ESR Invited To 'Advise' USPTO 170
alannon writes: "Most of this article, posted on MacWeek's site concerns an 'open source sermon' that ESR recently gave to a group of Mac hackers at the annual MacHack convention. Most of his speech was taken with a grain of salt, though he left a gem of an annoucement: He's been invited to join the the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a member of its citizen's advisory committee! I'm sure he'll make lots and lots of friends there. "
Re:[Sound of Applause] (Score:2)
If you follow the news, you'll be aware that ESR is more likely to shoot his mouth off than otherwise.
Also, he's kind of like Chomsky... no matter what you invite him to speak on, you get a political message to go along with it.
--
Ugh..... The problem with ESR is... (Score:1)
And I'm serious.
A friend of mine who's a programmer over at Microsoft had a chance to listen to his speech. I got to come along as well (yay!). At the time I was so excited that I finally got to listen to ESR speak.
Well, I was deeply disapointed. He was just very arrogant and wouldn't give anybody a straight answer. He'd be like "The reason why netscape is beating you guys is because mozilla is opensource". A few people questioned this, and he simple would say "... because its open source, and people like that".
I dunno, he didn't come across as a really nice fellow to me. I felt almost ashamed of being a Linux user after that whole ordeal...
Shades of gray (Score:3)
These aren't black and white issues, and intelligent, thoughtful people can disagree. In my experience, anyway, the best way to persuade someone to change direction is to agree with them as much as possible, and introduce shades of gray into the discussion. Arguing that they're fundamentally wrong tends to be less productive.
Re:ESR is the *best* man for the job (Score:1)
Fear extremists, for they will not listen to reason.
Re:ERROR: Invalid Argument (Score:1)
In fact, I totally agree with you. Given the time taken for Drugs to be approved, and the fact that there are no arguments to reduce this significantly, the drug industry requires a guarenteed return. Patants may or may not be the best way to acheive this, but they do their job.
Incidentally, I'm not familiar with Phen-fen. What happened there?
Re:The Patent System is like the Lottery (Score:2)
Oh, grow up.
I probably shouldn't feed the troll, but what the hell.
I never said the free market was a panacea[1], and if you'd bother to read any of my other posts, rather than simply responding in a typical, knee-jerk reactionary manner, you would have noticed that my political leanings (not that they have anything to do with the topic at hand) are if anything left of center. (See for example my arguments about how the free market is not at all well suited for services requiring human compassion, such as medicine and care of the elderly).
However, the free market is a much better approach than draconian, government mandated and enforced monopolies which favor a few at the expense of the many, stifle progress and harm entire industries.
Try looking outside of your narrow preconceptions sometime. You might be surprised to discover an entire planet lying beyond the boundries of your little yard.
[1] for our troll of limited vision: panacea ~= "cure-all"
Re:ESR is the *best* man for the job (Score:2)
http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp ?theisbn=0465039138&from=bbookbuy [fatbrain.com]
You can do some searches on google.com, etc, to find some articles he's written... there should be plenty that turn up... The book is really good though.
Before you kill patents, know what you're doing! (Score:5)
The following is a letter I wrote to LWN a few weeks ago outlining part of my argument. It will rub a lot of people the wrong way, but we can't afford to destroy the patent system unless we really want Microsoft and other huge companies to call all the shots. I don't think a lot of people here have thought these issues through.
Letter to LWN (at http://www.lwn.net/2000/0420/backpage.pht ml [lwn.net])
I've gotten several challenges to my assertion about patents as a desirable thing
(mostly asking for examples of small inventors that actually did profit from
patents) so here's my quick response, FWIW:
Anyone saying patents don't do immense public good, and provide worthwhile,
needed, and *effective* protection of small inventors against large corporations
is simply ignorant of the history of even quite recent technology. Many
inventors started small, but because of patent protection were indeed able to
profit greatly from their inventions.
From the "gararge-shop" POV, well, just off the top of my head, there are the
examples everyone is familiar with: Bill Hewlett and David Packard (HP,
instruments), Steves Jobs and Wozniak (Apple, home computer), and outside the
computer industry, folks like Edwin Land (Polaroid, polarized materials and
instant camera), Chester Carlson (Xerox, xerography), Henry Ford (Ford,
affordable automobiles), Thomas Edison (GE, light bulb, motion pictures,
phonograph...), and Alexander Graham Bell (AT&T, telephone), all of whom
profited greatly from their patented works. (One could argue for the inclusion
of Jeff Bezos in that list, although around here, that's a bit like whacking a
hornet's nest with a stick...)
But the classic twentieth century example of patents providing exactly the kind
of protection I'm talking about is probably that of Philo T. Farnsworth, whom
you may never have heard of, although you likely use his invention (electronic
television) every day. Farnsworth was the prototypical individualist inventor
who persevered against all odds and eventually defeated David Sarnoff and
Vladimir Zworykin of the immensly powerful RCA. RCA was truly the Microsoft of
its day in terms of control of the market and underlying technologies through
acquisition - often under severe economic and other pressure. RCA had a policy
of never paying royalties for any technology - a policy they managed to uphold
until they met Philo Farnsworth, who just wouldn't give up.
Farnsworth fought virtually alone against all of RCA's power for seven years
before the final court rulings that his patents had clear validity and
precedence over Zworykin's, forcing a tearful RCA lawyer to sign a royalty
payment agreement to Farnsworth. (Farnsworth publicly displayed television
*five years* before Sarnoff unveiled RCA's infringing version to the world
amidst great fanfare at the 1939 World's Fair, leading many to believe Sarnoff
and RCA were the inventors of television - sound like anyone today?)
Farnsworth's experience is, if anything, a case study for the need to
*strengthen* patents and either streamline patent appeals or extend the length
of patents when thier commercial utility is impacted by unsuccessful challenges.
(World War II intervened, and the government outlawed television for the
duration of the war (the technology was needed for radar, night vision and other
inventions Farnsworth then worked on), and so Farnsworth's patents expired
before he could profit from them.
Do you still think patents are a bad idea? I'd argue experience shows that
patents should be strengthened and perhaps that the duration of Farnsworth's
patent should have been extended, due to RCA's clear abuse of the patent system
and the courts. (I also think the government should have been upright enough to
grant extensions in the name of fair play to all inventors whose inventions were
commandeered for the war effort, but that's another issue entirely.)
History clearly shows that often patents are all that stands between real
progress and innovation and the acquisition by force so typical of a Sarnoff or
Gates. Strong patent law is the *only* effective defense against large
companies stealing technology from small inventors. (What RCA tried to do could
be accurately portrayed as theft.) I'm amazed more people don't get this, but
they tend to avoid history, and fail to recognize that our American forefathers
were wiser than we are in pretty much every way.
Although it's not perfect, there are very good reasons the patent system is the
way it is, and we meddle with it at our peril. It would be nice to see a
balanced discussion of this issue rather than the knee-jerk reactions that are
more common in the open source/free software community.
Dub
P.S.: I recommend spending some time browsing through some of the links below
to see how many of the great inventors of recent history were independent - the
protection provided by the patent system allowed them to develop and in many
cases profit handsomely from their inventions. You might be surprised at the
diversity and "ordinariness" of many of these inventors of important
breakthroughs - they're not such an elite group as you might imagine (the list
is somewhat US-centric - our culture celebrates invention, and so links for US
inventors are much easier to find):
National Inventor's Hall of Fame [invent.org]
MIT's Invention Dimension Archive [mit.edu]
Good Internet Public Library list of links to Inventor information [ipl.org]
Re:ugh (ot) (Score:2)
Actually, the history of warfare provides many examples of guerrillas successfully countering better-armed forces. Witness the Vietnam Conflict, Afghanistan, and, well, the American Revolution.
When you get down to the house-to-house person-to-person fighting, tanks and helicopters don't help much. It is extremely difficult to control a resistant armed population, even (especially) if their arms are lightweight. A tank or chopper simply kills them. How do you control a population if they are all dead?
Let's get over this romantic notion of everyone being noble patriots who will save us from the tyranny of the whitehouse.
Not necessarily the whitehouse, but tyranny must be fought. I am willing to give my life fighting to preserve my natural rights. Some people (obviously you) believe in life at any cost -- even if it means a life without freedom. I don't feel that way.
How many parts of the Bill of Rights are you willing to surrender? Once your right to self-defense is gone, will you give up your right to free speech?
Will you come on Slashdot saying, "Let's get over this romantic notion of speaking out against the tyranny of the whitehouse. Get real. Criticizing the government has really got to go?"
How far does it have to go before you stand up? When you decide to stand up, what will you use?
I am a law-abiding American citizen who happens to own firearms. I am NOT the problem, but it's easier to come after me BECAUSE I am a law-abiding citizen. I can be counted on to comply with every do-nothing feel-good restriction you devise. Of course, the people who ARE the problem carry on as they always have. They don't care about the law. That's the REAL problem. Show me a solution for that.
Re:Horsecrap. (Score:2)
Seems to me that the proper reaction to the ability to enfore a law ought not be to stop enforcing it.
the proper reaction to "the ability to enforce a law" (um, which law) shouldn't be terminating enforcement... i don't understand this sentence at all. we shouldn't stop enforcing a law because of the ability to enforce it? whose ability? what is the ability doing? what law?
If they willy-nilly grant patents and extend the intentions of patent law (see granting patants on business models) they have little right to complain about workload.
why? seems to me if you're overworked and you're doing a shitty job, it's reasonable to think that the two might be related.
If they stop revieing patents methodically as they have then you wind up in a mess because everone is suing claiming patent infringment.
can you point me to the portion of my comment where i endorse the termination of "methodically reviewing patents"? i WANT them to methodically review patents. i want them to submit them to community review, so that when they say "1 click shopping" and the community says "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH" they will say "oh. maybe not."
At least if you went the other way and only reviewed the truely novel inventions then you leave it up to indivudual inventors to protect their intellectual property instaed of lumping the responsibility on the already overburdened legal system.
that's EXACTLY what i want them to do. i want them to review what you call "truely novel" (that's a truly novel spelling, btw) patents only, that is, patents which are not obvious and for which prior art does not exist - and throw the rest out. what i'm trying to get at is that with the resources they have now, and the amount of political and financial might being exerted on them, they don't have a chance. yes, 1.2 billion a year is a lot of money. maybe. except when 30 billion dollar corporations want ONE patent to fuck over the computer industry (read: rambus).
If some idiot can look at your invention and duplicate it because it was too simple then I suggest it's too obvious to be patented.
sing it, brother!
Things like bottle openers and anything easily deducible should not be granted these rights.
word!
More broadly, the current patent system does not suit its intended purpose and is far more damaging to society than helpful
can i hear an AMEN? (you should support this with evidence though, like the oil industry burying the electric-car patents, or RAMBUS. makes a more effective argument).
In the end I do blame the patent office and its current leadership for broadening the scope of patentable IP.
the patent office employees are APPOINTED by the ADMINISTRATION. that was the whole point of my post. they do the will of our elected leader (bill clinton). to blame them is to blame a straw man. if they don't do as they're told, they get underfunded. if they rebel, they get fired.
know your government!
The reason they didn't? It was purely for personal greed and power. there is an inherent conflict of interrest when the head of the USPTO, big business and all lawyers involved on both sides stand to profit from granting sleezy patents. Power and/or money.
DOES the head of the uspto stand to profit from a corrupt patent system? or does he stand to keep his job, while someone in the adminstration (or political machine that elected it) stands to make money? consider the florida tobbacco settlement: $0 to smokers, $75million apiece to hillary clinton and trent lott's brother, respectively. a bipartisan takedown.
i agree with you, it's all about the benjamins.
i just think that you might want to make sure you point your finger at the head of the beast and not the tail. don't missunderstand me.
and FUCKING LEARN TO SPELL!
please.
thanks.
Re:Before you kill patents, know what you're doing (Score:1)
What they ARE in favour of is abolishing or diminishing the effects of patents on software processes, business methods and the like.
Reading some of the posts above (try this one [slashdot.org]) will show that these did not become patentable until about 20(?) years ago, due to one or two court cases.
Most of your argument is based on patents for what most of us still think of as "real" inventions, and only a few of the people here would disagree with your examples. But the examples you use predate the type of patents most of us are talking about (and largely(?) disagree with). If the patent situation was to return to the way it was in 1939, many of us would be happy with this (well, happier anyway).
Patents were designed to protect small inventors. But software patents and business process patents are not being used to protect small inventors - they are being used to allow large companies to lock out competition - perverting the idea of capitalism and the free market (unless your idea of capitalism is just to allow large corporations to do what the hell they like, and let the strongest survive).
Re:!! (Score:1)
(Castro) to finish his opening remarks.
ESR given iBook (Score:1)
http://db.tidbits.com/tbtalk/t lkmsg.lasso?MsgID=7417 [tidbits.com]
It was referred to as an "open wallet" project :) p.s. I thought about submitting this as a story but figured it wouldn't make the cut.
Re:Proof patents don't work? Drug prices .us vs .c (Score:1)
BTW: Canada charges less for generic drugs, not for new & name brand drugs. On balance, Canadian drug expenditures are slightly higher. It is just that the legally mandated price disparities on the generics get the press.
DB
Bad choice (Score:2)
Surely the best choice to advise on Open Source issues would have been Tim O'Reilly: someone who is calm, logical, intelligent, able to see both points of view and who has taken a close interest in the patent system. Still, perhaps whoever invited him as advisor wasn't looking for the best person for the job.
Re:I too blame the patent office (Score:1)
correct. i have no argument other than my argument.
disagreeing with your silly argument that lack of funding excuses the USPTOs excesses and incompetence.
so now i have an argument? i'm sorry that you feel that my argument is silly. however, you have incorrectly summed it up. i did not argue that their behavior was excused by their funding situation, rather i believe it can be explained by their funding situation. the difference is that while i still think they're destructive, at the very least i have a theory as to why.
i.e. poverty doesn't excuse crime, but it often explains it.
Every grammatical flame, however subtle, contains its own grammatical errors, as you so aptly demonstrate
i did not create a grammatical flame. i flamed his spelling. your statement is therefore logically false.
Every blanket statement beginning with the word "every", however subtle, is complete bullshit, as you so aptly demonstrate (even this one).
doesn't parallel rhetoric just annoy the hell out of you?
actually, "flaming" is probably an overly strong characterization, but what the heck, i'll throw you a bone. and a dangling participle. at this point your only recourse is to go back and spellcheck all my posts. i haven't done this, and you'll probably find something to prove your point. and i agree with your point - i have probably made a mistake or two, and people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. my point was that when someone makes a rampant pattern of mistakes, i.e. "i thinks yur nots noweing how to speek pruperly!", it makes them look illiterate, and not fit to converse with literate people.
Alas for you, most of the people reading this forum are smarter than that.
i'm not sure they're mostly smart, but i do think they're mostly independent thinkers. i'm sure they can decide whether they agree with my interpretation. at the very least, they should be aware of the funding situation and draw their own conclusions.
Re:ugh (ot) (Score:1)
Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Re:I too blame the patent office (Score:2)
no shit. i didn't make that argument. my argument was that the uspto is staffed by appointees, and that change comes from the administration. lack of funding is a tool that the administration uses to exert power.
Destorting markets, hampering industried, and destroying small competative businesses by handing out government mandated and enforced monopolies willy nilly the way it is doing right now is immoral, unethical, reprehensible, and destructive.
sing it brother. i buy that with 2 clicks! (i'd buy it with one but i can't).
. Of course, whoever is president and whichever party is percieved at being in poewr at the time will take the blame, not the patent office, so maybe they (correctly) feel they do not have to care.
i think you may have this situation ass-backwards. but that's just my opinion.
Ever stop to think (Score:1)
----
Oh my god, Bear is driving! How can this be?
ESR is the *best* man for the job (Score:5)
I understand your concerns. But those pro-corporate and commerce-friendly stances are why ESR is a good choice. He knows how to talk to the suits. He understands their points of view.
Who do you think is going to get better results: a man who walks into a new office and says, "Okay, there are a couple problems here, I see a few misunderstandings, here's a better way," or a man who cannot compromise in the least? Someone who walks in and immediately starts off with, "No, all of you are wrong. There's only one way to do this, and it's mine."
How are we going to see "real change," as you say, if we aren't also willing to make changes?
Re:Patents/(C) never meant to hurt public good. (Score:3)
The drugs industry does still produce a lot of new products, and doesn't find the patent laws highly restrictive. The problem is that the cost of getting from a theory that something should work to a legal drug is very expensive. It has to go through several development stages, then several testing stages. This requires a lot of people to help in trials. It costs billions to get that far, and so far the company hasn't managed to sell a single product.
If the drug is not patented, as soon as a drug is released, competitors can start producing immediately and undercut the company that did the work easily.
An example was penicillin (so I've heard). That was not patented. It took a long time for the research to find out if it was actually useful, since nobody was willing to spend the money needed for tests. In the meantime, a lot of people who might have been saved died.
Re:A step in the right direction.... (Score:4)
Re:[Sound of Applause] (Score:1)
Re:ESR is *not* the right man for the job (Score:2)
RMS, as far a business is concerned, is a nut job. ESR shows them that GNU is not a communist conspiracy and can be a good thing.
Re:Classic application for the "over-rated" mod (Score:1)
Re:!! (Score:1)
Imagine what would happen if after everyone signed over their right to the fsf it becamse corrupt, reminds me of a few past governments :)
This sounds like a very good thing... (Score:2)
Re:ugh (ot) (Score:1)
Which is why all conventional weapons should be freely accessable by the public. I would be able to save you from the tyranny of the Whitehouse a lot better with a MP5 than a Smith & Wesson "smart" revolver.
I love you people that assume we are so advanced that no one has any need for a weapon. Evidently, that our non-corrupt, non-weapon-wielding government will protect us with its sheer virtue (not a weapon) from anything (including itself & ourselves (get that, the government can attack us because it is protecting us from us)) that endangers us or our freedom just like on The Next Generation.
Refrag
Good Thing (TM) (Score:1)
It's definately a step in the right direction
ChiefArcher
Re:The Patent System is like the Lottery (Score:1)
Imagine
Without IP laws it is a very realistic scenario.
You hinted that there could be some laws enacted to prevent this sort of abuse but
Never heard of this group within the USPTO (Score:1)
Jason
"Diamonds are Tomorrows" (Score:3)
--
Re:Horsecrap. (Score:2)
The Methods of doing business were overturned sometime in the 80's When One of the big financial companies got the CCPA/CAFC to overturn a rejection of some financial product.
The point of this is to make clear that it is the courts, not the PTO, that determines the the interpretation of section 101, as to patentable subject matter. This is not a constitutional determination; Congress has the power to change this (good Luck).
Given this, the Office has no choice but to continue the examination of the the application to see if it meets other requirements, most notably novelty and unobviousness, of which there is plenty so say, since that is squarely within the PTO's rhelm, and which much has been vigorously commented on
Quality not necessarily related to money (Score:1)
Except that turns out not to be the case. Take the much overused example of Microsoft (Please.) Microsoft has a lot of money, yet their software is just adequate. Not great, not well-thought out, but adequate, "good enough." Take something like Linux. Linux has shown itself to be quite robust, and while the creators and distributors aren't paupers, they aren't rolling in money either. There is obviously not a nice, neat correlation between money and quality.
Money at times may be linked to quality if it is necessary to spend the money to get the materials, equipment, etc. to get the job done right. For example, if you are going to create an OS that can scale from 1 to 64 CPUs, somebody is going to have to spend the money to get a machine with 64 CPUs.
From what I've observed from the sidelines, though, is that pride is more of a motivator than money. If the corporate culture says "good enough" is OK, then that corporation will ship out merely adequate, or even less than adequate, products. If the corporate culture says "good enough" isn't, then the products shipped will tend to be of pretty high quality.
Let's hope his input will be listened to (Score:1)
This is a great thing! (Score:1)
5 hour speech! (Score:1)
Relief (Score:1)
I think in matters of patents, that there should be an elected commitee to deal with disputes. such as the ICANN @Large program, it would be interesting to see an internet process for the US Patent Office so that we can put an end to the Patent Whores.
Re:ESR is the *best* man for the job (Score:1)
Hmm... (Score:4)
I have just the T-Shirt [thinkgeek.com] picked out for him to wear...
Re:Let's hope his input will be listened to (Score:1)
Sun, IBM, Microsoft dev managers are the experts they actually overseen creation of real software that's being used all over the world.
ERS is no expert at anything ( with possible exception of guns )
Re:ESR is the *best* man for the job (Score:2)
But if we are willing to sell out, what's the point of running off at the mouth about "change"? Selling out is about as traditional, white-bread, corporate a thing to do as you could ask for.
Re:ESR is *not* the right man for the job (Score:1)
Back to reality people.
Depends (Score:3)
If the former, they're likely to realize how clueless they are. If the latter, this will be all heat and no light.
No Patents == The Rich get Richer (Score:2)
The original inventor would still have the right to persue their invention, persue other ideas to which his/her invention gives rise, etc. And, someone else coming up with the same invention at roughly the same time (a very common occurance historically) would not have the rights to their invention taken from them simply because they lost a footrace to the patent office. Without patents, everyone could play and compete accordingly, and the market, rather than a governmental authority, could decide who "wins" and who doesn't. One of the nice things about the free market is that there are often multiple winners in a given area, a stark contrast to the sole "winner" of a patent.
It sounds good for those that have the same idea at the same time. But my crystal ball shows a different scenario ...
If there is no patent protection than anyone can make use of the invention. So who is going to win, the individual inventor (a college professor perhaps) or a well heeled corporation?
It's worse than this, because the inventor has nothing of value. He can't sell his patents, because he doesn't have any. He can't stop anyone else from using his idea, so no one will invest in him or his idea.
So as a result of doing away with patents we get a few very large companies. And the end of meaningful competition.
At least Microsoft has to pay for its innovations today. Under your scenario it just takes what ever it wants and beats everyone to market.
So contrary to your claim, everyone doesn't have the same chance to take advantage of what would have been a patentable idea. Nope, only those with money can.
Steve M
Re:Ugh..... The problem with ESR is... (Score:2)
As for Mozilla, ESR never said that "the reason why netscape is beating you guys is because mozilla is opensource". Actually, he used mozilla as an example of why opensource is not the cure to all ills. What he did say, however, is that "by open sourcing the browser, netscape drove a stake in the ground that M$ would never be able to remove.."
I was working for MS then. That talk got me really thinking about things. A year later, I'm now working for a Linux startup in the valley. I know that there were many other MS employees that thought long and hard about many of the things he said.
-=t
Probably a good thing (Score:2)
So, this is a good thing to do with him :) it will keep him out of trouble and for a change he will actually be helping the 'libre' side of things simply because there is nothing he could possibly do to make the USPTO hurt it any worse :) I would assume that somehow somewhere he would see _something_ pathetic that's being patented into corporate backed-by-the-barrel-of-a-government-gun proprietariness (there's so much of it!), and would take the opportunity to point it out and cry "HA! See that? That is not suitable for a patent at all!" and the world would be that much of a better place :)
Re:[Sound of Applause] (Score:2)
Can the USPTO do anything? (Score:4)
That's all they're paid to do, that's the only infrastructure they can put together.
An advisory committee is, sadly, a PR move. Their corruption runs pretty deep; their own head stated quite plainly he'd patent a legal argument if he could get away with it. It's not corruption in the personal sense; they're just an agency with a subverted mission and a gigantic loophole. The best the agency could do would be reject every single Net related patent--and watch themselves get taken over by a new administration.
Patents are an extraordinarily powerful tool of control, and quite a few law schools are churning out people who are more than capable of taking advantage of that. Don't expect a Citizen Action Committee to be able to do too much to change this, unfortunately.
It's an excellent gesture, though, and ESR is a great pick.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:Patents/(C) never meant to hurt public good. (Score:4)
Something to think about. (Score:2)
Image that I spend the last 3 years developing a completly new paridigm in User Interface. I did market studies, and spend thousands and in User Test to see how effective my UI was. This UI though it fairly easy to code though and is elligant in its simplicity, and wins the world over as a breakthrough in design, and everyone wants to copy it.
Now would you say I deserve atleast some protection say a year and a half to be able to profit from my idea.
I think truly invovative software deserves protection. Not for nearly as long, and for only truly innovative thing. But to say we should completly destroy such system is to say my time spent on design was of no value.
But 15 years (or whatever the going length of patents is right now.) Is simply rediculus.
Who will oppose him? (Score:2)
Esperandi
MacHack info (Score:2)
Previous hacks include using Open Firmware to play Breakout (or was it MacsBug? somebody else remember?), a hack to program the LED display on the Apple Network Server 500 (one of the most obscure pieces of equipment ever shipped by Apple), a hack to render a Mac screen in ASCII text in realtime, and other jems.
The best part: usually, after a month or two, they bundle up all the hacks for that year and stick them on a CD-ROM, along with (in almost all cases) source code. You can usually download them as well. Last year's CD is available here [mindvision.com] courtesy of MindVision.
It's always funny to see READMEs that specifically advise you NOT to run the accompanying software, not to mention how many end with something along the lines of "I'd tell you more about how this works, but I only have 10 minutes until I have to demo it and it still isn't compiling, so you're on your own..."
Nikolai Bezroukov (Score:2)
Don't be too hard on him. Nikolai Bezroukov (who wrote the thing) is a nice and knowledgeable guy, however he has two problems:
Re:Before you blame the patent office (Score:2)
If you followed the recent debate about USPTO funding on the House floor, I'm sure you saw the Republicans pushing for moving more finances into the USPTO, because it's "integral to keeping our new economy growing."
Now actual reform on the process of granting, and the lifetime of patents would certainly meet great opposition by corporate lobbyists.
Re:RMS in a patent office!!!! (Score:2)
-russ
"Hundreds of Thousands of Developers" my ass (Score:5)
I know many people who started using Linux, and couldn't write, without help, a single, simple, syntax-error-free line of C code.
Now that may sound very harsh against Linux users - and it is very well meant to be. All in all, the technical competence of most Linux users IS above average. But that doesn't mean that they all have the competence of commercial quality programmers, or even mediocre programmers. I doubt the majority of them could fix a simple buffer overflow bug given adequate debugging information that points the bug out directly.
The claim that there are "40,000" contributors to "Linux" is very misleading. First off, Linux is more than the kernel. It is all the programs that it takes advantage of or requires to get the job done. Linux would be NOWHERE without programs like 'make', 'gcc', 'gdb', and all those similiar tools. However, those tools WOULD exist without Linux. So, that number (which is pure estimate on the part of anyone claiming it as fact anyways) most likely includes the developers of all the programs that Linux takes advantage of... and in this case, that is like saying a printing company (Which can be run by a handful of people - a manager, a couple secretarys, a couple graphic artists, and a few printing press operators) employees "hundreds of people", by counting the foresting company, the people that operate the paper-making machines, and the people who produce the ink.
IF, on the other hand, said number was restricted to the heart of Linux - for TRUE "Linux" is nothing more than the KERNEL - I wouldn't be surprised if, over the course of Linux's 8+ years of evolution, 4,000 (not 40,000) people have contributed something to the source code for some program for some platform or another - but even then Im wondering how many of those contributions were very minor ones - such as a bug fix - and how many contributions overlapped. How many people provided moderate (more than a few dozen lines of code) contributions, and how many provided SIGNIFICANT conributions (on the lines of a few hundred or thousand lines). I'd guess more along the lines of 400 and 40, respectively. And how many Linux kernel contributors are well known by any kernel hacker? I think the number falls around 4 (to 8).
In the end, the true core work of a project is done by just a few people (scaled to the size of the project, of course). While they may take advantage of existing libraries (such as a PNG or JPEG library, ZLIB compression, a communications archiecture, or some such), that does not truly increase the size of the development team - that actually gives them less of an excuse to have large amounts of people. You can't claim the authors of these libraries on your dev team (tho giving them credit for their work and it's use in the project is something else entirely different).
And finally, what if the project is commercial? The problem these days is that Free Software (Free as in Freedom of Speech/Open Source) is equated these days with Free Software (Free as in Free "Beer"/No Cost). This is a very dangerous equation that is being made, and even promoted by so-called experts such as Richard M. Stallman. Eric S. Raymond has a clearer view, but it is still distorted by the belief that everything can and should be source-available. In many cases, especially Games, this option isn't available while the product is still commercially viable. Hence why Doom and Quake were not Open Sourced until years after they were off the shelves and replaced by better products (in the cases of Doom and Quake, 2 generations of products later).
- Chris Jacobson
(MaineCoon)
Horsecrap. (Score:4)
Re:ESR is the *best* man for the job (Score:2)
This is perhaps one of those situations where the people in power appoint the most incompitent opponent so that they can say "look, we listened to opposing viewpoints, but they are all spouted by idiots". Sort of like the fact that members of the Serbian opposition are often more beneficial than harmful to Millosovich.
change is good, ESR is a good pick (Score:2)
It works for academic journals, why not for patents?
Yeah, he tends to run speeches like that. (Score:2)
He spoke at Cornell 2-3 months ago. It lasted for 2 hours, and would've lasted longer if the room hadn't been needed by other occupants.
Cathedral and Bazaar doesn't hold (Score:5)
The Bazaar, as ESR portrays it, simplifies mass programmers down to intelligent testers refining code and reducing bug counts - this is true, but this does not necessarily mean better, more stable, or more usable software. More problems are revealed and more features creep in, but the real value of Open Source is the sense of personal responsibility people take (at this point in time anyway - perhaps the revolutionary attitudes) to invest their time, talent, and energy in producing something of quality.
Now applying this same attitude to government - I find it pathetic to see the change in the amount of dedication and commitment we currently show to our government. One look at the rusted ornate decorations on most government buildings indicates that most of the American Public takes little responsibility now in making and maintaining our government as something truly valuable. We did at one point in time, but I think Americans take for granted that someone else will take personal responsibility for our government. It's not until these notions of personal responsibility and irresponsibility replace the order/chaos mentality in the minds of the public that a true change in the IP business models will take place.
Re:Patents/(C) never meant to hurt public good. (Score:2)
A good patent system would encourage true novelty more than copycat drugs.
Re:who's the "nut job"? (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?q=anonymous+coward
.. 13 hits
Patents ARE open-source (Score:2)
The big problems with the USPTO are well known:
- Examiners are missing non-patent prior art. That's getting better, but it still needs work.
- "Business method" patents were probably a bad idea, but only Congress can fix that one, because a court ruled that the USPTO has to grant them if they meet the usual standards for patentability.
- Narrow "interface patents" used to block interoperability are a special problem. The classic is the Hayes patent on "+++" as an escape sequence, not that it did Hayes much good; they went out of business. You can always get a very narrow patent on a new, but not particularly interesting, variation on something. Ordinarily such patents are worthless, but if you're the dominant player and patent some minor attribute of some industry-standard interface, you may be able to stop cloning. This is an antitrust issue, not a patent issue per se.
If those three problems were fixed, most of the complaints from the Linux community would be dealt with. (There's a whole set of different issues in biotech and drug patents, but I don't want to get into that here.)Re:I too blame the patent office (Score:2)
well, no. i do have an argument - i took issue with his characterization of it.
as far as jabbing at his spelling - yes, it's lame, and i hate to do it. i only do that when the lack of spelling or grammar is consistent throughout the post and actually interferes with the meaning or content of the post. i mean, he barely got out a single sentence without a spelling error, and a lot of his sentences lacked an object or pronoun. i did not at any point jab at his grammar. i don't really think that grammar is as important as spelling, especially on a web forum such as this, when people don't have much time to type their comments. i, for instance, ignore capitalization completely, as i use a one-handed dvorak keyboard and shifting is somewhat complicated for me (it's a long story).
so, to reiterate, not once did i attack his grammar, so your attempt to attack mine is unfounded. yes, attacking spelling is lame, but a consistent pattern of misspelling that interferes with the meaning of an argument is a signifigant detractor from that argument.
and yes, i do have an argument, my argument is that the corruption in the patent office stems from deeper corruption - namely, the corruption of the people who fund and appoint employees to the uspto. he simply summarized my argument incorrectly.
as you did.
The Patent System is like the Lottery (Score:3)
The Patent system is a lot like the Lottery.
A few small people win big, get rich, and become poster children for the status quo. (e.g. the historical examples cited in the previous post. Alas, for many of the poster children, the honor is posthumus, for many had their health ruined and indeed even died from the stress of fighting a battle against terrible odds.)
A great many more small people are directly harmed in the process. (e.g the many who lost thier battles to better funded, larger commercial interests, such as those inventors who lost all rights to their inventions to Thomas Eddison, who claimed both historical credit for work which wasn't his, as well as monetary gains, all facilitated by the US Patent System. Another example is of course the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of small businesses stillborn due to government enforced monopolies. Other costs, such as inventions never realized because the base ideas are locked down, have been discussed elsewhere).
In the end, poster children aside, the system is designed to favor the large players, again at the expense of the little guy. (Lotteries bring most of the money they generate into state coffers, not the pockets of "winners" or the "little guy." So to, most patents are owned by corporations. Most legal conflicts between small inventors and large corporations end up being resolved in favor of the large corporation, for they have more capital and more lawyers to present their arguments.)
In one respect the patent system is even less fair than the lottery. At least anyone can buy a lottery ticket, even with the same winning number as another, and the two lucky poster children can share their tiny slice of the pie. Not so with patents. Its a winner takes all system, and the winner is almost always the large, well funded and well represented corporation, not the little guy.
Re:Before you kill patents, know what you're doing (Score:2)
Patents are a good thing for their intended use, which is physical goods (including computer hardware). They do not make sense for computer software; in this field, copyright is the best way to secure rewards for authors. Patents on computer programs create a legal minefield for small developers and allow companies to get monopolies on business methods, by phrasing their patent as one on software.
The critique at lpf.ai.mit.edu [mit.edu] was written several years ago, but the points it makes are just as true today. Also freepatents.org [freepatents.org] has some useful links.
People who oppose software patents are not (in general) opposed to patents themselves. It's just that patents are inappropriate for computer software.
Re:The Patent System is like the Lottery (Score:2)
This is not an easy issue and we should not urge any actions that have not been very well-considered - the stakes are too high.
Hmm... Not the impression I got... (Score:2)
Re:!! (Score:2)
Small contributors are just as important. (Score:2)
And if you'd ever listened to any of ESR's speeches, you'd realize that he doesn't believe that Open Source is the solution to everything. In fact, he specifically brought up games as one of the few cases where the software might really be as valuable as what it's selling for. And in another case, he was called in to advise a company on whether or not they should open-source, and his reply after looking into it was, "Absolutely not." - It was some sort of software to automatically determing how a logging mill should cut logs into lumber to minimize waste.
!! (Score:5)
When Emperor Nero of Rome gave speeches, it was said that there were spies in the audience, and when he finished (eventually), the first person to stop applauding would be executed. Likewise with Stalin.
5 hour speech, huh? Open source really brings out the fanatics!
;-)
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
Re:Patents/(C) never meant to hurt public good. (Score:2)
The sort of change which is done to drugs is more of the order of replacing a few atoms with similar atoms, or replacing a group of atoms with another group of atoms.
Asprin was first created by adding an acetyl group to salicylic acid. The pain relief portion of the molecule was not affected, and a patentable medicine was invented.
Copycat drugs (ie generic) appear on the market after patents expire. No generic drugs are the same drug, but sold by a different manufacturer, usually under the chemical name instead of the brand name. Copycat drugs are a different drug, but with broadly similar properties & side effects, sold under a brand name chosen by the new manufactuer.
Prozac is a SSRI, it's chemical name is Fluoxetine Hydrochloride. Currently there are no generic's, because it is still patented. However there are copycat SSRI's available, including Zoloft, Paxil & Celexa.
A step in the right direction.... (Score:2)
--
Re:ugh (ot) (Score:2)
I support capital punishment, but not in its present form. That guy who just got killed in Texas sat on death row for 19 years. That's not right. I would say that it's cruel and unusual punishment. If someone is sentenced to death, it should be carried out within the month. Then again, there are lots of people convicted of crimes they didn't commit, so maybe we do need some time for appeals. Regardless, the system is not right the way it is now. But people will always be convicted for crimes they didn't commit, so maybe the death penalty isn't such a good idea after all. I don't know. I support it in principle but it would suck to get killed for no reason then exonerated a month later.
__________________________________________________ ___
Re:The Patent System is like the Lottery (Score:4)
Because , as the original poster explained, that would be the effect of abolishing IP.
No, that is not what I am advocating, nor would that be the outcome of eliminating IP.
The original poster made some good points with respect to how, on occasion, the patent system does protect the little guy.
However, if there were no government enforced monopolies, no one would "win" and no one would "lose," except in the market place. The original inventor would still have the right to persue their invention, persue other ideas to which his/her invention gives rise, etc. And, someone else coming up with the same invention at roughly the same time (a very common occurance historically) would not have the rights to their invention taken from them simply because they lost a footrace to the patent office. Without patents, everyone could play and compete accordingly, and the market, rather than a governmental authority, could decide who "wins" and who doesn't. One of the nice things about the free market is that there are often multiple winners in a given area, a stark contrast to the sole "winner" of a patent.
If the marketplace is too favorable of the big players over the little players, the marketplace can be tweaked with appropriate legislation, the way it was when child labor was rampent, for example. This is the appropriate place to make such adjustments, not granting 20 year monopolies.
[Sound of Applause] (Score:2)
Now if we can get some true patent reform that recognizes the fact that after a while thoughts and algorithms become too ubiquitous to be patentable, the US patent system will finally be halfway decent.
ESR is *not* the right man for the job (Score:5)
As somebody with their hands in both sides of the open source pie, I can honestly say that it's nice to see that the government is responding to criticism from the open source movement. However surely ESR is the wrong person for this kind of thing since he is known for his pro-corporate views and commerce-friendly take on free software.
As a consultant who has worked with several major software houses over the last few years I've been part of the increased uptake of open source solutions into the e-commerce market, doing my bit to promote Linux and other products like Apache to customers for whom scalability is not 100% essential.
Anyway I've talked to some of them over a few beers (expense account of course) and they all seem to say the same thing about the open source luminaries. They are worried about RMS - about his rabidly anti-corporate stance and his Communist philosophy - and would much rather see ESR move into the limelight as he seems extremely sympathetic to companies that want to promote a tech-savvy image in the software market.
So surely ESR is the wrong person to let onto this USPTO committee if we want real change in this area? It seems likely he'll be all bark and no bite, and when it comes to the crunch he'll fold and let the corporations stick it to him in a very private place.
At least RMS wouldn't give in to corporate demands. Of course the fact that he looks like he's been living in a cave in the forest with a bear since the 60s wouldn't help, but it'd still be better for all of us.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
--
Why ESR? (Score:2)
And secondly, what exactly has ESR done to even deserve this anyway? What has he done to deserve any of this? I mean, other then open his big yap, spit some obvious platitudes, and of course try to push is libertarian ideals onto the 'open source' movement.
The majority of those who oppose the death penalty have never been a victim of violent crime -- CNN href=http://www.stileproject.com/pic/?page=pic.ht
Well, it's a step better than RMS (Score:2)
ESR can at least see that other people have opinions that matter as well (except when they come to gun control...)
On the subject of MAC (Score:2)
First let me say, that this was something I one said (here on slashdot about a year ago.. hmm whos readiong my posts?) would make a killer OS. MAC GUI with a UNIX kernel. Their is no denying that UNIX as an OS is stable, it has had over 20 years to get this way. Their is also no denying that Mac makes some really easy to use GUI, after all they were one of the first ones to actually market one. (first apples then macs).
That being said and probably flamed by now. I think that I should state what I think MAC will have to do to get its OS X flying into the masses. The GUI will need to be able to configure everything. I mean everything, else it will be only half done. However you will still need to be able to edit the files manually. This can be done. Linuxconf is a good example of a GUI that can be modified. Although it is not perfect as linuxconf does not do everything people will expect a mac to. I mean when they advertise plug in the phone line and plug in the power and you are connected to the internet, I think people will expect the same of everything else. Just like most mac stuff is supposed to be. EASY. The reason that I say that they will need to let people be able to edit the files is because some people just hate GUI. Since this is based on BSD you will get those command line people, who think that the command line is faster or easier. Well that depends on what you are used to too. Personally I use both but that is another arguemnt.
The next thing that they will have to do is come up with some way of allowing people access to the source code of not just darwin, but also carbon and cocoa and aqua. Either this or be quick to fix bugs that may arrise. And there will be bugs! There is always bugs in software. If they have bugs that do not get fixed they will turn off many developers. My suggestion is that they implement a bugzilla method or something like it where people can search and enter bugs.
That this the end of that rant, and my .02 cents on that subject. On the topic of ESR, I'd have to say good luck. There is a lot of beaurocracy(sp?) in the patent office. Personally I think it needs to become privitized like the US postal service and regulated. I also think that it needs to have more interaction with the outside community. Maybe patent application announcements. When someone files for a patent maybe they should have a message board about this. A place where the public can see what applications have been submitted. Then if someone knows of some relevant prior art there can be a way for this person on the outside to contact the patent examiner or the patent office with this information. If they need to they could implement a screening process of all this data that would flood into their office. money would not be an issue to the USPTO either as they are one of the few goverment agencies that actually make revenues. In the year that I worked their that took in 119 million dollars. 98 million of which billy clinton took to balance the budget. If they were privitized like the post office this would not have happened and the money would have been able to go back into the USPTO. I hope that ESR has some good karma going for him and wish him the best of luck in this endeavor.
send flames > /dev/null
Re:Classic application for the "over-rated" mod (Score:2)
I don't buy it either... (Score:3)
I mean... honestly... I think that we're going to find that *quality* is motivated by money. While we can get ADD programmer types to get interested in linux now, what about when their grandmother is having problems with USB or something? Will we still see programmers interested in programming for a market-saturated product *for free?!* I think that we'll see GPL programmers wanting more interesting things to do, perhaps. Something they can really get glory for.
----
Re:ugh (ot) (Score:2)
The Second Amendment was not a huge mistake. It provides the fail-safe for making sure the rest of the Bill of Rights is respected. You are obviously willing to trust our government and elected officials to respect the Constitution. I don't share your faith. History provides too many examples of benevolent leaders who stopped being benevolent once they stopping fearing the people.
We have enough problems in this country getting the government to respect our rights as it is. It is a strikingly bad idea to unilateraly reduce the power and autonomy of the law-abiding citizens.
You say that you will never surrender your freedom of speech/religion/press. My question is: Once you have surrendered your ability to defend yourself, what choice do you have? How, exactly, will you protect your other freedoms?
I am more than a little insulted at your suggestion that I would "forget" to secure my weapon or shoot someone by mistake. You obviously don't know the first thing about responsible firearms handling or even good defensive tactics. What you DO seem to know is every piece of misinformation and half-truth passed off by ABC News and Time magazine. It amazes me that some people can be so good at spotting anti-Linux bias in a ZDNet article, but can't spot one-sided reporting on guns. Here is an article that explains things far better than I could:
http://www.reasonmag.com/0006/fe.ks
You're damn right the founders of this country were paranoid. After what they went through, they had every reason to be. You are fortunate. You live in a small window in history when most of the freedoms you seem to care about aren't immediately threatened. It is incredibly self-centered and arrogant for you to assume that it has always been this way and will always be this way. You also don't seem to care about the rights other people cherish and that shows a degree of selfishness.
We are approaching a holiday in the United States. It is the anniversary of our independence. Please take the time to really think about what it took to secure your freedom of speech. Think about the price paid by those who came before you.
Faced with a similar situation, would you do what they did? Would you have risk everything to insure that your descendants could enjoy freedom?
Or would you march down to the nearest government office, turn in your weapons, and call for everyone else to do the same? Would you choose an illusion of safety over liberty?
Re:No Patents == The Rich get Richer (Score:2)
Eliminating software patents would be one of the surest ways of ensuring the withering domination of companies with lots of money, especially companies with lots of money and no discernable ethics.
Re:Before you kill patents, know what you're doing (Score:2)
That provides the best of bothe worlds. The extension of patent lifespans has only exacerbated the problem we face. There was no reason to extend their lifespan beyond 17 years, and a lot of reasons why the lifespan should be shorter.
As I see it, there are basically two options: Break the patent system eliminating protections entirely for at least a subset of important inventions, or reform it slightly. I argue the latter can be done via nothing more intrusive than limiting the lifespan of patents in certain high-activity areas.
Re:ugh (ot) (Score:2)
I'm sorry if my rhetoric was lost on you. I was using "me" as a placeholder for "anybody." While I would not become a serial rapist without law enforcement, I'm sure there are many people who would.
What failing of the government are you referring to? The Diallo case? Wouldn't that have gone much better if police didn't have guns? Or maybe if crooks had no way to get guns, the cops wouldn't have shot him because they would have known they weren't at risk.
__________________________________________________ ___
Re:The Patent System is like the Lottery (Score:2)
We do need them. IP imposes an unacceptably high cost to society in nearly every sense: big government oversight and management of mandated monopolies, invitations to excessive litigation and legal thuggary, higher (usually monopolistic) prices to the consumer that far exceed anything research and development costs could ever justify, lost technologies due to lack of research in areas already fenced off by patents, slowed technological growth for many of the same reasons, and stifled industries (again, due to lack of competition).
IP laws may solve the one problem you describe, but in so doing create a host of others. Your cure is far worse than the disease.
A tax exemption for the inventor for twenty years (vs. a monopoly on use) would do much to level the playing field and address the issue you raise, without imposing a government mandated monopoly and stifling both industry and science.
However, even if we simply scrapped IP altogether and made no provision for protecting the small inventor, the result would be a dramatic net gain for everybody as a whole. This worst case isn't necessarilly what we would want, but it would be far better than what we have now: a system that favors the big players regardless, with an occasional bone tossed to a small player for what amounts to propoganda purposes, and does so at a very high cost to everyone else.
amazon (Score:2)
Rader
Re:No Patents == The Rich get Richer (Score:2)
I do not know how much it costs to get or defend a patent.
But with patents if two guys in a garage have an idea they can get venture capital and start a company.
Without patents two guys in a garage are just two guys in a garage. Anyone with money justs takes their idea and implements it.
Doing away with patents does not level the playing field by any stretch of the imagination.
That is not entirely true. In those cases where the cost of building and distributing a product are small, then the lack of patents allows anyone in the game. Combine that with a willingness to forgo monetary gain and it doesn't matter how much money the big boys have.
Any such products spring to mind? (Think flightless Antartic water fowl.)
Perhaps when it is as easy to copy atoms as it is bits, (think StarTrek replicators or Diamond Age type MCs) we couldconsider eliminating patents.
And I believe that we need to reconsider software and genetic patents now. But the simple elimination of all patents might lead to a level playing field only in those cases with low startup costs and a willingness to forgo monetary gain.
SteveM
I too blame the patent office (Score:2)
If the patent office is unable to perform its constitutionally assigned task (however misguided that task may be), then the ethical and appropriate thing for it to do is to shut its doors until it gets the necessary funding and staff.
Destorting markets, hampering industried, and destroying small competative businesses by handing out government mandated and enforced monopolies willy nilly the way it is doing right now is immoral, unethical, reprehensible, and destructive.
The US Patent Office is single handedly gutting the very industry that is arguably responsible for our current record setting economic boom. This cannot and will not go on without serious detrimental economic repercussions. Of course, whoever is president and whichever party is percieved at being in poewr at the time will take the blame, not the patent office, so maybe they (correctly) feel they do not have to care.
Re:Patents/(C) never meant to hurt public good. (Score:2)
Point: altering a molecule slightly (ie adding/subtracting atoms, changing structure) changes the entire chemical principle of the molecule.
Even when dealing with macro molecules (say more than 100 atoms), this is true. cf unsaturated, mono-unsaturated, poly-unsaturated, and partially hydrogenated fats. The difference between these four fats basically amounts to half a dozen molecules and their placement. Yet, unsaturated fat is good for you and the rest are very bad.
Copycat drugs (ie generic) appear on the market after patents expire. As mentioned above, the incentive to innovate (though this is being abused to no end by drug companies and the rest of the health cartel in the US--no amount of patent abuse in the realm of IT comes close to these fat cats) is the knowledge that a drug is theirs to use for 14 years without competition.
Re:ESR is the *best* man for the job (Score:2)
Your post is a perfect example of why we need somebody with a moderate viewpoint to be the first person in. Somebody who can agree to say, "Okay, we feel this is bad, but we'll live with it for now and change it later," rather than, "You want me to use blue ink instead of green? PISS OFF! I'LL NEVER SELL OUT, AND MAKING ANY CHANGE AT ALL WOULD BE SELLING OUT!"
We're not going to get all of our desires overnight, friend. We're not going to completely revamp the entire "system" without also being altered. One step at a time. (Yeah, hey, I admire the uncompromising positions too, but I'd rather get something accomplished.)
Re:ugh (ot) (Score:2)
Most of that time is there because of the appeals process. Appeals take a lot longer in capital-punishment cases because of the stakes. I know, if capital punishment is mandated, I want the judicial system to make damn certain that somebody is guilty of some serious sh!t before they snuff him. The fewer chances for screwups the better.
Any good judicial policy must take into consideration a simple fact: People Make Mistakes.
This is why I oppose the death penalty. At least with a life sentence you've got the rest of somebody's natural life to find exonerating evidence. Add to that the fact that keeping somebody in prison for life is actually cheaper for the public than executing the person (due to the expensive and long, yet very necessary appeals process), I think the choice should be clear. Not only is capital punishment a moral grey area, but it's more expensive than the alternative.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Re:This sounds like a very good thing... (Score:2)
Re:The Patent System is like the Lottery (Score:2)
Yes, American business would have to adjust. Much the same way it had to adjust when 350 years of slavery were ended, when countless centuries of child labor practices were outlawed, when a century of trusts and monopolies were outlawed, and so forth.
If anything, the fact that this absurdity has persisted for so long should be reason for our working harder for change, not shying away from it.
given to the root of the problem -> is it IP law or the way it is executed.
( after all IP was desigend to _protect_ inventors with limited means )
You're right, such dramatic change does require some thought and IMHO a lively debate -- not the rubber stamping most Copyright and Patent Cartel written laws get from congress these days.
I have given it some thought and have reached what I consider to be a well reasoned conclusion, although it certainly sounds dramatic to some, especially those who in the past have never questioned IP law (and I only started seriously questioning it a few years ago).
Patents are basically a government mandated monopoly, with numerous ill-effects that far outweigh whatever advantages the system may offer.
Copyright law is far too draconian and far reaching, and needs to be rolled back to the status it had in the first century of this country (the sharp limits of copyright played no small part in the United States becoming one of the first nations with widespread literacy, it certainly hasn't helped any).
Life + 90 years is, for beings with a limited life span, a "limited" time only in the theoretical sense. For all intensts and purposes to those alive at the time, it is "forever", as everyone will be long dead before the material even has a chance of entering the public domain, assuming Disney et. al. don't purchase another Sony Bono Act in 20 years to extend it again (and they probably will).
Similarly, 20 years from the date of filing for patents is, for nearly every technology in this day and age, an effective eternity, again only a "limited" time in the legally technical, not practical, sense.
Given a choice between our current IP Law and no IP whatsoever, no IP would be highly preferable. I think no patents whatsoever would be highly preferable regardless, while copyright needs to be seriously reworked, with times limited to 15 or 20 years, not life + 90, and with most of the draconian provisions of the DMCA overturned.
Re:Before you kill patents, know what you're doing (Score:2)
You could speculate about having a 'proper' software patent system in which patents are only granted for new and inventive algorithms that required some amount of research. (I'd be opposed to that too BTW - I see no evidence that such research would not be done anyway, without needing to grant a monopoly on the results.) But that's not what we have now, and it's not the choice being offered in places like the EU where lobbyists are pushing for software patents.
The choice is either a broken patent system that damages competition in the software industry, creates a legal minefield for developers, and effectively allows patents on business and educational methods - or no software patents at all, relying on copyright to reward authors.
Before you blame the patent office (Score:4)
"All of our revenues, projected to be 1.2 billion dollars in fiscal year 2001, are paid as fees by the knowledge-based high-tech leaders and individual entrepeneurs who rely on us to help them flourish in this economy. We are no burden to the American taxpayer. Moreover, we use activity-based cost management principles. Our fee revenues relate directly to the work we do. We do not "have a surplus" or "make profit".
The proposed mark would seriously impair our ability to effectively manage our operations and provide our customers with the quality products and services they expect and deserve.
well guys, you're not even doing that NOW.
Since the mark would fund us at 900 million dollars, or about 25% less than the the total fees paid by our customers, we would be forced to make significant modifications to our operations.
i don't blame the uspto one bit for the insanity that is our patent system. i blame the whores in washington who are giving in to lobbying pressure to underfund the patent system.
ESR can yell at them all he likes. maybe he can talk them into denying patents they don't have time to read, rather than granting them. of course, if they do that, they'll probably have to start having bake sales to buy lunch as of the next year's budget.