Linus says Patents are a real problem 148
After Michael Widenius of MySQL denouncing patents,
now it's Linus' turn. During
a panel at LinuxWorld, Linus
said: "I agree that the patents as they stand now are a
real problem. Something should be done to make changes to
the laws, either making software patents a non-issue by not
granting them or making them unenforceable. I don't know
how to do that in the next nine months. Start writing your
letters now and if they get enough, maybe they won't think
you're a crackpot. We need a level-headed person to be an
advocate for this." RMS's comment that "three years
ago, Congress passed a law that doctors aren't restricted
by patent infringements in surgery" shows that writing
your representative might not be a complete waste of time.
You can lookup
your representative here. Thanks to Jean-Paul Smets
for this one.
The equation (Score:1)
I see a big problem (Score:1)
I think the problem is alot of people are getting confused between invention and discovery. Inventions can be patented (as well they should be) whereas discoveries shouldn't. (Hehe, can't you just see Columbus trying to patent the Americas?) People *discover* algorithms, they don't invent them.
Confusion between patents and copyrights (Score:1)
If you write a piece of code, nobody else can copy it unless you let them, that's a fact that I'm sure we all have learned to live with (by inventing the GPL). However, generally you can only patent the algorithms which are used in programs. Obviously (to me anyway) there are several things wrong with this:
1. Algorithms can often be mathematically proven. A mathematical proof is a universal truth, and you can't patent that. After all, you discover truths, you don't invent them. (An invented truth would be a lie
2. Algorithms are obvious. Because the basis of computer science is in mathematics, alot of the algorithms are obvious to the people who are smart enough, no matter how much you pay somebody else to discover it.
3. User-interface patents are really just plain bad. The whole industry supports unity of interface.
4. That pretty much leaves protocols. And it's usually in the inventor's best interest to *NOT* patent the protocol, otherwise somebody else is likely to develop their own to save from paying royalties. Then all we have is a bunch of incompatible protocols floating about.
If anybody can seriously say that we need software patents after reading this, I'd be interested in hearing.
Confusion between patents and copyrights (Score:1)
I think things that should be patented are things that are: 1) Novel and 2) Arbitrary. If the USPTO didn't grant patents for things that didn't match those categories, I'm sure alot of people would be alot happier, and the people who really deserve patents, the inventors of the world, would still be happy.
I think there is something arbitrary about a plow, even though it can be reduced to a lever. However I would certainly endorse a patent on a plow as opposed to a patent on a lever.
I'm not sure I have this idea completely fleshed out, but I think I can almost make an essay out of it.
(From the author) (Score:1)
I write GPLed software myself and I find it _very_ hard to assume I _must_ be allowed total freedom to use the work of dozens (?) of programmers over a course of years, _without_ their consent. It seems absurd to me that there can even be an argument- if people have a reason to opt out of open source completely then that must be respected...
Contrast this to the pranks of a Microsoft trying to patent 'a URL' or 'a menu item that is context sensitive' or some such nonsense. Can't you _see_ that there are two different things here? It seems absolutely outrageous that anyone would defend just _stealing_ code mindlessly from this admittedly very proprietary company. How can it be right to just rip that, not understand it, not bother to learn it, not be able to maintain it, just _rip_ it and release a knockoff that uses the _engine_ of the proprietary code, unchanged? Doesn't it sound like this is a very complicated set of algorithms to do what's being hinted at, like it's not so much a mathematical truth but a series of design decisions and compromises with years of tailoring to adjust it to where it starts to really click- and _this_ is what's ripped, not some general concept like 'speech recognition', that would be totally fine.
There has _got_ to be a distinction here, the amount of fiddly detail in this company's pricey product must be orders of magnitude greater than the rip-off patent abuses like 'method of depicting an illustrated button to activate program code from clicking with a mouse' and such tripe. Doesn't it seem different, isn't it sort of startling to hear that the brave resourceful copying programmer didn't _understand_ what was being copied, or even _try_ to understand it? What's up with that? Is it really okay to not even try to work and innovate and develop stuff, is it that beneficial to leech off of people who are willing to put in the time and resources?
Only, in my opinion, if the people putting in the resources are consciously choosing to go some open source route in hopes others will follow their lead... otherwise this is itself a horrible abuse. People must _consent_ to have their ideas shared and copied and proliferated... there are _reasons_ to consent to this, social and pragmatic and personal reasons, but the second you start going terrorist with it, well, how is this different from Microsoft ripping all the Linux code and using whatever they want in proprietary stuff, then having their lawyers stomp on whoever the FSF can afford so that all open source becomes a sick joke and just means 'public domain'?
How is this different from stepping all over the boundaries of _proprietary_ coders? You _have_ to respect those boundaries to even hope to get any respect in return.
To the anonymous proprietary poster: I hope, someday, some free software alternative grows to rival or approach what you people sell commercially. I hope someone codes this. I'll tell you right now, _I_ am not coding this, or even trying to. Why? I absolutely cannot spare the time or resources to attempt such an undertaking- I'm not that good and if I was I still wouldn't be able to put in the legwork, all by myself, to get together a competitive product...
...and this is, in fact, your point, isn't it? Well, consider it a point well taken.
where's the line? (Score:1)
Bingo!
A heuristic is not an algorithm or a mathematical truth. Not even slightly... a heuristic is an assumption or method of making decisions or approach to a problem. A heuristic is _style_. A heuristic is _implementation_, not theory. If theory was perfect and everything was mathematics we wouldn't _need_ heuristics, we'd just look up the answer and go on...
And _this_ is the type of thing which it makes some kind of sense to have idea patents. It's not pure theory- it's a method, _style_, an angle of attack on a problem which is NOT A UNIQUE APPROACH but which might be so artistic an approach that all other methods seem klugey. _That_ is what patents are for, not to stop everyone from whole fields of endeavor, but to provide a payoff for people who can come up with these brilliant strokes of virtuosity, and it's all style, it's all about style and implementation. Nowhere is it necessary to patent math- or, worse, to patent types of computer program that might be written- if you can patent particular virtuosic implementations that just plain outperform the regular ways of doing things.
Heuristics are totally the right angle of attack on the patent problem- maybe I should patent this argument
Seriously... heuristics are the key idea here- read up on expert systems and look into what heuristics are (they ain't simply mathematical formulae, they are _value_ judgements and not just a matter of right and wrong algorithm) and think about that. Heuristics are never truth: they are opinion, and a wise opinion is worth anything.
I don't see the big problem (Score:1)
What you can do about patents (Score:1)
Let Evil Co. have its patent. The question is whether anyone else, say dude2, who wants to use the idea is blocked from doing so. Dude2 can always claim "but I just got the idea from this article", or "I just read this here source code".
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. If Evil Co. gets a patent on the software, then they can enforce that patent in court. Do you think dude2 wants to risk getting sued by Evil Co? I sure wouldn't. The thing about software patents is that they aren't like a copyright. With a copyright, you prevent people from stealing your code and using it in their product. With a patent, you just prevent people from implementing your idea (or an idea you found somewhere). They don't have to use the same code to be infringing on the patent. IANAL, so if someone else can correct or clarify this, you're welcome to do so. This is how I understand the situation to be though.
True, except for that last bit... (Score:1)
What good is it to have a 20 year old idea relating to computers and software get into the public domain? If we've lived without the idea for that long, or only bought software from the company that owns that patent, then how has it helped innovation? Software inventors can't keep their ideas secret. If they want to make money from their software, they have to sell the software. When someone learns what the software can do, it can be recreated.
As far as I can tell, there has never been any need for an incentive to develop new software. It will be done with or without patents. The whole idea of patents just doesn't work with software and the government needs to realize this rather than just blindly doing what business wants. They are not helping to promote innovation.
I haven't seen anything truly unique, difficult, or innovative being patented lately. Mostly just vague notions that companies come up with like "using a database to store information for online commerce taking place in a network environment over phone lines" or some such crap. They are being BADLY ABUSED and since the government can't or won't do anything to address the abuses, they should simply stop allowing software patents. All software patents should be declared null and void. Even if this requires refunding patent fees. It will be worth it in the long run. The 20 year term of a patent is ridiculously long for software. That's like a 200 year patent on any other invention. If they are going to allow software patents, they should only last for 2 or 3 years at most.
Why a patent? (Score:1)
We _must_still_ protect the legitimate ideas of inventors and programmers with the ability to patent thier ideas. Let's suppose that I came up with the next super-cool K-rad encryption algorythm. Sure I may be able to get a product out first, but what's to prevent a powerful, industry leading company from *integerating* _MY_ idea into thier next release, muscling me out of the market.
Actually, you would simply copyright your algorithm and then the company that wanted to use it would have to pay you royalties. Patents should not apply to software. An algorithm is not an invention, it's a mathmatical discovery. I agree that you should get the credit for the discovery and should be allowed to reap the benefits. That's why you would simply copyright it. I don't see any reason for a patent in your example.
Let's talk about a REAL COMPANY (Score:1)
Without knowing what your software does, it would be difficult to argue anything about it, let alone that 2 guys working evenings and weekends could do better.
On the other hand, if you want to be abstract about it, I would say that the guy that took your base code and produced a program that worked "a zillion times better" due to his interface ideas was benefiting consumers more than a government enforced patent on something that may or may not be reproduceable in some other way. Btw, are you now implementing any of the interface ideas that the guy used in the program that he made using your ideas? If you can't honestly answer "no" to that question, then I don't think you get any right to complain about other people stealing your ideas. Patents or no patents, you are either for or against taking other people's ideas and using them in your own software. Which is it?
Well put... (Score:1)
I am just now getting a chance to respond to some of the posts in here, but I don't think I could have said it better myself. Thanks.
they should protect the little people (Score:1)
Not just reform minor points. Patents are fine for some industries. I think there should be a new form of protection for the software industry. Something like a patent, but that will last for maybe 3 years and probably have a few other restrictions placed on it as well. I'm trying to figure out the details...
Why a patent? (Score:1)
You say that fifteen programs that do the same thing must use the same algorithm. If that is true, then it's not an invention, it's a law. Like gravity or any mathematical rule you care to name, it isn't created, it is a truth that is discovered. Now I will agree that it takes knowledge and creativity to push the limits in certain areas in order to discover new truths, but if there is only one way of doing something according to the laws of mathematics or physics, the method should not be able to be patented. An invention that is derived from this discovery might patentable, but not the discovery itself. I'm trying to figure out a better way of doing patents anyway, so I may change my mind on some points if I am persuaded by a good argument.
(Original author) Try thinking about it this way (Score:1)
Okay, I think you argued your point pretty well. I don't think your argument defends patents as they exist today very well, but you do make a point that there has to be some incentive or guarantee that you will have an opportunity to profit from your research if it produces something useful in order for real innovation to occur. That I can agree with.
Now the only issue is whether the current system of patents actually works. I don't believe it does. I'm trying to come up with an alternative that is fair to all involved. Not sure if I'll post it here or somewhere else yet.
Give me an example please... (Score:1)
How about Microsoft patenting CSS. The ideas have been around for years and the W3C (which MS is a member of) was working on the standards and Microsoft just decided to go patent it. Even if they do license it for free, it's still wrong for them to own the patent on something that they didn't invent or even buy and for which examples of prior art exist. It doesn't mean that software patents are evil, but that the current system is woefully inadequate to deal with them due to lack of resources and lack of patent researchers/inspectors (whatever the people at the USPTO are called) who are knowledgeable about computers and software engineering. Basically all the good software engineers can get better (and better paying) jobs, so there aren't any knowledgeable people willing to work for the patent office.
Oh yeah... (Score:1)
Tell them to cut the lifespan of software patents down drastically as well. As someone else here stated, "20 years is several lifetimes in the computer industry"(paraphrased). They should last less than 5 years. I think 3 would be ideal.
No kidding. (Score:1)
Software patents, giving psychiatrists a run at "vague"
You seem confused (Score:1)
If the programmer decompiled the program and used that in his product then he could be sued for breach of copyright. Obsfucation products exist, you guys should use them. If an algorithm is genuinely difficult to discover, keep it secret, make sure everybody signs non-disclosure agreements, and you will make plenty of money before anyone can replicate it. Software patents are only beneficial to companies with ideas that CAN be easily rediscovered by someone else.
BTW, I am a hypocrite - I am named as inventor on 5 software patents (taken out by my previous employer) but I'm not proud of it. Some of these ideas were non-obvious but patents are still unnecessary. The protection for a good idea is that it would take a long time for someone else to rediscover it. Many of my ideas that were patented took about 5 minutes to come up with - any competent developer faced with the same problem would come up with these ideas.
You make a good argument that software patents are sometimes necessary, but in their current form, they do much more harm than good.
Good points (Score:1)
Your point about if you know the algorithms exist then you can look for them while it takes more guts to do the pure research when you're not even sure a solution is feasible is a very good one.
Although you didn't go into it I also have to admit that NDAs don't really work anyway - what if some Japanese firm hires a couple of programmers - try suing them in Japan - good luck.
I think we're mostly in agreement on this. Software patents in their current form are daft, but they are beneficial in some circumstances. They are SO bad right now though that the industry would be better off without them. If the non-obvious criteria was tightened up HUGELY and length was reduced to 5 years max, I would be more in favor of them.
Self defeating argument (Score:1)
You conclude a post about how you were violated by someone selling a product which you admit was better than yours for less than yours with the statement that in 20 years Free Software will still be where commercial software is now. I find this rather odd not only because I think it's already ahead of commercial software in many aspects, but also because you have just argued that somebody was beating the pants off of you until you used patents to step in and keep your inferior, overpriced software in a stagnent, non-competitive environment.
Apology (Score:1)
I do however think that the only reason free (as in freedom) software would take 20 years to catch up would be a lack of interest (both among developers and corporations). I work in Telecomm, and I know that if copyrights went away tomorrow my company would still employ a whole bunch of programmers to write software to run on their products. My housemate is right now being paid to write free security software. Just because the software is free, that doesn't mean you can't get paid for it.
To clarify my actual position on software patents I think that they should still exist, but they should not be issued except in the instance of a specific algorithm (a specific way to do CSS, and not the concept of CSS) that is non-obvious and they should only last 2-7 years. I also think that a patented algorithm should never be used in an open standard (like MP3). If patents went away completely I think it would hurt the market, but I don't think it would be devastating. (Devastating to some current markets, not to R&D as a whole)
Software patents are NOT a BIG problem (Score:1)
Right on! We should be giving more software patents out! We should be encouraging more monopolies in the industry! That'll get the free market going! Sure as hell would make my job easier if I had to pay exhorbitant licensing fees everytime I write a line of code! Screw people who enjoy programming and appreciate freedom! We have businesses to run!
You're both really very funny (Score:1)
No they don't.
Fact is, patents (and in particular software patents) are bad for the consumer and usually help large companies more than small ones or individual inventors. Ideas and innovation don't exist in a vaccum; all ideas build on a heritage. It's impossible for an inventor to stand on the shoulders of giants when only other giants can afford it. I can't build an insanely great Quicktime player because I can't afford the patent fees for the codecs. Free software doesn't exist if all technology is patented away.
I'm fairly certain that if patent laws were to be repealed tomorrow, IBM would still be standing and you and I would be much better off.
You're both really very funny (Score:1)
I'm sorry it took so long to reply to this. I had most of a reply written out last night when Netscape ate itself. I was too tired to redo the whole thing then.
You said it yourself (emphasis mine):
To be more clear: I'm not saying that patents never protect the little guy. I'm just saying that the protection is hardly reliable. Big companies like Microsoft still can and do use strong-arm tactics to get what they want. You brought up the Apple example, and their hardly little guys.
You're one of the lucky few. Most companies claim all IP rights to their employees' ideas.
This is where we have a disconnect. Obviously if ideas aren't treated (and protected) like physical property, you can't buy and sell them. Ideas don't behave like physical property, and therefore I don't consider intellectual property to be a valid concept.
People who have great ideas are valuable. I don't want to buy a great idea, I want to have people who come up with great ideas working for me. Sure, other people may be able to use those ideas too, but I'll get the best access to them, and I can ensure that the idea-generators are working in my interest. Look at law: lawyers can't patent their lines of argument. The difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer (you can read that as "highly-paid lawyer and less highly-paid lawyer") isn't that the good lawyer has strict control over the best lines of argument. It's that the good lawyer has the best knowledge of law and the effective use of argument, and has the best chances of being able to use or create effective arguments. Software is not really all that different.
You're approaching this from the perspective of an inventor. I'm approaching it from the perspective of a consumer. All inventors are also consumers, but the reverse is not true. This means that, although you benefit from your own patents, you also suffer somewhat (along with everyone else) because of others' patents.
The issue is one of relative versus absolute benefit. Having a patent may put you in a better position within society, but having no patents puts society itself in a better position. The licence fees you get from your patents may give you a higher standard of living than your less inventive neighbor, but allowing ideas to be used freely will make the general standard of living for everyone (inventors included) higher. To put it into more concrete terms: How much of your income is coming from patent fees and how much of it goes into fees for other patents (and this includes patent fees paid by other companies that are included in the price of products you buy)? It's impossible to calculate, of course, and I'm not positive that it works out to more total cost than benefit, but the question is rarely asked and very important.
Can't argue there :-)
Let me emphasize that it's not always (or even usually) the creator who benefits most from IP laws. Most creators have lawyers, managers, publishers, etc. Often the creators don't have the property rights, having signed them over to their publishers (i.e., large companies). Big business really does have the upper hand here. Do you remember what happened with the Beatles back catalog? Michael Jackson was able to outbid Paul McCartney for the rights to his own songs. Now Jackson collects the royalties.
The flip side of that: "if I want other peoples' ideas to benefit me, I have to admit that my ideas should benefit them." The question is whether we gain more than we lose by allowing restrictions on the use of information.
Well, I'm not sure that I believe that you can't get recognition without a patent. Good ideas tend to stand out on their own merit. Getting money from it is tricky, but let me reiterate my two main points: 1) As a creator of good ideas, you as a person have value greater than the sum of those ideas (and this is speaking of strictly financial value here) and smart people/companies realize this; 2) The benefits of a patent to a patent-holder are obvious because it increases his or her relative wealth in the society, whereas the benefits of a patent-free society are subtle because they increase the general standard of living for everyone. So the inability to get paid for use of your ideas in the absence of patents is a red herring of sorts.
Well I'm the last person to want big companies to benefit at the cost of the individual. But I'm not sure that patents prevent this, or that the lack of patents makes it easier. Using a term like "steal" is loaded and betrays your assumption that ideas are like physical property. If you just say that large companies are reusing ideas created by individuals, then you still have to demonstrate that this harms the individuals more than it does when you restrict everyone's ability to freely use information and ideas.
more logic, please... (Score:1)
One guy was able to reverse engineer your product and build a work-alike. One guy. Assuming that he didn't steal your code wholesale (which would be an entirely different issue), it is safe to assume that the code one person writes is less complex than code written by a passel of semi-coordinated coders. More consistent code, produced faster, at less cost (he was able to sell for 25% of your cost), with the same or better functionality. Nope, no innovation there. I would argue that this guy could counter your algorythm patent with a method patent.
You admitted "his user interface was like a zillion times better than ours was" Nope. No innovation there either. I would posit that an unusuable product (yours), no matter how much genius is embedded under the covers, is basically worthless. This opens the door for innovation in the human-computer interface arena.
Your argument about patents and time basically says that the state of the art for your field is based on your single set of patents. One of the most positive traits of sucessful systems is that there is always more than one way to get a task done. If you limit yourself to the view that your discovery is the only way to skin a cat, you end up with a lot of skinned cats, but not much progress in the cat-skinning technology. Your very declaration (patent) cuts you off from the greater community that could spur still greater discovery. Someone else always find a better way, and you end up one stuck behind the curve, with a patent for cold fusion, or some similar state of fuddy-duddy-ness.
where's the line? (Score:1)
A surgeon can safely ignore a patented method because a life might be at risk. That answers a question of "why", and at the same time preserves the idea that innovators deserve some recognition. (Cleverly sidestepping the issue of ownership.)
But in the case of software, there's the issue of obviousness and fundamental truths. US Patent law says that your patent should be for something that isn't obvious. But a piece of code is closely related to an algorythm (or even an heuristic), and those are closely related to mathematical proofs. A proof is a truth. How can I patent a truth? How can I patent a line of reasoning to a truth (a proof) that by its very nature is designed to make the truth obvious? How can I patent a mathematical method that implements a truth? What happens to software based on this method?
When you follow this line of reasoning back to software, it's obvious imho that there is some point at which there is a transition, and it becomes reasonable to identify a person or group of people with an idea. Whether that connotes ownership is debatable, of course, but as you travel the line between a mathematical truth and a software implementation, there is a point before which no person or group should have control of a basic idea, method, or truth.
Where do you think it is?
where's the line? (Score:1)
So, I disagree. While it's true that a heuristic is not an algorythm or a truth, it is a fuzzy approximation of same: algorythm vs method, truth vs best choice. I don't think you can distinguish so cleanly between them.
Worse is better. (Score:1)
What are we talking, optimization software, layout, simulation?
Should it have a nice GNOME interface?
Software patents and free markets (Score:1)
-----
Software patents are a BIG problem (Score:1)
The problem is that as new technologies are patented, free software is effectively locked out of them for 20 years (it used to be 17, but an international treaty makes it 20 now). The owner of a patent can charge us a license fee that effectively makes free software not free any longer. The patent owner can also refuse to license the patent, and they can sue us for an infringement that has already taken place - so I could be sued for principles that are used in my free software today.
As a volunteer contributor of free software, I can't afford an expensive lawsuit with a deep-pockets corporation as the plaintiff. Something must be done about this if free software is to continue to be viable in the future.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
No Subject Given (Score:1)
I certainly don't.
That's the first I've heard of it. It looks like a conventional monolithic Unix kernel to me, and I'm sure Linus would say the same.
Oh, aren't we supposed to use GNU software then? I don't think Linus ever claimed to be responsible for any of that, even if users and distributors have blurred the line.
The glorious revolutionaries behind your-choice-of-BSD are probably much better leaders than Linus, who hasn't achieved any splits so far.
Still time to sign the petition (Score:1)
So far, over 2,600 folks have signed. Sorry, the site doesn't allow non-American folk to sign. Not my fault.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Let's put this in perspective (Score:1)
The way to show the folly of software patents is to show that software patents usually attempt to "patent" obvious things. Such as using XOR to draw on a screen, or paying to download music.
Then again, our legal system is designed to make put pour as much money as possible in to the courts and lawyers.
- Sam Trenholme
(From the author) (Score:1)
You seem to have a good grasp of patents, software and their interactions, and I'd like to pass an idea before your eyes:
What if patents expired when someone improved on the idea? You say you spent millions on your ideas, and they required a good understanding of your field. I agree that your research investment requires protection from people stealing those ideas. But what if someone else comes with a product which adds to yours? Should they be denied access to your thinking? If their addition is minor and obvious then surely you should have thought of it? If their ideas require a deep understanding of the field, and they have out thought you, then shouldn't they get recognition?
I've been thinking of this as a means of allowing patent protection to prevent carbon copy software. It protects your research but forces you to stay at the cutting edge in your field, else the competition takes the prize, and what you have falls into the public domain (although it would still be protected by copyright). It also renders silly patents, like microsoft's style sheets patent, useless since a freeware developer, or W3C can improve trivially on the idea, and freely licence the intellectual property. It would then remain in the public domain, but someone else with a really clever idea which builds on it could still get a patent. It also means that the 20 year time period would self adjust to the pace of development in whatever field the patent was taken out in.
-Jeremy
I plan to make money, not steal from people (Score:1)
Imagine if Microsoft patented the concept of a "window". There would be evidence for prior work in this area, but just for argument's sake, let's say that's what they did.
Patenting that wouldn't make us OSS people say, "Gee whiz, look at that cool MicroSoft technology. Guess we're just all gonna hafta buy Windows and run it now, 'cause we can only use the console"
It would mean that a lot of software business would go out of the country, that MS would rule the home desktop COMPLETELY, and that everyone would be beholden to them.
Until, of course, the patent expired, and years of seething hatred for the company that had restricted creativity through irresponsable licensing fees and patent law rushed out and swept them from the market completely.
Of course, this has happened before. Binary XOR anyone?
--glyph
I am certainly glad all software is not OSS. (Score:1)
an operating system and its attendant utilities?
Monkey see acronym. Monkey repeat acronym.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Open Source Patents (Score:1)
If the algorithms themselves were patented, then we could set any price we want for licensing those technologies to companies. A small company developing some product might have to make a donation to the FSF, or donate X hours of a workers time to helping the community. Perhaps the biggest win for us would be exchanges with large companies who would really benefit from algorithms developed within the open source community. We can say, we will make this algorithm free to everyone, if you do the same with such and such a patent.
What we would need would be a project which manages the intellectual property of the open source community. This project would aim to ensure that the only one's using the patented algorithms are open source projects or those who have made specific arrangements with the project.
Microsoft in particular is going to use its intellectual property as a weapon against open source software. They will patent every silly thing they can, and use their enormous resources to enforce them. Some of these patents will (and do) be very simple and fundamental to the software we develop. And sometimes we won't be able to conceive of alternatives which are as good.
In short, we can have some real bargaining power, and beat these guys at their own game, or we can moan a lot. Getting rid of software patents is just too much of a big ask. Given that many people in the open source community are university researchers, we would definitely have an edge over the competition in terms of innovation.
Software patents ARE a BIG problem (Score:1)
You probably also think it's great that Microsoft has a monopoly. Because that's what this is about. If a certain company can grab a couple of strategic patents, it will become a monopoly.
Patents.
Create.
Monopolies.
I mean, it takes 20 years for a patent to expire. 20 years. That's the IBM PC. Hell, that's Microsoft!
And it's not just driving hobbyists out of business, but competitors as well. If a competitor can't touch an idea for 20 years, there _will be_ no competition.
Hey if you happen to work for the competition, you might even lose your job. Then what will you do?
You're both really very funny (Score:1)
You said it yourself, Big Companies (MS in this case) don't innovate, they buy. So a small software house develops something really great and patents it. Big Company wants to use it, so they want to buy it. Small Guy isn't selling. Big Company buys Small Guy instead. It's how things work...
If it's a useful patent some big guy will want to have it, and pay for it. And once they have it they will defend it with all their power. Patents gravitate towards big companies.
Now I'm not saying that patents should be abolished completely. No. But they do have to change. A 20 year expiration date is just way too long in this field. In 20 years time, the patented idea is horrendously outdated anyway. (Well, most of the time they are.)
Not quite (Score:1)
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user, Jon Katz hater: bite me!
Good article (Score:1)
Maintaining high living standards through innovation, strong patents by Richard C. Hsu.
http://www.acm.org/pubs/articles/journals/cacm/
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user, Jon Katz hater: bite me!
Oof! Three dollars per article. (Score:1)
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user, Jon Katz hater: bite me!
You're both really very funny (Score:1)
>Tim Moore Said...
>>No they don't.
>If you want me to take this statement right here seriously you'll
>have to present some argument to the contrary. I have come up
>with two patents for the company I work for (and recieved a significant
>amount of recognition (and money) for them.) They were both new ways of
>applying really old mathematical constructs in a very narrow context.
Then it really isn't your idea is it? It's an idea that you stole from
some old mathematicians but lemme guess, they don't see dime one.
>If I'd desired, when I came up with these two patents I could have instead
>quit my job here and filed for both, then offered to sell them to my former
>employer. I considered it at the time, and went to talk to my boss. He told
>me what I could expect if I did that, and I weighed my options, and decided
>not to.
Actually, you couldn't. Your employer owns your ideas. They aren't paying you
because you`re a snappy dresser. You can no more take ideas from your company
and sell them to others than you could take the shoes you made in a factory
and sell them.
[snip]
>Try selling a great idea that's not patented to IBM? They'll ask for details
>and then tell you they'll get back to you. Nobody buys a pig in a poke, and
>once you've told them what it is, why, they don't need to license it any more,
>do they?
This is what contract law is for. Idea's for movie scripts cannot be patented
(yet). However Art Buchwald (or someone with a correctly spelled name) managed
to win a dumptruck full of money from a big movie studio for telling them that
they should make a movie about Eddie Murphy as a prince who must go to New York
and "get down with the brothers".
>>I'm fairly certain that if patent laws were to be repealed tomorrow, IBM
>> would still be standing and you and I would be much better off.
>I'll believe the bit about IBM standing. In fact, I suspect IBM might be one
> of the few that was better off. I don't buy the bit about me being better off.
The people who would be better off are those who not only come up with their
own ideas, but also implement them. In addition the people who like to see good
ideas actually used to improve their lives would be better off. On the other
hand if you feel that people who include video in a video game, or transport
music on the Internet owe you a living then patents are great.
>You make some good points, though. It *is* damned difficult to build something
>great if what you're building requires a lot of patent/license hoopla. And that
>*is* bad.
>However, it is also bad that if a company wants to reprint a picture of a work
>of art, they have to contact the piece's owner (or creator, depending on the
>contracts signed) for permission, and possibly a royalty fee, first.
>Why? Because it limits the proliferation of art. Because it puts limits on
>free trade and the free exchange of information and ideas.
And yet that artist does not have to pay anyone for the right to create an
original work. George Lucas can have sinister music play in his movies
whenever Vader enters the scene, and not pay a royalty to all the people who
have used music to set an emotional tone throughout recorded history. Yet,
if my game does the exact same thing, I owe Lucas Arts some money, or I may
even be forbidden from doing so at all.
>But in this case the limitation on the public's desire to see art is acceptable
>(to me), because the person who created it is deemed to have the right to
>control when and if these pieces are used, INCLUDING the right to sell this
>right to someone else if they so choose.
That's copyright, not patent. Copyright means no-one can use what you create
without your permission. Patent means no-one can create without your permission
>The problem is, if I want my ideas to benefit me, I have to admit that other
>peoples' ideas should benefit them. Now, personally I believe that people
>doing things because they're cool and for no personal benefit is a great thing,
>and I've done a bit of it myself upon occasion. But at the end of the day, if I
>have a staggeringly exciting idea, I want to get some recognition for it, and
>if it's saleable I want to get some money from it. And without patents it's
>just plain unlikely that I would do so. Big companies can already too easily
>steal from brilliant individuals; I don't think we should make it easier than
>it already is.
Patents make it easier to attract investment, as this is a useful asset that
persists even if the company tanks. It is also easier to collect damages if
you find that someone is using your idea, but they got that idea from someone
else you told. In theory publication is improved, although CS has a long and
robust tradition of publication. What you give up is a new way for people to
steal your ideas. Forbid them to think of them in the first place, or deny
required supporting ideas. You also require a large legal investment that will
kill what small software companies might escape Microsoft.
Let's talk about the intentionally obtuse (Score:1)
I think the fact that digital information of _any kind_ can be duplicated exactly and distributed at zero cost, serves to demonstrate how much that information is _actually_ worth.
Companies artificially give their information worth by patenting it, not by first spending to research it. All the money spent on research in the world does not make information worth money.
Only when companies realize how inherently worthless their information is will we begin to see some change in the way things work in this country, and throughout the world.
People will then write software whose primary purpose is to be used, not software whose primary purpose is to be sold.
Let's put this in perspective (Score:1)
Request to Bruce Perens (Score:1)
How many of the loudmouth ACs here who don't think that patents matter have seen many GIFs on the web recently, for example. Wanna know why? There is this little matter of the Unisys patent claim on LZW compression, that's why (one of the points Bruce mentioned).
Microsoft's patent claim on cascading style sheets might or might not matter, but the fact is, the gates have been flung open by the PTO and we are already sliding down the slippery slope. This is a sleeper issue and few people seem to be paying enough attention to it.
The other comment Bruce made Thursday is about the looming internationalization of this and other intellectual property issues. Even though Bruce is wrong about no-code licensing for ham radio (sorry, had to get that in), his point about being basically unable to even raise the issue effectively before an international forum is correct. Patent rights are now entangled with, among other things, the ongoing development of GATT and the World Trade Organization and, get this, the biodiversity treaty first launched at the Rio world environmental conference in 1992. The reason for that is Monsanto and other companies paving the way for patenting gene sequences in their plants, fertilizers and insecticides (and you thought Microsoft had a plan for world domination! hah! ever think about where your *dinner* comes from?!?!).
By the way, this would be a very good time for the open source folk to talk with the organic ag folk. We will need to GPL genetic sequences real soon, or else the likes of Monsanto will own most if not all of the genetic material for food production within your lifetime. They've even developed a product called the Terminator which prevents seeds from regerminating, thus forcing farmers to re-buy seeds from them every year.
Don't stop with GNOME, folks. Think genome.
--------
A question for the developer (Score:1)
My question is, from what you know, how easy/hard was it for the average Joe with a disassembler and some time to kill to decompile your product, to the point where he could make it into another?
For OSS-goers, binary code is assumed to be a black box, but as your case shows, it isn't quite as black as it might be.
More to the point, would it be possible to build some sort of compiler add-on which would, in a sense, obfuscate the compiled code? i.e. add jumps all over the place, encrypt whole blocks of instructions, etc. etc., in a way that would make binary disassembly more difficult by several orders of magnitude? to the point of sheer impossibility?
(in a way that would not adversely affect performance, of course. I think it can be assumed that a compiler-level tool could generate better spaghetti code than a human programmer).
If binaries can really be made as impenetrable as everyone assumes they are, it would then be sufficient for an enterprising company not to publish their algorithms, nor other details of their implementation. At least then IP laws could regain the "independent re-creation" provision (as similar to that of copyright) without adverse effect, and all the worry of patents stifling innovation would be laid to rest.
In your case, some joe stole your code, which I can agree is wrong. But if some other joe were to perform similar research as your company has, and completely independently develop his own approach which may by chance have a few similarities to yours, current IP law would be very unkind to him. And that, I think, is also wrong.
We need a change.
What you can do about patents (Score:1)
If you have a great idea, publish it or demo it fast. Then no one can patent the idea. The right to patent an idea expires one year after public disclosure.
What you can do about patents (Score:1)
The worrisome case is: what happens if dude2 works for a reasonably large company, that Evil Co. perceives as a threat? Can Evil Co. really sue? Is the public availability of the idea enough to get the case thrown out? I don't know. Any IP lawyers out there?
Software patents are a BIG problem (Score:1)
Suing you would be completely ineffectual. You can't compensate the patent's owner, and you can't fix the problem either, since you don't own the source code.
Who exactly would the patent owner sue? The only answer that makes sense to me is: some company that competes with the patent owner, and which uses the open-source software that contains the patented idea. (But who ever said that patent law makes sense?)
There already is a petition on ethepeople (Score:1)
It has about 2600 signatures.
I see a big problem (Score:1)
Even for inventions, what is patented is _not_ a physical manifestation, but rather the plans, processes, or ideas involved--- the _algorithm_.
Otherwise the concept is meaningless; somebody building a different widget with the same plan wouldn't fall under the patent.
Further, the idea of algorithms as "discovery" is less convincing when you realize that many published algorithms (and theorems) turn out to be incorrect. If I have really "discovered" something in the Platonic realm, wouldn't it be correct? Proof gives only better certainty, not absolute certainty.
You Know... (Score:1)
Software will probably stabalize somewhat at some point, but it's not about a specific "product"; it's a whole new world of innovation. I think we're a good long ways away from that stabilization. Meanwhile (for the next 20 years at least, most likely), 20 years is far too long.
Let's talk about a REAL COMPANY (Score:1)
This is an interesting idea. I know it wouldn't go over well with the GNU folks since there couldn't be GPL'd, but supposing someone set up a site for software that violates patents posted anonymously? Can you be arrested for trafficking in software that violates patents? Would you be forced to name names?
Software Patents (Score:1)
This is NOT a simple issue at all.
As far as the question of prior publication - if the idea has been published, that's an absolute bar to having a valid enforceable patent. If you publish in the US you have 1 year to file a patent IN THE US. You lose all patent rights outside the US immediately if you publish. This can take strange forms - for example a fellow once lost patent rights to a new kind of harvester because he had a picture of it published in a local newspaper a year before the application was filed. If you can point to prior publication you can have a patent re-examined and maybe thrown out. If you can prove the patentee knew about the prior publication and failed to disclose it to the Patent Office you might even get the patenteee brought up on patent fraud charges. (Yes, this does happen).
Personally I think patents are in general a good thing - they allow companies that invest a lot of money in R&D to recoup that investment. The great progress in modern pharmaceuticals we have today would not be possible without patent protection - bringing new drugs to market is a multibillion dollar investment. There are many other fields where patents rights ar an important incentive towards encouraging real progress.
They also encourage the open publication of a lot of technology that would be kept secret otherwise to protect a commercial advantage. This second concept is the real reason for the patent system in the first place - in exchange for open publication of a new technology, rights for exclusive use of the technology are granted. This in fact is giving inventors an incentive to 'Open Source' their technology for the good of all society. Otherwise people would keep everthing as trade secrets (encypted binary) that in fact might get lost on the demise of a company or individual.
The problem is that this is not working in the software industry. Exclusive rights are being given for non-inventions. Patents are supposed to have three qualities - novelty, utility and unobviousness. There needs to be some meat in the publication in exchange for that exclusive right to practice the invention. I think that the vast majority of software patents fail on the first and third points - novelty and unobviousness. At this point I think there are very few truly new ideas in software development - a new data transfer protocol that REALLY is novel is unlikely, and I certainly feel that any process of translating an algorithm is obvious - but certainly new algorithms are being developed BUT according to patent law you can't actually patent a mathematical algorithm. Unfortuantely the patent office doesn't agree with me (or others) on this issue, so legislation might be needed. IMHO it's really a work in progress, so complaints really are needed - the patent office IS subject to whining. Do write your Congressman.
The problem with patent legislation is that there are also international treaties involved that essentially bring the various signers into agreement on what is patentable.
For example there are many countries who don't like pharma patents, but might have signed in exchange for some other issue. If you throw out software patent they might say, OK we are not going to respect your drug patents.
Also - the respondee that mentioned that patent examiners just have a quota to grant is incorrect. Examiners have a quota to inspect, and their grant to reject ratio is also monitored. However patent examiners work in specific technical specialties - yuou may have one in polymer science and another in software technology - both might be expected to examine 5 patents a day, and grant 2. The 2 that get granted though are somewhat of a crap shoot. It may depend on the bitchiness of the examiner that day, whether or not the author is known to the examiner from previous work [let me tell you - after you get 5 patents in a certain field, that 6th one comes a little easier - the patent office has made You the authority now
Software patents are a BIG problem (Score:1)
Software patents and free markets (Score:1)
If you don't believe me, take a look at 19th century industrial history in the United States as an example of what 'free markets' can bring. I don't think that many people would want to return to the days of the Chicago Shirt Waist Factory.
Don't forget disk compression (Score:1)
The fact is that if you ignore patents you can get burnt big time. Billions can be at stake. Kodak's instant cameras, and a Pennzoil lawsuit are two examples that ended up costing billions to the loser.