Slashdot Mirror
Domain: swpat.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to swpat.org.
Comments · 594
-
This is the biggest patent problem
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem created by software patnets.
Patent trolls and silly patents get most media attention, but that's because they cause problems for mega corporations. Those same mega corporations are the ones using patents to impede free software and new companies. So there's lots of money being invested in redirecting public dissatisfaction away from the compatibility issue toward the trolls and silly patents issues.
-
This is the biggest patent problem
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem created by software patnets.
Patent trolls and silly patents get most media attention, but that's because they cause problems for mega corporations. Those same mega corporations are the ones using patents to impede free software and new companies. So there's lots of money being invested in redirecting public dissatisfaction away from the compatibility issue toward the trolls and silly patents issues.
-
This is the biggest patent problem
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem created by software patnets.
Patent trolls and silly patents get most media attention, but that's because they cause problems for mega corporations. Those same mega corporations are the ones using patents to impede free software and new companies. So there's lots of money being invested in redirecting public dissatisfaction away from the compatibility issue toward the trolls and silly patents issues.
-
This is the biggest patent problem
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem created by software patnets.
Patent trolls and silly patents get most media attention, but that's because they cause problems for mega corporations. Those same mega corporations are the ones using patents to impede free software and new companies. So there's lots of money being invested in redirecting public dissatisfaction away from the compatibility issue toward the trolls and silly patents issues.
-
Re:You could be right
You could be right about them being hardware patents. (I was wrong before, regarding the CSIRO patents, which seem to be hardware patents.)
The point of documenting the situation is so that we can evaluate just once, write it down with the reasoning, and have clarity for the next time.
What parts of the patents seem to imply they're tied to hardware?
Could I infringe them by writing new software and using it with standard hardware? (If so, then they're software patents)
Help very welcome.
Oh, come on... Click on the two PDFs in the summary. They're for hardware, not simply software. In fact, even the method that they claim involves a bunch of hardware including synchronized shutters.
-
You could be right
You could be right about them being hardware patents. (I was wrong before, regarding the CSIRO patents, which seem to be hardware patents.)
The point of documenting the situation is so that we can evaluate just once, write it down with the reasoning, and have clarity for the next time.
What parts of the patents seem to imply they're tied to hardware?
Could I infringe them by writing new software and using it with standard hardware? (If so, then they're software patents)
Help very welcome.
-
the grass gets trampled
I'm working now on gathering software patent info related to Sony.
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Sony
Help welcome.
-
When elephants dance
Sony was the target of a 3D patent in 2004:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/04/mckool_smith_lawsuit_update/
Their legal department might be trying to recuperate their costs now by suing others. It's a game that benefits no one. Meanwhile, Sony is part of the MPEG-LA consortium that's preventing free software and SMEs from including support for MPEG video formats, so they deserve no good will.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_video_formats
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibilityWhen a video doesn't play, or when a company expresses doubt about supporting a free format, it's due to MPEG-LA.
-
When elephants dance
Sony was the target of a 3D patent in 2004:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/04/mckool_smith_lawsuit_update/
Their legal department might be trying to recuperate their costs now by suing others. It's a game that benefits no one. Meanwhile, Sony is part of the MPEG-LA consortium that's preventing free software and SMEs from including support for MPEG video formats, so they deserve no good will.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_video_formats
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibilityWhen a video doesn't play, or when a company expresses doubt about supporting a free format, it's due to MPEG-LA.
-
Re:Good licence, has anti-swpat clause
> Everyone has a right to file a complaint [...] without any consequences.
That's true for violations of criminal law (the State v. X, e.g. murder), but not for civil offences (X v. Y, e.g. copyright dispute).
Your suggestion would invalidate every promise not to sue. The software industry uses loads of promises not to sue. All the lawyers that help free software say that a promise not to sue is good. What makes you think you're right and they're wrong? (Sorry to use an "appeal to authority" reply, but your claim has about as much support among experts as the flat Earth theory does.)
-
Good licence, has anti-swpat clause
Among the permissive licences, Apache 2.0 has the best patent retaliation clause:
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
-
Software patent problem: ISP liability=C&D let
Software patent problems are also worsened by ACTA, but this problem's getting lost among the discussion of problems of transporting pharmaceuticals via Europe. The pharmaceuticals issue is bigger, but the software patents issue still exists (and the DRM issues, which is even worse).
- ACTA and software patents
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
- 201001 acta.pdf as text - the previous leak, for comparison
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
-
Software patent problem: ISP liability=C&D let
Software patent problems are also worsened by ACTA, but this problem's getting lost among the discussion of problems of transporting pharmaceuticals via Europe. The pharmaceuticals issue is bigger, but the software patents issue still exists (and the DRM issues, which is even worse).
- ACTA and software patents
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
- 201001 acta.pdf as text - the previous leak, for comparison
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
-
Software patent problem: ISP liability=C&D let
Software patent problems are also worsened by ACTA, but this problem's getting lost among the discussion of problems of transporting pharmaceuticals via Europe. The pharmaceuticals issue is bigger, but the software patents issue still exists (and the DRM issues, which is even worse).
- ACTA and software patents
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
- 201001 acta.pdf as text - the previous leak, for comparison
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
-
Re:This isn't over at all
If I didn't forget to write the link text, the first link whould have been:
That's a general page of background for the situation, more important than the other three links
-
This isn't over at all
The most important point is that this isn't over. The Bill isn't even written yet, nor are the patent office guidelines. Background info:
-
This isn't over at all
The most important point is that this isn't over. The Bill isn't even written yet, nor are the patent office guidelines. Background info:
-
This isn't over at all
The most important point is that this isn't over. The Bill isn't even written yet, nor are the patent office guidelines. Background info:
-
This isn't over at all
The most important point is that this isn't over. The Bill isn't even written yet, nor are the patent office guidelines. Background info:
-
http://en.swpat.org info
I've made a start on documenting IEEE-USA's take on software patents. Help sought:
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
-
What's on en.swpat.org
I'm devising an archival method, but archive.org is actually doing a 90% complete job already, so it's not priority #1.
Anti-swpat campaigns have gathered masses of great data and documents over the years, but it's never well organised. To an outsider, it's opaque. I've worked on various such campaigns over the past eight years, and I know where to find most things, and I know how much of a problem the mess is. So I'm documenting all this insider-knowledge so that anyone else can do the work I do.
There are a lot of links because I believe that statements on wikis should be backed up, and I want readers to be able to dig further into any topic on the wiki.
Without links, it would just be a blog of personal opinions.
If you click around, you'll see that there is indeed analysis and the important parts of documents are quoted at whatever length necessary.
And no, en.swpat.org isn't written by Florian. There have been a half-dozen edits to articles about German topics from anonymous users, so some of them could be him, but that's it. Here's who writes most of en.swpat.org: Ciaran O'Riordan. He also shaved my face this morning. Nice guy.
Why did I post the links? Well, why did someone mod it +1 Informative?
-
What's on en.swpat.org
I'm devising an archival method, but archive.org is actually doing a 90% complete job already, so it's not priority #1.
Anti-swpat campaigns have gathered masses of great data and documents over the years, but it's never well organised. To an outsider, it's opaque. I've worked on various such campaigns over the past eight years, and I know where to find most things, and I know how much of a problem the mess is. So I'm documenting all this insider-knowledge so that anyone else can do the work I do.
There are a lot of links because I believe that statements on wikis should be backed up, and I want readers to be able to dig further into any topic on the wiki.
Without links, it would just be a blog of personal opinions.
If you click around, you'll see that there is indeed analysis and the important parts of documents are quoted at whatever length necessary.
And no, en.swpat.org isn't written by Florian. There have been a half-dozen edits to articles about German topics from anonymous users, so some of them could be him, but that's it. Here's who writes most of en.swpat.org: Ciaran O'Riordan. He also shaved my face this morning. Nice guy.
Why did I post the links? Well, why did someone mod it +1 Informative?
-
Re:info from http://en.swpat.org
> swpat, while interesting, doesn't have much more than aggregations of links from other sites.
That's one of the goals. We did tonnes of work in the EU in 2003, and LPF did great work from 1991-1995, and there was great work in New Zealand in March. The problem is, websites rust terribly. The documentation from the EU 2003-2005 is partly taken offline, partly moved, and a lot of it always relied on having specific knowledge of the relevant sites anyway.
swpat.org is aggregating that info so that it's available now to people in other countries, in a searchable way, and it will be available to the next campaigns in the same country in five years time when most of the current activists have changed jobs.
In 2015 or 2010, do you think everyone will remember the details of IBM v. TurboHercules? Do you think the current blogs and campaign sites and news articles will still be where they are today?
How many people today know of, and where to find info about these topics:
- 1994 USPTO software patent hearings
- President's Commission on the Patent System (1966, USA)
- Software Patents: A Time for Change (2006, USA, conference with recordings)
- US FTC report on innovation (2003 - says swpats are bad for business)
- Studies on economics and innovation
Half of these will evoke a "Yeh, rings a bell", but few or none will be clearly remembered by people.
So, please help document IBM's actions today so that some other folks in 2015 will be able to find it, get a summary, and find the related pages. (I'm working on adding a backup feature to preserve copies of all linked documents.)
-
Re:info from http://en.swpat.org
> swpat, while interesting, doesn't have much more than aggregations of links from other sites.
That's one of the goals. We did tonnes of work in the EU in 2003, and LPF did great work from 1991-1995, and there was great work in New Zealand in March. The problem is, websites rust terribly. The documentation from the EU 2003-2005 is partly taken offline, partly moved, and a lot of it always relied on having specific knowledge of the relevant sites anyway.
swpat.org is aggregating that info so that it's available now to people in other countries, in a searchable way, and it will be available to the next campaigns in the same country in five years time when most of the current activists have changed jobs.
In 2015 or 2010, do you think everyone will remember the details of IBM v. TurboHercules? Do you think the current blogs and campaign sites and news articles will still be where they are today?
How many people today know of, and where to find info about these topics:
- 1994 USPTO software patent hearings
- President's Commission on the Patent System (1966, USA)
- Software Patents: A Time for Change (2006, USA, conference with recordings)
- US FTC report on innovation (2003 - says swpats are bad for business)
- Studies on economics and innovation
Half of these will evoke a "Yeh, rings a bell", but few or none will be clearly remembered by people.
So, please help document IBM's actions today so that some other folks in 2015 will be able to find it, get a summary, and find the related pages. (I'm working on adding a backup feature to preserve copies of all linked documents.)
-
Re:info from http://en.swpat.org
> swpat, while interesting, doesn't have much more than aggregations of links from other sites.
That's one of the goals. We did tonnes of work in the EU in 2003, and LPF did great work from 1991-1995, and there was great work in New Zealand in March. The problem is, websites rust terribly. The documentation from the EU 2003-2005 is partly taken offline, partly moved, and a lot of it always relied on having specific knowledge of the relevant sites anyway.
swpat.org is aggregating that info so that it's available now to people in other countries, in a searchable way, and it will be available to the next campaigns in the same country in five years time when most of the current activists have changed jobs.
In 2015 or 2010, do you think everyone will remember the details of IBM v. TurboHercules? Do you think the current blogs and campaign sites and news articles will still be where they are today?
How many people today know of, and where to find info about these topics:
- 1994 USPTO software patent hearings
- President's Commission on the Patent System (1966, USA)
- Software Patents: A Time for Change (2006, USA, conference with recordings)
- US FTC report on innovation (2003 - says swpats are bad for business)
- Studies on economics and innovation
Half of these will evoke a "Yeh, rings a bell", but few or none will be clearly remembered by people.
So, please help document IBM's actions today so that some other folks in 2015 will be able to find it, get a summary, and find the related pages. (I'm working on adding a backup feature to preserve copies of all linked documents.)
-
Re:info from http://en.swpat.org
> swpat, while interesting, doesn't have much more than aggregations of links from other sites.
That's one of the goals. We did tonnes of work in the EU in 2003, and LPF did great work from 1991-1995, and there was great work in New Zealand in March. The problem is, websites rust terribly. The documentation from the EU 2003-2005 is partly taken offline, partly moved, and a lot of it always relied on having specific knowledge of the relevant sites anyway.
swpat.org is aggregating that info so that it's available now to people in other countries, in a searchable way, and it will be available to the next campaigns in the same country in five years time when most of the current activists have changed jobs.
In 2015 or 2010, do you think everyone will remember the details of IBM v. TurboHercules? Do you think the current blogs and campaign sites and news articles will still be where they are today?
How many people today know of, and where to find info about these topics:
- 1994 USPTO software patent hearings
- President's Commission on the Patent System (1966, USA)
- Software Patents: A Time for Change (2006, USA, conference with recordings)
- US FTC report on innovation (2003 - says swpats are bad for business)
- Studies on economics and innovation
Half of these will evoke a "Yeh, rings a bell", but few or none will be clearly remembered by people.
So, please help document IBM's actions today so that some other folks in 2015 will be able to find it, get a summary, and find the related pages. (I'm working on adding a backup feature to preserve copies of all linked documents.)
-
Re:info from http://en.swpat.org
> swpat, while interesting, doesn't have much more than aggregations of links from other sites.
That's one of the goals. We did tonnes of work in the EU in 2003, and LPF did great work from 1991-1995, and there was great work in New Zealand in March. The problem is, websites rust terribly. The documentation from the EU 2003-2005 is partly taken offline, partly moved, and a lot of it always relied on having specific knowledge of the relevant sites anyway.
swpat.org is aggregating that info so that it's available now to people in other countries, in a searchable way, and it will be available to the next campaigns in the same country in five years time when most of the current activists have changed jobs.
In 2015 or 2010, do you think everyone will remember the details of IBM v. TurboHercules? Do you think the current blogs and campaign sites and news articles will still be where they are today?
How many people today know of, and where to find info about these topics:
- 1994 USPTO software patent hearings
- President's Commission on the Patent System (1966, USA)
- Software Patents: A Time for Change (2006, USA, conference with recordings)
- US FTC report on innovation (2003 - says swpats are bad for business)
- Studies on economics and innovation
Half of these will evoke a "Yeh, rings a bell", but few or none will be clearly remembered by people.
So, please help document IBM's actions today so that some other folks in 2015 will be able to find it, get a summary, and find the related pages. (I'm working on adding a backup feature to preserve copies of all linked documents.)
-
info from http://en.swpat.org
Here's some articles swpat.org has on these topics - but only on the software patent aspects:
- IBM and TurboHercules, 2010
- Antitrust doesn't work (maybe this case can break this pattern?)
- IBM
Discussion over whether X company is right to defend their revenue stream etc. etc. would be outside the scope.
-
info from http://en.swpat.org
Here's some articles swpat.org has on these topics - but only on the software patent aspects:
- IBM and TurboHercules, 2010
- Antitrust doesn't work (maybe this case can break this pattern?)
- IBM
Discussion over whether X company is right to defend their revenue stream etc. etc. would be outside the scope.
-
info from http://en.swpat.org
Here's some articles swpat.org has on these topics - but only on the software patent aspects:
- IBM and TurboHercules, 2010
- Antitrust doesn't work (maybe this case can break this pattern?)
- IBM
Discussion over whether X company is right to defend their revenue stream etc. etc. would be outside the scope.
-
Mailing out Patent Absurdity
Someone's suggested mailing copies of Patent Absurdity to patent policy setters in NZ. They've started building a list here:
Add as many names as you can think of - and we'll need something to indicate why this person is relevant and address. A name on its own is useful, but if that person is to receive a copy, someone will have to dig up an address.
-
IEEE-USA also lobbies for software patents
- IEEE-USA's brief to the Supreme Court for Bilski, last year
- Groklaw discussion
- All the other Bilski briefs (for the Supreme Court case, begun 2009, decision pending)
- Bilski overview
-
IEEE-USA also lobbies for software patents
- IEEE-USA's brief to the Supreme Court for Bilski, last year
- Groklaw discussion
- All the other Bilski briefs (for the Supreme Court case, begun 2009, decision pending)
- Bilski overview
-
What I have at http://en.swpat.org
If this gets granted, the 1-click example shows that even if it's invalid, the review process is sometimes completely useful because takes so many years and often just results in narrowing the patent.
- Amazon's one-click shopping patent
- Invalidating harmful patents - takes years, mightn't work, might just narrow the patent
- Amazon's gift ordering patent - just basic info
- Amazon - just basic info
-
What I have at http://en.swpat.org
If this gets granted, the 1-click example shows that even if it's invalid, the review process is sometimes completely useful because takes so many years and often just results in narrowing the patent.
- Amazon's one-click shopping patent
- Invalidating harmful patents - takes years, mightn't work, might just narrow the patent
- Amazon's gift ordering patent - just basic info
- Amazon - just basic info
-
What I have at http://en.swpat.org
If this gets granted, the 1-click example shows that even if it's invalid, the review process is sometimes completely useful because takes so many years and often just results in narrowing the patent.
- Amazon's one-click shopping patent
- Invalidating harmful patents - takes years, mightn't work, might just narrow the patent
- Amazon's gift ordering patent - just basic info
- Amazon - just basic info
-
What I have at http://en.swpat.org
If this gets granted, the 1-click example shows that even if it's invalid, the review process is sometimes completely useful because takes so many years and often just results in narrowing the patent.
- Amazon's one-click shopping patent
- Invalidating harmful patents - takes years, mightn't work, might just narrow the patent
- Amazon's gift ordering patent - just basic info
- Amazon - just basic info
-
software patents and DRM
They focus on medicine, which is indeed a subject of massive importance, but I hope they'll also fix the DRM and software patent problems. Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO, but I don't have info on that
- ACTA official text, re: software patents
- ACTA and software patents
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
FWIW
-
software patents and DRM
They focus on medicine, which is indeed a subject of massive importance, but I hope they'll also fix the DRM and software patent problems. Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO, but I don't have info on that
- ACTA official text, re: software patents
- ACTA and software patents
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
FWIW
-
software patents and DRM
They focus on medicine, which is indeed a subject of massive importance, but I hope they'll also fix the DRM and software patent problems. Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO, but I don't have info on that
- ACTA official text, re: software patents
- ACTA and software patents
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview
FWIW
-
Ozzy govt report says swpats hamper innovation
you are accusing the Australian Government of being unable to produce anything of value
I said nothing of the sort. The replies I'm getting in this thread are surreal.
Your end paragraph suggests a dream, wherein each contributor to progress owns their contribution, and the value gets shared fairly among them. That's the promise of the patent lawyers, but it's not the reality. The reality is that a small number of patent holders jam up the system, demanding taxes, demanding licences which aren't compatible with free software, wasting everyone's time with legal messes... The country of origin of these aggressors isn't was makes them a nuisance.
Guess who agrees with this? The Australian government's Venturous Australia report! Now there's some useful public research that's publicly usable:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Venturous_Australia
In this regard, particularly in new areas of patenting such as software and business methods, there is strong evidence that existing intellectual property arrangements are hampering innovation.
-
Re:Why they're called a troll
Even if they don't develop, but only acquire a valid patent, how does suing for that make them a troll?
That's the entire business model of Acacia and Intellectual Ventures. These are the quintessential patent trolls.
Everyone calls them trolls. I'm not sure what your question is. Why "troll"? Well, I guess it's a cultural reference to a bad monster that lives under bridges and demands payment for crossing said bridge.
-
Re:Why they're called a troll
Even if they don't develop, but only acquire a valid patent, how does suing for that make them a troll?
That's the entire business model of Acacia and Intellectual Ventures. These are the quintessential patent trolls.
Everyone calls them trolls. I'm not sure what your question is. Why "troll"? Well, I guess it's a cultural reference to a bad monster that lives under bridges and demands payment for crossing said bridge.
-
Re:Why they're called a troll
I've never been sued by the CSIRO, have you?
No troll has sued me, and no gunman has shot me, but both exist. By your standard, not only do patent trolls not exist, but patents don't exist since no one's attacked me with one.
They seem to take action only against people who make unlicensed use of the patents they own.
And, how does that differentiate them from any other patent troll?? MPEG-LA does the same, as does Acacia and Blackboard and all the other trolls.
I'm not sure where you're going with that.
-
Why all that is wrong
Who would ever promise something like that and why?
Lots of patent holders make promises limiting who they will use their patents agressively against. They do it so that people will work with them and to avoid being branded a troll or a threat. Here's a list: Patent promises. Even Microsoft has made some (very limited) promises.
CSIRO does what patent law WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT FOR - funnel the money back into the research
Nope. Patents exist to progress technology for the public benefit. Not to make money for researchers. Sometimes the two goals go together, sometimes they don't. In this case, we have an organisation claiming veto power on anyone wanting to implement wif. That monopoly's probably not in the public's interest.
Essentially, we have no way of ever finding out, unless one of the parties decides to come out and show the contracts to us
Exactly. So, if this is private inter-company horse trading, why is any outsider using these broken agreements to justify CSIRO's patent aggression? For all we know, there's nothing of substance in these agreements.
Usually contract is signed after weighing the patent and its usefulness - not the other way around as you seem to imply
If you read the story, or people's comments here, you'll see that CSIRO seems to have made deals with a bunch of tech companies, then the companies broke the agreement (according to unconfirmed slashdot comments), and *this* act is what justifies CSIRO suing people (again, according to the same slashdot comments).
* Why can't CSIRO take them to court for breach of contract?
They are doing this as we discuss the topic, and have been doing it for some time now.Oh. You're the first to claim this and it's not mentioned in any of the news articles. Got any links to back up this scoop? Everyone else thinks CSIRO is taking people to court over software patent infringement, not breach of contract.
-
info from http://en.swpat.org
Here's what I have on their previous trolling:
- CSIRO wifi patent
- Patent trolls
- All businesses are targets - software patents aren't just a problem for software companies
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
-
info from http://en.swpat.org
Here's what I have on their previous trolling:
- CSIRO wifi patent
- Patent trolls
- All businesses are targets - software patents aren't just a problem for software companies
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
-
info from http://en.swpat.org
Here's what I have on their previous trolling:
- CSIRO wifi patent
- Patent trolls
- All businesses are targets - software patents aren't just a problem for software companies
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
-
Re:Republic of Korea has swpats?
The Republic of Korea has information processing patents?
The Wild Fox maintainer seems to think so.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/South_Korea
It's already there. AIPLA: South Korea states that information-processing apparatus claims such as "a computer system that does task X by performing steps A, B, and C" are valid. In the case of a video codec patent, X is "prepare video for transmission through a digital channel" for an encoder or "receive video transmitted through a digital channel" for a decoder, and A, B, and C describe a block diagram of the codec.
-
Republic of Korea has swpats?
The Republic of Korea has information processing patents?
Have you any links about this, or any information that someone could use as a starting point to learn more?
I've pretty much no info about Korea, but it's all welcome here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/South_Korea
Thanks.