Slashdot Mirror

This issue has to do with patent law, not copyright law. So it's important to look at how Microsoft uses patent law to appear to be conciliatory while retaining considerable power. Microsoft has already demonstrated a preference for what Richard Stallman rightly calls "pushover" free software licenses—non-copyleft licenses such as the new BSD and MIT X11 license. Microsoft picks such licenses not for some inchoate disagreement with the GNU GPL as you stated but because those licenses don't stop Microsoft from doing more of what they did with their patent licence for .NET core. That license is so limited one can't do valuable things such as sharing code across projects and modifying code in ways we find useful to us without risking losing a patent infringement lawsuit from Microsoft.

In Microsoft's patent license for .NET core, "you're only protected if you're distributing the code "as part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime"". So if you add any of the code to another project, then you lose protection and MS reserves the right to use their patents against you.". The GNU GPL, by contrast, would have protected you from this, allowing you to use the covered code in another project and retain your software freedom.

As the article also points out, Microsoft's patent license only applies under very limited conditions, "the protection only applies to a "compliant implementation" of .NET. So if you want to remove some parts and make a streamlined framework for embedded devices, then your implementation won't be compliant and the protection doesn't apply to you."

We don't know for sure if one would gain an implicit patent license with code distributed under the MIT X11 license but we do know one would get license to do as they need or want under the GNU GPLv3 because the text of the license says so:

Code distributed under the GNU GPLv3, comes with a patent grant which basically says the contributors can't use their patents against the users for exercising the freedoms granted in the licence:

([quoting the GNU GPLv3] section 11)

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

The language of GPLv2 section 7 applies here as well.

So if you're looking to use your software freedom, pick a license that does the job of ensuring those rights will be there when you need them by spelling out those rights explicitly; right now that's the GNU GPLv2 or later. I suspect that it is this consideration for users, plus Brad Kuhn's keen knowledge of the GNU GPLs, and practical value in licensing compatibly with the Linux kernel that lead him to recommend licensing under GNU GPLv2 or later.

[...T]he fact that one of Microsoft's main compilers is now working in the same way that gcc works (self hosting, open contribution, free software, open source) is amazing. In a very deep way, the free software foundation has won. Before they came along there was plenty of "open source" software but it was ignored and simply ripped off by companies like Microsoft who could incorporate open source innovation into their products without even having to give credit. Now Microsoft is openly releasing Open Source Software which is really also Free Software.

Here's one big difference: Microsoft's C# compiler (licensed under the Apache 2.0 license) is a way to get its users into becoming dependent on the patent-encumbered .NET (as quoted in the /. summary, the article said "Of course, once you are building an API for the broad C# community, it is kind of a slam-dunk that it should be a .NET API, implemented in C#."). Apache 2.0 is more recommendable than other permissive licenses but Apache 2.0 doesn't look out for your interests in modifying and distributing modified software as well as the GNU GPLv3 does. .NET is still a patent-encumbered trap. I can't say the same for GCC (licensed under the GNU GPLv3 or later with the GCC Runtime Library Exception.

A reminder of what limits you're taking on by using .NET:

The first limit is that you're only protected if you're distributing the code "as part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime". So if you add any of the code to another project, then you lose protection and MS reserves the right to use their patents against you.

Secondly, the protection only applies to a "compliant implementation" of .NET. So if you want to remove some parts and make a streamlined framework for embedded devices, then your implementation won't be compliant and the protection doesn't apply to you.

This is very different from code licensed under the GNU GPLv3:

Code distributed under the GNU GPLv3, comes with a patent grant which basically says the contributors can't use their patents against the users for exercising the freedoms granted in the licence. [Therefore, Microsoft's] patent licence looks fine for users of the code published by Microsoft, but its protections disappear very quickly for those who wish to modify or re-use the code.

To elaborate on that last point: being dependent on works under the "Microsoft Patent Promise for .NET Libraries and Runtime Components" is considerably dangerous because of the profound limits for software reuse and modification, and because of how limited this "patent promise" is. You cannot deal in the "Microsoft Patent Promise for .NET Libraries and Runtime Components" covered software as you can with free software (which is so named because it respects a user's freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify the software) under, say, the GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3). Here are a few highlights from that article:

"[Under the Microsoft Patent Promise for .NET Libraries and Runtime Components] youâ(TM)re only protected if youâ(TM)re distributing the code "as part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime". So if you add any of the code to another project, then you lose protection and MS reserves the right to use their patents against you.

[...] the protection only applies to a "compliant implementation" of .NET. So if you want to remove some parts and make a streamlined framework for embedded devices, then your implementation wonâ(TM)t be compliant and the protection doesnâ(TM)t apply to you.

That's a huge danger, particularly to anyone used to working in free software where merging code between compatibly-licensed programs is the norm. Your interests as a user (regardless of your technical skill or willingness to learn technical skills) is far better served by the GPLv3 (also covered at the aforementioned article). The GPLv3 is simply far more straightforward and clear about your permissions, and the GPLv3 grants you what you need to deal fully in the software respecting your software freedom the whole time.

I recall that being an entirely different issue from what's at issue in this /. thread. This thread concerns possibly buggy free software in need of some maintenance and review. Microsoft's patent licence for .NET core is a threat of a different kind—Microsoft's patents covering software in Mono and licensing that doesn't grant users the freedoms of free software work together to grant Microsoft the power to extracting patent royalties from free software distributors.

Still [microsoft.com] is.

So the fact that Microsoft is maintaining old versions of .Net, the 4.x branch is the old version, .Net Core is the successor to .Net 4, and was called .Net 5 in earlier releases. Try to take a look at the current situation please. Now, .Net core is not yet as fully featured as .Net 4, it does take a bit of work to completely re-work a framework the size of .Net, but at the current point in time, .Net Core is a fully fledged out framework, and can replace .Net 4 for most things apart from WPF.

Where has this been stated, explicitly, and not just in your own mind?

OK, let me elaborate. .Net Platform, the Windows specific framework, will continue to exist. It has to. The reason is simple, some of its technologies are only available on the Microsoft platform. WPF is, for example, built directly on top of DirectX, and DirectX is a Windows only technology. .Net Core is cross platform and therefore can not utilize WPF. So porting WPF to .Net Core is both pointless and relatively expensive. For cross-platform applications one should use either HTML-based technologies, Xamarin Forms (which is similar to WPF but cross-platform) or UWA or any other cross-platform. There are on the other hand a large number of applications already written with Windows-specific technologies, so dropping the legacy version of .Net is not an option. Quite the opposite, Microsoft is surely going to continue to maintain it for the foreseeable future. If nothing else, Microsoft are quite good at maintaining backwards compatibility.

So, as a developer you have a choice, you can develop new apps with .Net Core (which used to be called .Net 5 early on in the development cycle) or you can chose to go with the legacy stuff. If you do, it's an active choice you make. You can also mix and match the two, something I do in two of my current applications only because Oracle has so far not released drivers for .Net Core: .Net core can call .Net code, so no problem. Once Oracle release drivers for .Net Core, for web apps, or cross platform apps, .Net is no longer needed.

So, yes, while Windows specific .Net is going to receive continued maintenance, that has no bearing on .Net Core, which does supersede .Net 4.

If you exercised your brain cells, you'd realize that you'd be much more likely to violate somebody patent by adopting their framework and programming language which is steeped in patents.

Sigh. So, instead of gathering information about a topic, you resort to personal insults? Cool. How old are you? Thirteen? And a religious zealot to boot. Get well soon. In the mean time you can read this article on the topic.. It basically states that yes, if you adopt .Net as a platform, there is nothing Microsoft can do vis-a-vis patents. If you, on the other hand, want to create a new version of .Net where you remove features from the .Net Core platform, you are not protected (you can extend it to your hearts content and be protected).

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of our religious beliefs, shall we?

Let it never be said again that there's no substantive difference between free software and open source—here you have an open source booster (Red Hat's CEO Jim Whitehurst) pitching proprietary software as a good thing unto itself. Many years ago the Free Software Foundation told us about this when they wrote about the "Fear of Freedom" and the section that highlights how open source enthusiasts and free software activists react radically differently to non-free software:

The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

Whitehurst mentioned "why Microsoft had to open source .NET". What freedoms does that really convey to .NET users? It's worth taking a look at Microsoft's Patent Promise for .NET Libraries and Runtime Components and understanding its limitations. This patent promise doesn't look out for your software freedom. As End Software Patents warned us two years ago:

[Y]ou're only protected if you're distributing the code "as part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime". So if you add any of the code to another project, then you lose protection and MS reserves the right to use their patents against you.

Secondly, the protection only applies to a "compliant implementation" of .NET. So if you want to remove some parts and make a streamlined framework for embedded devices, then your implementation won't be compliant and the protection doesn't apply to you.

Microsoft's "patent promise" so-called "protection" looks very different from how the GPLv3 treats users. End Software Patents summarizes the GPLv3's language in section 11: "[c]ode distributed under the GNU GPLv3[] comes with a patent grant which basically says the contributors can't use their patents against the users for exercising the freedoms granted in the licence" whereas Microsoft's "protections disappear very quickly for those who wish to modify or re-use the code".

EndSoftPatents.org makes multiple relevant points very clear in their warning against relying on Microsoft's "promise" for .NET core listing the limits and foreseeable risks in Microsoft's offer. It seems to me there's enough there to make anyone wary of relying on .NET and instead heed what the Free Software Foundation said in 2009 warning against developing in C#.

You asked:

Burz, I wonder if you'd say the same about all OSS software that's licensed under MIT or BSD but which lacks a patent promise? Because such software would be in an even weaker state from your perspective than Microsoft's OSS .NET.

I don't speak for Burz and I don't argue for anything "OSS", in fact this issue is one reason why looking at this from the perspective of the open source movement is so dangerous. But it seems to me that the FSF has explained this well as they point out in their aforementioned article, Microsoft is "the only major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and stated its intention to attack our community with patents" which makes Microsoft more of a threat. Also, there's more than one BSD license and it's better to be clear about what you're referring to.

EndSoftPatents.org and the FSF both manage to make their points referring to specifics, linking to their sources, and without using the word "Chinese" to denote confusion or incomprehensibility. So it seems to me that EndSoftPatents.org's conclusion, "This patent licence looks fine for users of the code published by Microsoft, but its protections disappear very quickly for those who wish to modify or re-use the code." is entirely sensible and hardly worthy of your offensive dismissal.

A sort-of correction that reaches the same conclusion: End Software Patents (ESP) speculates that "the 2012 'in re Spansion' case in the USA and the judge ruled that a promise is the same as a licence". And since ESP mentions that Microsoft's Patent Promise has serious problems restricting its promise to those who don't add covered code to another project or those who produce something other than a "compliant implementation" of .NET, it seems that Microsoft patent promise has enough problems that it's still wise to not build dependencies on .NET (as the FSF warned).

And the problems with MS's patent licence for this new .NET code are spelled out here:

http://endsoftpatents.org/2014...

Basically, you're safe if you just use MS's version, but as soon as you modify the code you've probably lost those protections, and if you think of re-using the code in another project then you've definitely lost your protections. That means MS can sue you.

not "patent trolls". You cannot fix an amputated limb no matter how much bandaid you use.

http://endsoftpatents.org/

Why does EFF never oppose software patents as a concept?

They always want to eliminate the 10 worst software patents, but they have enough educated/informed people to know that the world isn't plagued by 10 lousy software patents. It's thickets like the 346 US patents exploited by MPEG LA.

Or the thousands of patents held by Intellectual Ventures, Apple, and Microsoft.

C'mon EFF. You have the cash and the lawyers. Give us a hand fixing the problem (legislation, court briefs) and stop trying to wipe out malaria by swatting mosquitoes! You know that doesn't work.

A lot of Slashdotters believe this, but none are able to offer any evidence other than a gut feeling..

Tonnes of academic papers have been put up repeatedly by many on Slashdot. It's astounding what you patent shills think you can get away with asserting a if that makes it true. For a basic list of actual economic evidence you could start here

Except that none of that evidence speaks to the proposition that software patents stifle innovation. Assuming for the sake of argument that all of those findings are true:
- "pro-softpatent analysts have yet to find benefit from software patents" means that their value is in question. It doesn't mean they stifle innovation.
- "software patents affect more than just software companies" has nothing to do with whether software patents stifle innovation, and in fact, points to the wide reach of software as an industry
- "software is a complex industry" is based on the argument that computing devices have thousands of components, while drugs only have a few. So? This ignores the doctrine of patent exhaustion.
- "patent suits cost billions of dollars per year" also says nothing about whether patents stifle innovation. Licensing fees also cost a ton of money, so does copyright stifle innovation? At best, it says that protecting ones property is a necessary cost of doing business. At worst, this argument says that no intellectual property should have any protection and we shouldn't pay for any software, which would do more to stifle innovation than anything else.
- "Government intervention in the market is generally taken to be a last resort" is incorrect in this application. Patents have been around here since 1790. They were one of the first acts passed by Congress after this country was founded. They were so important that they're explicitly in the Constitution. It's not a last resort by any means, unless the argument is that every single industry in this country would have collapsed in 1791.

They simply don't point to the conclusion "software patents stifle innovation." At most, they point to the conclusion "software patents may have a negligible effect on innovation".

And that's assuming that all of those are true and valid arguments, which they aren't. For example, contrary to their first (and strongest) point about VCs ignoring patents, that's simply incorrect. There are 14 million hits on Google for valuation of patents, and, as a patent attorney who works with VCs in the software industry, I can tell you that patents and other intellectual property are the primary value of a company. You think your servers are worth anything? Or your cube farm? Pennies on the dollar. How about your copyrighted software - maybe it's just patents that aren't valued? No... I can get a team of programmers in India or Russia to reverse engineer your software and have a new version out within a few weeks, so if that were the sole measure of a company's worth, no software company would be worth more than a hundred thousand, at most.
But the patents? Those are worth money.

But don't take my word for it. Surely you've heard of patent trolls, right? Or companies like Intellectual Ventures? Do you think a VC could buy those companies for just a couple thousand for their office furniture and real estate leases, or do you think that their patent holdings may make them a lot more expensive? The very fact that they exist indicates that patents have economic value.

I am nowhere near the first person to post this stuff to Slashdot and I am calling you out as a liar, either by pretending to make an authoritative statement about something you know nothing about or, by simply knowing that what you said was dead wrong. It's one thing to claim that the evidence is no good.

A lot of Slashdotters believe this, but none are able to offer any evidence other than a gut feeling..

Tonnes of academic papers have been put up repeatedly by many on Slashdot. It's astounding what you patent shills think you can get away with asserting a if that makes it true. For a basic list of actual economic evidence you could start here

I am nowhere near the first person to post this stuff to Slashdot and I am calling you out as a liar, either by pretending to make an authoritative statement about something you know nothing about or, by simply knowing that what you said was dead wrong. It's one thing to claim that the evidence is no good. Another thing to deny that it exists.

Microsoft is a patent troll and should not be accommodated in their abuses regardless of the what the USPTO has said since the patents which are claimed to apply to software like Linux should never have been granted in the first place.

Based on what exactly? Your word?

My opinions are influenced by those of many smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. If you're not aware of the reasons software patents are harmful, you may have been living under a rock. Here's a good place to start in that case. Though it's not specific to software patents, This American Life has an excellent program about the current patent mess that is accessible to anyone.

In addition, no court has decided that any Microsoft patent applies to Linux, though Microsoft has sued a number of companies claiming that.

Great, I never claimed any court has made such a decision. The point is that these companies aren't just stupidly licensing these patents without having their lawyers look into it. Like I posted above, HTC isn't one that shies away from patent fights so if even they are licensing them it gives lots of credence to the fact that they are most likely valid. Or how else do you explain how they are more than willing to take Apple on in patent suits yet they licensed the ones from Microsoft without any fight?

I won't pretend to know what any of those companies should do to maximize profits in the short term. The fact that Casio, HTC and many others have yielded to patent trolls is a symptom of a deeply broken system. Even if it's in Casio's interest to make this deal with Microsoft right now, it helps keep in place a status quo that is an obstacle to innovation and therefore a financial drain on the entire industry.

I've been strongly offended by software patents ever since I learned over a decade ago about how meager the "innovations" they protect can be. I think most of us will make one or two "patentable innovations" per day before lunch, or at least infringe with some fundamental task like throwing an exception (never realizing we were "innovating" or "infringing" in the process).

So where should we send the money? I want to donate to an org that shares my opinions and is doing something about it. The two I know of are as follows, but would appreciate additional suggestions.

EFF Patent Busting Project: http://w2.eff.org/patent/wp.html
End Software Patents: http://endsoftpatents.org/donate

NASA hurts it's own reputation horribly by auctioning software patents rather than holding them for the public trust and acknowledging the obvious: software patents are incompatible with a software industry.

They then compound the insult by taking advantage of some suckers paying cash for something that is legally questionable in light of Bilksi and that may soon have explicitly no value at all.

It's an obvious fact. The sooner we stop denying it and explicitly repudiate software patents as a matter of policy (as most every advanced nation already does), the sooner the damage to our economy stops.

People will draw conclusions about Sun, Oracle and Google, about Android and Java, but this is all missing the point.

This is about software patents, which cannot coexist with a functioning software industry.

There are hundreds of thousands of them. No one can read them all, let alone remember them all. Not even Microsoft, Google and Oracle can do it, so they infringe thousands of patents at the end of each day of work. Even if the baby jesus came came down from heaven and granted them perfect knowledge of all patents today, there will be a thousand new ones filed by tomorrow. The entire thing is a money making scam for attorneys and an alternative to free-market competition for some of the larger, more unscrupulous companies. The scheme was invented in a courtroom rather than in Congress. It's so ridiculous on its face that the entire rest of the world refuses to recognize these types of patents, despite years of fevered bribery- I mean, lobbying, on the part of the scammers abroad.

Trying to keep score between Java and .Net on who's playing the patent game better is like arguing over who's burning brighter in a room where everyone is on fire.

If this stuff bothers you, donate time and/or money to the people doing the hard work of organizing a fix, and we can end this practical joke on the software profession. We have enough problems with our economy as it is.

I've been curious about the degree to which software patents help or hinder software / computer science innovation. (My money is on 'hinder'.)

Some economists agree, patents hinder progress. And for patents other than just software.

Falcon

It is bad news. You've just been brainwashed by the thousands of stories in the media about how patents are bad that bad news looks good to you.

Patents allow inventors to earn a living. How is making money by creating valuable things bad?

It is good news, you're the one who's been brainwashed. Though it uses copyrights not patents open source is a good example of people making a living without a monopoly. People and businesses make money by offering buyers something they are willing to pay for. And seeing as how this specific discussion is about software patents, economists say "Pro-softpatent analysts have yet to find benefit from software patents". More than one economic paper or study has concluded patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare. For more scholarly papers check out Google scholar. Of course many of those papers have to be paid for to read, with Research on Innovation having more. As a practical example take Apple, although other companies make and sell portable music players and smart phones Apple still leads the markets with the iPod and iPhone. Even after another company has released product X Apple can come along, release it's own version, then dominate the market.

Falcon

Full disclosure, I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro however my music player is an old Sony Walkman CD player and my cell-phone's a Nokia. I love my Mac but have no interest in getting either an iPhone or an iPod. If I ever get a smart phone it may have Android, then again I don't plan getting one. I don't know if I'll ever get an mpg3 player either. I might when my Walkman dies but I'[m not sure what.

Well then congratulations. You have discovered why people don't like software patents and have completed your quest for knowledge. Happy yet?

Also, it should be noted that stopsoftwarepatents.eu is of course an EU website. You'll note that more American centric commentary often brings up the non-patent-ability of math.

Citation: Donald Knuth

To a computer scientist, this makes no sense, because every algorithm is as mathematical as anything could be. An algorithm is an abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the universe.

http://progfree.org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt

For more examples of this argument being made, see EndSoftPatents.org.

But it would show that there is valid justification for their existence. Who started up a campaign to end software patents? It wasn't Novell, or Red Hat, or the Open Source Initiative; it was these folks. The FSF is willing to take unpopular hardline pro-freedom positions long before they become politically correct enough for the "respectable" FOSS groups to hop on the bandwagon.

Sort of analogous to how I think there's a good reason for the existence of folks like Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and other people pursuing principled but somewhat inflexible positions. I might not want them as president of the world, but I like them being around.

Will this section be worth anything if neither party is actually asking for software patents as a whole to be thrown out?

Yes. The court's job is to decide on the point of law and it's not limited to following the request of either party.

The last paragraph of FSF's Interests of Amicus Curiae notes: Notwithstanding the contrary assertion at sec. I.C.3 (pages 36-44) of Respondentâ(TM)s brief, the Foundation submits respectfully that this case is an appropriate one to address patenting eligibility of computer software. Several amici aligned with both parties of this case so regard it and indeed the court of appeals eschewed a categorical exclusion of business methods and, instead, applied the machine-transformation test to a claimed process which was implicitly software-based though not reciting software directly in its broadest independent claim.

Like how the CAFC's machine-or-transformation test excludes some software, the SC can install a different test with broader or narrower scope.

The last part, which starts at "II. For Many Software Developers, The Patent System Is Unjust.", deals with how software patents have proved to hinder, rather than promote, the progress of the useful arts - which means they have no valid constitutional basis.

Will this section be worth anything if neither party is actually asking for software patents as a whole to be thrown out? (And why would they ask for that? My understanding is that the patent they're arguing about is about business methods rather than software, and that business method patents as a category are quite a bit hokier than even software patents.)

• FSF's Amicus Curiae Brief
• FSF's press release
• List of Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs

    The brief can be split roughly in three. There's the "Interest Of
    Amicus Curiae" section, which is a long description of FSF, to inform the Supreme Court why they should be interested in reading the brief. Then there's the Argument, which has the remaining two parts. The first is about the previous rulings which indicate that software has already been explicitly excluded by the Supreme Court. The last part, which starts at "II. For Many Software Developers, The Patent System Is Unjust.", deals with how software patents have proved to hinder, rather than promote, the progress of the useful arts - which means they have no valid constitutional basis.

• FSF's Amicus Curiae Brief
• FSF's press release
• List of Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs

    The brief can be split roughly in three. There's the "Interest Of
    Amicus Curiae" section, which is a long description of FSF, to inform the Supreme Court why they should be interested in reading the brief. Then there's the Argument, which has the remaining two parts. The first is about the previous rulings which indicate that software has already been explicitly excluded by the Supreme Court. The last part, which starts at "II. For Many Software Developers, The Patent System Is Unjust.", deals with how software patents have proved to hinder, rather than promote, the progress of the useful arts - which means they have no valid constitutional basis.

• FSF's Amicus Curiae Brief
• FSF's press release
• List of Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs

    The brief can be split roughly in three. There's the "Interest Of
    Amicus Curiae" section, which is a long description of FSF, to inform the Supreme Court why they should be interested in reading the brief. Then there's the Argument, which has the remaining two parts. The first is about the previous rulings which indicate that software has already been explicitly excluded by the Supreme Court. The last part, which starts at "II. For Many Software Developers, The Patent System Is Unjust.", deals with how software patents have proved to hinder, rather than promote, the progress of the useful arts - which means they have no valid constitutional basis.

• FSF's Amicus Curiae Brief
• FSF's press release
• List of Bilski v. Kappos amicus briefs

    The brief can be split roughly in three. There's the "Interest Of
    Amicus Curiae" section, which is a long description of FSF, to inform the Supreme Court why they should be interested in reading the brief. Then there's the Argument, which has the remaining two parts. The first is about the previous rulings which indicate that software has already been explicitly excluded by the Supreme Court. The last part, which starts at "II. For Many Software Developers, The Patent System Is Unjust.", deals with how software patents have proved to hinder, rather than promote, the progress of the useful arts - which means they have no valid constitutional basis.

... actually this is not a bad idea so long as it is used to support open source rather than to stifle it.

However, the idea of Open Source As Prior Art being used to help just such a patent or use of such a process as this article is about. It shouldn't supprise anyone that IBM is a contributor to this OSAPA.... And IBM being a huge software patent holder.... uh errr FLOSS supporter...

Apparently if you try to help improve the patent system and you support software not being patentable, you then risk screwing yourself.

Stallman was right. The best thing to do is to ignore the patent system as it applies to software. OR Support "End Software Patents", Or better yet help prove Software is not of Patentable nature!

This way mapping open source software for reuse becomes a clear benefit rather than a risk.

I too was on the OSAPA list and contributed in support of open source.... as non-patentable Abstraction Physics.

From 10km up, some people come up with a goal, a number of salaried grunts work on it using the known best practices of their trade, the results are tested and reworked, and then (maybe) the product is brought to market, in hopes that the massive investment in development can be paid off by selling large volumes with a high gross profit to potentially underinformed buyers. The main difference is that "small pharma" is bigger than a lot of software concerns, not least because experimenting with drugs in your garage is frowned upon by the Religious Reich.

Let's go from 10km up to only, say, 5km or so. The difference here is that in the case of pharma, you have a massive number of salaried grunts producing a work for which a single patent (or otherwise a very small number of patents) applies; the value of the individual patent (and the cost associated with developing the associated process) is tremendous.

In software, you have a massive number of salaried grunts, each of whom in their day-to-day work creates subcomponents which may be patentable over the course of implementing the larger product on which they work. Most of the patents require relatively little development to create, but an injunction against using a patentable process can have a huge negative financial impact. The value of the individual patents is much lower, but the potential for an injunction to stop the product from being releasable is much higher.

That the impact of patents on these fields are different is highly visible in practice: If you look at where the patent trolls are, they aren't using pharmaceutical patents to extort undeserved gains; it's almost exclusively software and business method patents misused in this way. Moreover, economic studies looking to find evidence of the benefits of software patents have failed to do so -- the page I just linked to is a highly opinionated source (as am I myself), but the links in its bibliography are to respectable, peer-reviewed papers, and should merit review if you're interested in this subject.

This article about copyright backed licence restrictions was brought to you by "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property"

You have a good point, but I assume the copyright crowd is going at this from a couple of angles:

A) Actual damages are quite hard to prove in court, which is the point of creating statutory damages. They might not even bother asking for them, lest they have to justify what actual damages they've suffered from infringement. Of course, they may not have suffered any actual damages, or may not be able to prove that they have.

B) While they're not punitive damages, they're high enough that they can be seen in that light. As such, they could be an insufficient penalty.

That said, $150,000 for infringing upon an average 10-song CD that goes for $20 retail and $10 on iTunes is already unconstitutionally excessive per a Supreme Court ruling (BMW v. Gore) that looked askance at some statutory damages that were merely a few times the actual damages. The PRO-IP Act here would raise that to $1,500,000 ($150,000 for each song on the CD), which is even more excessive than before.

After all, how many copyrighted works sell for $150,000 to begin with? And don't list long-dead painters. Their works hit the public domain long before copyrights got an extra hundred years or more of life with the life+70 term passed back in the 1970s.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

Imaginary Property

Not very good. It is property, of course, but the only way the imaginary works is if imaginary is taken as equivalent to "intangible". But IP is but one small subclass of intangible personal property, so this would be a particularly bad label.

I know that they have released a statement saying that the scholarship will be open https://endsoftpatents.org/bias-in-academic-papers, but I truely hope that they keep that part of the judging open to public scrutiny, even if the best paper comes out in support of software patents. Don't get me wrong, I hate software patents. However, if they don't keep the judging open to scrutiny for bias, the winning paper will be about as useful as a study into the total cost of ownership of linux vs windows from a Microsoft funded think tank.

You can use http://endsoftpatents.org/

https://endsoftpatents.org/donate

It's clearly defined here