollywood script writer)
Having some country throw patent ideas out is rather lame, and in the long run is only going to hurt those who innovate more than anyone else.
Uh-huh. That't why researchers from MIT and the Federal Reserve Bank in an empirical study [researchoninnovation.org] concludes that "greater use of software patents is associated with lower R&D intensity. [...] we can reject the argument that software patents have on average increased R&D incentives." Now how does that happen if limiting patentability "hurts innovators more than anyone else"?
Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:2)
Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:2)
This isn't about protesting patent laws, it's about protesting the EXPANSION of patent laws to cover software (and arguably business methods).
Suppose you labor extremely hard to create something, it took so much of your time, might have cost you a marriage, every single penny in your account, and someone comes and swipes it from under your feet what would you do? Without patenting there wouldn't be much you could do now could yo
Re:one way street the wrong way (Score:2)
Suppose (blablablamarriageblablablaworkhard) somebody comes and patents the damn thing before you get a chance to? you did all the work, they just stole the patent from you?
Go to Brussels! (Score:5, Informative)
See here [wiki.ael.be] for info. You can visit Brussels by train from many a European country; see here [wiki.ael.be]
Hope this all isn't slashdotted before I will plan my own trip this afternoon.
Re:Go to Brussels! (Score:2)
Naar Leuven,
the AC
Re:Too bad (Score:2)
Now, what is about /. (Score:2)
Money Needed for Newspaper Ad (Score:3, Informative)
Now, if there's any big spender listening: It's time for action now!
The European Patent Office is bad! (Score:3, Informative)
1. The EPO is self-financed. They do not receive any money from the EU states.
2. The EPO makes money from patent royalties.
3. The EPO does not have much money.
4. The EPO is ready to accept anything to make money as long as nobody complains.
5. Profit!
The way it works at the EPO is the following: Someone submits something to get a patent.
If it is not completely stupid, a provisional patent is awarded, even if obvious prior art exists!!!
If there has been no negative comments after one year, the patent is awarded.
So I am certain the EU will give the EPO the right to award software patents. The only way to stop this is by periodically checking what provisional patents are awarded and bombard the EPO with negative comments and prior arts.
my 0.02 Euro
Re:The European Patent Office is bad! (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost true, it receives a cut of patent renewals fees from the contracting states (Art. 39 EPC).
Nonsense.
Irrelevant as long as its running costs are covered.
Unsubstantiated fantasy
But no shareholders so what reason is there for the EPO to maximise profits?
The way it works at the EPO is the following: Someone submits something to get a patent. If it is not completely stupid, a provisional patent is awarded, even if obvious prior art exists!!! If there has been no negative comments after one year, the patent is awarded.
WRONG - the poster was not only an Anonymous Coward, he is an anonymous know nothing.
Re:The European Patent Office is bad! (Score:2, Insightful)
On the one hand we have the EPC and the Guidelines which define the process and how the Examiner's should work. The process itself is followed in the sense that the EPO obeys the deadlines in the EPC and issues the correct official communications, apart from the occasional balls up. The issue is whether examiners are letting through cases they shouldn't.
I cannot think of an example, speaking as a patent attorney, of a case where the examiner seemed to allow a case just to get it off their desks. If we o
Re:The European Patent Office is bad! (Score:2)
No fee, but a large cost. All the time need to read and respond to the wave of obfuscated legalese/technobabble.
The people should not have to volunteer as uncompensated patent examiners just to safeguard their own creative rights in the future.
Art.115 injects further pro-corporate bias into the patent system. Only major businesses will be able to afford a legal staff to monitor applications to scan for things they can shoot down.
For the people in Belgium and Holland (Score:2, Insightful)
All the peolple who care & can come, please come so that there is a small chance we might impress some MP's...
I'll be there, will you ?
http://pax.protest.net/event.cgi?ID=415100&state_
Re:For the people in Belgium and Holland (Score:3, Insightful)
An ironic construction, this building, raised on the ruins of what used to be a lovely city square. Brussels demolished itself to make way for the EU and big business, doing with bulldozers and the 'open window policy' what the bombs of WWII did not manage to do.
The EU does not really care about its citizens any more than the White House does. Self-interest makes the world go around. But, in any case, I will be there, so that at l
Ben Franklin on Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
In order of time, I should have mentioned before, that having, in 1742, invented an open stove for the better warming of rooms, and at the same time saving fuel, as the fresh air admitted was warmed in entering, I made a present of the model to Mr. Robert Grace, one of my early friends, who, having an iron-furnace, found the casting of the plates for these stoves a profitable thing, as they were growing in demand. To promote that demand, I wrote and published a pamphlet, entitled "An Account of the new-invented Pennsylvania Fireplaces; wherein their Construction and Manner of Operation is particularly explained; their Advantages above every other Method of warming Rooms demonstrated; and all Objections that have been raised against the Use of them answered and obviated," etc. This pamphlet had a good effect. Gov'r. Thomas was so pleas'd with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin'd it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.
An ironmonger in London however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine, which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there, and made, as I was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the same success, which I never contested, as having no desire of profiting by patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very many houses, both of this and the neighbouring colonies, has been, and is, a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.
Wiki.... (Score:2, Funny)
Why say no to software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see a comedy sketch in there somewhere. Only thing is, in real life, it isn't funny.
who are patents for (Score:3, Insightful)
When you talk about patents, many people have the lone inventor in a mental picture, and it's easy to convince them that he needs protection against the greedy corporations trying to steal his idea.
If you discuss software patents with someone, make sure you wipe out that picture. 99% of all patents are owned by the greedy corporations, not by the lone inventors.
Re:who are patents for (Score:2)
If I knew that, I would be spreading the gospel left, right and center.
Personally, I think the system is broken and needs to be put out of its misery. Or, since we can't do that, at least stopped from infecting yet more areas of the economy, which isn't too healthy right now anyways.
That's why I've joined the protest. At the moment, that's what we can do.
An idea to solve the patent mess (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not apply the spirit of the GPL to patent law? The GPL's been pretty successful at creating a library of free software (ignoring the current SCO mess), so technically something similar for patents should be doable. I'm thinking:
The Patent Public License (PPL)
OK, I'm not a lawyer, but if you've seen something like the Adobe Acrobat 6.0 splash screen, that lists hundreds of patents used in the product. If someone could patent a blindingly obvious idea under a Public License (let's say clickable links) then they should be able to start the snowball rolling, and gather up the other patents a software package uses under the terms of the License, and so on with more and more programs and companies...
It'd be using patent law against itself
Sure, it'd take a lot of captial to patent one or two initial ideas and press the initial lawsuits, but with some support (EFF/FSF?) it'd be doable. Any downsides people can see?
Patents are not evil, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
What *is* horrible is the US Patent Office and their incompetence in the area of software. They've granted patents for stuff I know isn't new or unique becuase I worked on the same thing 15 years earlier. And many o
Re:Patents are not evil, but... (Score:2)
SIGN THE PETITON (Score:2, Informative)
GoingWare is participating (Score:2)
It was a rather hurried job. I could use some suggestions on how to explain why software patents are bad, but written so concisely that one can read and understand the argument in the twenty seconds I wait before redirecting to the FFII site.
You may be interested to read my piece Change the Law [goingware.com]. While it discusses what you can do about copyright law,
Algorithms Have Unclear Boundaries (Score:2)
My objection is that it's not always possible to tell where one invention that's used in a program leaves off, and where another begins. Because it's often possible to re-order the lines of code in a program without altering its behaviour, it could easily happen that someone else's patented algorithm is mixed in to your program in a way that makes it
Don't bother. (Score:3, Interesting)
Online demonstration useless (Score:2)
Contact your MEP. Now! (Score:2, Informative)
matter this is and gave him a couple of practical
and easy to understand examples of the bad things
that might follow, if software patents are OK'd.
If you are a citizen of an EU member country,
I suggest you do the same.
Update (Score:2)
It's a fairly high-profile activity. The FFII has fought this fight very much on their own for two or three years. Good to see they finally get some broad support.
Re:Update (Score:2)
I have an online game. It has about 400 active players. The majority are not geeks. Most of them will learn today what the problem with software patents is (namely that the game they're playing might well go away if I get sued because I use a progress bar or whatever).
No project, but (Score:2)
With some simple cutting and pasting, and a cp command or two, I have replaced my front page... more people should do the same. I remember the Internet Blackout from years ago... it was quite stunning to go to all of these pages that were turned black in protest. I don't know if something like that would have an impact today or not, but it would be interesting to find out.
http:/ [bsu.edu]
Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Unjust legislation must be fought. It is insufficient to simply hope it wont be enforced, like some sort of naive child.
Re:Think about it (Score:5, Informative)
Have you heard about the SCO debacle? IBM is suing SCO over patents right now.
If you read the halloween documents, it becomes clear that Microsoft thinks that patents are one of the best ways to stop the Linux spread. When they interviewed users, they thought that IP issues over Linux was something that held them back from Linux adoption.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of those software patents are trivial and overbroad. There are patents on tabs, progress bars and archiving emails.
Developing software will become an uncalculateable risk for smaller and even medium sized companies.
How far do you think computer sciences would have progressed if there existed patents on things like parametrisation of functions or on stacks?
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
Patenting a stack would be like patenting the lever.
Hm. How long do you think its going to be before we start seeing patents on basic mechanical devices? ;)
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
It could happen any time. The US Supreme Court ruling of Diamond v. Diehr reiterated previous rulings that software is not patentable material. However, it asserted that a non-patentable element of a patentable system did not make the entire system unpatentable.
That ruling got misinterpreted as making software patentable. The exact same misinterpretation could be used to say that since having a lever in
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
Laugh or cry - I just found out that the if statement was patented [espacenet.com] this year in Europe.
OK, short (Score:5, Insightful)
3 issues:
1. General patentability issue
Do patents protect and encourage the new inventor, or do they protect large businesses and monopolies? Practice would sometimes point out the last.
2. Software patent issue
If you invent a phonograph, you make it, sell it, done. Not so for software. Software is a stack-up of tons and tons of previous "inventions" (algorithms, or ways of doing something). You can't write a piece of software without "inventing" something along the way, but you also can't avoid to use previous "inventions". Software inventions should be seen as common field knowledge that needs to be shared. And I say needs; we would not have come past the MS-DOS age without this.
3. Free Software issue
Free Software doesn't only share the ideas of software, but also their implementations. Again, we would not have been far without Free Software of any kind (you can at least forget the Internet and Mac OS X, but there are more detailed examples that will tell you that you can forget A LOT of software). Simply put, Free Software relies on open (unowned) algorithms and program ideas, but has no model (like businesses have) for buying licenses to use "owned" ideas. IOW, the Free Software world would ultimately disappear as a result of patent law.
Summary: while patents MAY stink for business in general, they would simply DESTROY our software world as we know it, and replace it with something where our normal everyday innovation is very hard to find.
Re:OK, short (Score:2)
Now imagine if you could trivially
Re:OK, short (Score:2)
Re:OK, short (Score:2)
Re:British are retards (Score:2)
I'm surprised you haven't been modded down as a troll, but then I suspect people are modding down much more important trolls over the clueless ramblings you made above.
We don't have a supreme court. Parliment is elected based on local elections on a rolling ba
Re:British are retards (Score:2)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
If I remember correctly they have only one.
You mean they've patented holding Linux users hostage???
The bastards!
Spanish Version of SlashDot? (Score:2)
I know this is off-topic, but I'm curious as to the structure: Is there a single editor-in-chief overseeing both sites? Is there a shared database of UID's, etc.? Do the stories overlap completely/somewhat/not at all? Is the Spanish Slashdot more Euro- or Southern Hemisphere-oriented in either its news or editorial? Is "barrpunto" Spanish for "Slas
Re:Spanish Version of SlashDot? (Score:2)
Hey, for laughs, why don't you guys throw "your" name behind a bunch of really, really wacky and borderline illegal causes so we can see how OSDN handles the moral dilemma of having to defend their own IP and copyright?
Now, *THAT'S* Entertainment!
(C'mon, it'll be fun...)