The Software Patent Institute

The Software Patent Institute is often acronymed down to SPI, which is usually the popular three-letter-acronym for Software in the Public Interest. Modern times can certainly be confusing. While Software in the Public Interest is an organization devoted to free software, the Software Patent Institute is an entirely different organization, providing free use of their software technology patent database on the Web.

Featuring hard-hitting sponsors like Microsoft, IBM, USENIX and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the SPI database features a vast amount of free information culled from (among other sources) old manuals, textbooks, journal articles and conference proceedings. The entire database is searchable by over 20 criteria, including old standards like author and publisher, but including extended fields for operating system and execution hardware. If you look hard enough, you can find documents in the database dating back to 1955. There are over 1.2 million 'pages' of information in the database, broken down to about 10,000 bytes each for ease of transmission over the net.

As for the fiery software patent issue, SPI dodges the bullet with this statement from their mission and endorsements page:

'The Software Patent Institute has among its members some who believe strongly in the desirability of patents for software-related inventions and some who are strongly opposed to patents for software-related inventions. SPI deliberately takes no position on this issue, or on any particular patent or litigation. We believe that there is a current lack of readily-available information concerning software technology, and we are attempting to help solve that problem.'

The free software movement is extremely anti-patent; the boycott on Amazon is merely the latest strike on the software patent institution. Recently I had the chance to speak to SPI's Executive Director Ronald Cole about the Institute and its policies. "We've had a number of cases where people have come up to board members and told them that the activities of the institute would not help, but make things worse," Cole stated, "Passion runs deep in the technological community. Having been a child of the sixties, I understand the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality, and we've gotten that from both sides. To us, of course, that's somewhat reassuring. The companies that sponsor us do so knowing full well that the information we provide may help someone on the other side of one of their [patent] disputes."

The SPI also offers courses to the United States Patent and Trademark Office four to six times a year, working with their software training specialists to build a curriculum for the USPTO Patent Academy training program.

The Software Patent Institute is not a new being; they've been active for the past eight years. "We actually got started in 1992. We became an independent non-profit in August of 1994. The database come online fairly soon after we started, either late in 1992 or early 1993."

So, what's next for the Institute? "Two things have happened over the course of the time we've been in existence. The [software patent] issue has not gone away. It has increased in importance, and so has the widespread recognition of its importance. That's helpful."

"The second is the amount of technological change that has been helpful to our efforts. The Internet wasn't really an option when we started. We started out with some help with various remote control programs; we were planning to run a modem bank. The ubiquity of the Internet made it possible to provide a collection of content much, much easier. You should think of our database as a card catalog, rather than books on the shelf. We strip out graphics, and only keep information in HTML formatted text. There are some systems that do similar kinds of things in political science and they store images, but if we do images, we go from 20 kilobytes per page to several megs a page. In pure text we can get that down to a few hundred bytes. The technology is not there to offer everything it may be useful to offer. We are one of the groups that would take advantage of broadband access; it's not just for movies. In the meantime, it's a lot more feasible than was conceivable in 1992. The second technological change [that has helped us] is dramatic improvements in imaging technology."

New OCR technology alone helps the Institute transfer more documents to the Web; they're currently chugging along with a scanner that moves about 70 pages a minute. The Software Patent Institute database is available on the Web at http://www.spi.org. Use is absolutely free, provided you're willing to 'click through' an agreement.

Comments

Erm.. and?

[Psiren]

Sorry if this appears a silly question, but what was the point of this story? Was it just to let us know that this place exists or was there some point to the rambling?

"Sir, I'd stake my reputation on it."
"Kryten, you haven't got a reputation."

Re:Erm.. and?

[FEBN]

Seems to me it's a case of Spi vs. Spi.

Neat... that's actually neat...

[alexhmit01]

Given the animosity towards software patents here (I don't share it, many are bogus, some are real), this is something useful. If someone wanted to actually do something about specific patents, not the process, this is a good place to start.

By creating a system to list SOFTWARE patents (isntead of all patents) it puts us in a better position to see if
1) we are infringing upon them
2) if there are BS patents that we want to fight

Also, does this include the full text (seems that way)? IIRC, the other patent databases list abstracts and where you can pay for the full paperwork. This is a step in the right direction.

point of no return

[Signal 11]

At which point does a person declare the existing social structure to be so inefficient, harmful and biased that change from within is impossible?

I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that there is little anyone can do to stop the large money'd interests from taking away our online freedom: the freedom of information, fair use, free speech, the right to peacefully assemble (ie: post in public forums without fear of retribution - like having your access revoked). I think the system has been evolving ever since about the late 1960's when various economic breakthroughs kickstarted this modern super-corporate era. We railed hard against government invading our privacy, our homes, and our lives... only to turn a blind eye to another group: corporations. And now we have nobody accountable in those positions. We're worse off than before.

So here I am, watching the internet, my playground for most of my youth, evaporate in a flood of money, greed, and ignorance. Am I to stand by, waving a banner saying "please don't steal my rights"? Or should I practice civil disobedience - thumb my nose to the super-corporations, risk life and property and stand up and say simply "No more"?

Re:point of no return

[RomulusNR]

I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that there is little anyone can do to stop the large money'd interests from taking away our online freedom: the freedom of information, fair use, free speech, the right to peacefully assemble (ie: post in public forums without fear of retribution - like having your access revoked).

There is a problem in this line of logic, that has existed since the early days of Prodigy (and with the shift of that userbase to the Internet, is persisting), where people insist on projecting goverment protections onto private companies, and then declaring "violation of my constitutional rights". And it ain't so.

We railed hard against government invading our privacy, our homes, and our lives... only to turn a blind eye to another group: corporations.

Fancy that. With the government, the people at least have the supposed ability to fix problems and redirect policy (change laws, impeach presidents, choose officials, etc.) Not so with corporations, unless you own 51% of stock, and especially not in a conservative/libertarian-driven anti-boycott social atmosphere.

(I'm inclined to ask, since I wasn't there in the 60's -- how pray tell did you let that happen?)

So many privately-run Internet forums are eager, once they become popular (and at the same time, once they become too unwieldy to operate out of pocket), to be purchased by business and other economic interests. At that point, although your personal financial future is stable in the medium run, you lose almost all future control over not only your operation's future, but your own financial future, to a sense. (Read: /. gets bought by Andover, and all is well for a time, until Andover gets bought by VA. And what happens when VA gets bought by RedHat? Or Compaq? And does CM et all retain the ability to take /. and run after all this? Hm? Anyone got their crystal ball? Magic Eight Ball? Big Red Button, even?)

So, while one could say "the answer to all these corporate-controlled forums is to replace them with private forums", the problem is those are still likely to become bought by the same corporate interests, especially when their own ones become failures.

Sigh. It's too bad Usenet is decreasing in 'popularity' (not to mention being swamped by unreinable spammers and their harvesters), because it suddenly seems the better solution -- since it'd be quite difficult for anyone to buy it. (Though Deja has made quite an effective attempt.)

But with all this in mind, please stop crying foul when large companies decide what's good for the government isn't good for them (cause it isn't). You signed the paper, and that means you shape up or ship out. (The question is begged -- Why are you there in the first place?)

Kdt

Re:point of no return

[MillMan]

Things have always been this way, in our country for sure, as my knowledge of history is limited. Here is my simplified view:

There are two sources of pressure in our society (any "structured" society that ever existed really):

1. The pressure from those with power to take away the rights of the "common people". Or, more generally, to keep the population submissive and "out of trouble" to maintain the power they have over the common person. In modern societies, money becomes part of the equation, particularly over the past 100 years in which corporations have come to have real power.

2. The pressure from the common man for more rights, or a more egalitarian society. Basically the opposite of #1.

The pressure from #1 is nearly constant, from my knowledge anyway. #2 is the variable, and our rights tend to increase or decline depending on how high it is. The last big social movements in the 60's saw a large increase in rights, socially and politically. I think most would agree here that those rights have been sliding back since the early 70's.

Or should I practice civil disobedience - thumb my nose to the super-corporations, risk life and property and stand up and say simply "No more"?

I tend to think this is our only option. The institutions are run by those in power, so while you might get small gains out of them, you won't get fundamental change becuase they like the way things are (or they want it to move in the opposite direction). Our socity has been there before, of course you don't hear too much about this in school, they wouldn't want you going out and "causing trouble".

Civil disobediance is basically how we got all our rights. Not just on paper in the constitution, but actual enforcement. Civil rights for minorities and labor rights come to mind for the century that just ended. You can't just file a lawsuit, you have to get out there and protest or form unions to shut down the factories if you want them to listen. You might consider reading "A people's history of the united states" by Howard Zinn. Basically it's the story of our country from the point of view of the little guy who gets shoved around (indians, laborers, women, blacks, etc) and how their fights got us most of the rights we have today.

Re:point of no return

[adimarco]

When does one declare the existing social structure so inneficient that change is impossible from within? Now.

There is *nothing* *anyone* can do to stop the large money'd interests taking away our freedoms, short of cough up more money. Our system is run by money, the only votes that count are green and have George Washington (or preferably Benjamin Franklin)'s face on them. That's not going to change. It's never been any different.

What has changed is that we can *see* that more clearly now, although the nebulous corporate scumfucks that I'm vaguely railing on are doing their best to prevent it.

Unfortunately, being aware of it isn't enough. As has been pointed out in far too many replies on this site, every time a new communications medium arrives its proponents tout it as the end to oppression and censorship. The medium itself isn't going to do that, I think we've proved that enough times to learn collectively this time around. I hope so at least.

Freedom isn't profitable, let's face it :) The internet (as it stands/stood) isn't profitable, at least by old business models. The aforementioned nebulous corporate scumfucks are all neophobes, they *fear* change. Look how long it's taken them to realize that stock valuation is no longer tied to tangible assets...

So what do we do? I don't know. I'm tempted to advocate "open revolution" (whatever the fuck that means) at this point, but if you cut the head off a new one will just grow back in its place.

Most major change of the kind we want isn't initiated by people statedly trying to make a change. Large change comes by accident, not by design (all hail Eris). On that note, we should keep doing what we do well: write free software. "Fate" will take care of the rest, is already starting to in fact :)

Anthony

Re:point of no return

[slashdot-terminal]

At which point does a person declare the existing social structure to be so inefficient, harmful and biased that change from within is impossible?


I would say at the time that the person/person's have actually had something quite harmful done specifically to them ie suffered a personal loss. We have lived in a time when anyone could just walk up to you on the street and end your life. The higher crime rate the higher chance that will happen. For some people this has already happened and they become bitter.

You must realize that change has and will always occured. History will show you that people go from periods of relative freedom to periods of relative slavery. Over the long haul humanity will perservere. As much as I have a 1984 sig I do not believe that 1984 could be a reality. There are too many people involved. People like you and I are capable of running a totalitarian machine. Believe me if such a totalitarian governemnt existed I would do plenty of boot polishing that would eventually lead me to get great power within the sturcture. Then once I had power I could shape the system to whatever I felt like.

I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that there is little anyone can do to stop the large money'd interests from taking away our online freedom: the freedom of information, fair use, free speech, the right to peacefully assemble (ie: post in
public forums without fear of retribution - like having your access revoked). I think the system has been evolving ever since about the late 1960's when various economic breakthroughs kickstarted this modern super-corporate era. We
railed hard against government invading our privacy, our homes, and our lives... only to turn a blind eye to another group: corporations. And now we have nobody accountable in those positions. We're worse off than before.

You must remember that those "monied interests" were at one time little children who had no money . Through the process of freedom they slowly built power in a society that allowed for absolute freedom. Then they set up shop. Now theoretically you can do the same. However I would not exactly want to dedicate my life to business. I have had my share of crap in my life and am still going through crap. In once sence you could say that I really should rebel and leave society to it's own. However I cannot because the only other choice is death by my hand or by the grim reaper due to starvation. Therefore the logical choice is to act and try to change your surroundings.

You know I can post in public forums. I would give 5 bucks to the first slashdotter who could correctly pinpoint me to within 100 feet, give my real name, address, telephone number, etc. I seriously doubt this could be done.

This would also preclude any possibility of tracing me and allowing anyone to actually "punish" me. If someone were to actually dismiss a person for talking about things they believe in within the confines of a public forum you have grounds for a lawsuit. Having personal experience with the legal system this is not cheap but neither is being fired by hired goons.

These "breakthroughs" are in fact the revolution in terms of technological power and access that PCs have given us. People progressed to this state and we have wanted this state. There's no such thing as a free lunch. This is true with progress. We can't have an advanced society or an industrial revolution without polution and habitat destruction. Every city simulation out there (ala Simcity and clones like lincity) portrays a developing society in terms of low progress and low technology then increasing technology and envirnomental damage and social ills (homelessness, poverty, high taxes), then in a few years you get a good group of people who change things. After all this it cycles all around and goes back to the beginning just with more technology or perhaps to step 2. This has to be shown.

In they Eye of The World series you get a medieval interpretation of this with the concept of the Wheel of Time. Essentially because of the backward methods of data archival and constant state of medieval warfar humanity was stuck into patterns of 7 differnt ages which gradually change and when the first comes around again no one knows that it isn't deja vu because there's no evidence. People developed super corporatism because it was what the people wanted. They wanted more and they got more.

Corporations are made of people. Those people are all working for their own disperate interests. However they have a similar goal to create more of the corporation because they are part and might get some back. If you start to ban corporations you get damage to the people who are part of those corporations. One could say you punish success. Now this dosn't mean that I don't believe what you say however I don't believe that you could successfully break up all corporations at a certain level and have all their workers discharged. Wow I can see the reactions of each and every labor union in the USA and abroad (if they really have any) raising riots in the streets. People want job security not to have to guess how long they can keep those bill collectors away with the 12 gauge shotgun.

So here I am, watching the internet, my playground for most of my youth, evaporate in a flood of money, greed, and ignorance. Am I to stand by, waving a banner saying "please don't steal my rights"? Or should I practice civil
disobedience - thumb my nose to the super-corporations, risk life and property and stand up and say simply "No more"?

The internet is created via connections that are *VERY* expensive. I seriously doubt (I just might be suprised) that you have a large ammount of fiberoptic cables coming out of your house with multiple OC-48's do you? What has made the internet so accessible was corporate money. If you doubt this look at the horrendous charges all those BBS type services that were run by companies were charging. I have a copy of a book about the "internet" that dates from the 80s. This book talks about various "online" services and typical charges. They all charged by the minute at rates that could quickly add up. Want to transfer a file? Well things like the Linux kernel would set you back a pretty penny. You have that $19.95/month deal because a great deal of rich men decided that access would be given and get them more money if it were much cheaper: and here we are with dedicated connections that would be definately out of the question for any but the most monied people in the world.

Now I can't say I have been able to use the internet for "most of my youth". And I can't say that I think I am fairly treated in all things. I can say that some of the thoughtless flamming posters responding to my posts have driven a steak into my heart numerous times. I can also say that the internet hasn't really given me almost anything at all. Mostly it has sucked my time away and generally done little. However for you something must have happened. Some little thing gave the internet utility to you. That connection and the mere fact that you can send data to anyone in the world must be petter than candy. I salute you for finding that niche for your life.

As a matter of rights comes up. You have to say is it really worth it to do something like that? When was the last time that you seriously send some revolutionary thing like the Communist Manifesto to anyone else or post something equally revolutionary on your web site? Probably not. Corporations cannot do anything really evil unless the members let them.

I think that your idea of civil disobedience would largely fail. What do you really think that you could do to make a corporation quake? Well boycotting every corporation that does anything bad would result in you starving to death naked, alone, and cold in a snow drift. Youthful enthusiasm aside if you really think that given your priviledged status as a member of the online community do you think that it would conflict with your dream to divorce you from that medium that has given you life? Classical literature is repleate with instinces of where something really nasty happens to a person and it slowly drives them from who they are. They feel conflict and they just wither from within and slowly go mad or just go out in a balze of glory literately or figuratively.

In the Scarlet Letter you see this in the character of Roger Chillingworth. The man had wrong done unto him and declared war on the society that spawned that evil. He saught revenge and his whole being was revenge. If he had picked up the pieces and decided to make good what he could where he was he seriously would have been better off.

If they want to try to change the rules then perhaps you can make yourself a king in the new rules. If you want to have uninformed people capitalize on that! Just cheat all those sheep and make millions of dollars. When you get there then and only then can you make change. The days of instant discoveries by science and instant political change from one are gone. Although one can change things instant policital change is nigh impossible.

In conclusion I really don't care if I get moderated down or my account deleted. I merely care for what I believe. If you can't fight the bully and get beat up each and every day then change. Otherwise you end up like mass murders who just decide to get their own private revenge/control fantasies. Avoid the bully make a few concessions. Allow for your eventual phoenix rise from the ashes and then you can smite that bully.

Re:point of no return

[slashdot-terminal]

When does one declare the existing social structure so inneficient that change is impossible from within? Now.

Your method of change is what? Protests. Making laws. There are many theories which suggest that if liberal minded folks ran things life would be easily harder for those who generally try to make a living.

Suppose you make a law that would coerce people to prevent the release of carbon dixoide by x% (this has been tried but failed thank god). What instantly happens is that prices increase 300x or more. All industry processes increase in complexity and difficulty. With this you hve the eventual collapse of people who were/are already poor into what we had in the middle ages or in ancient India: a stratified caste system. Such a system could easily ensnare each and every person in it's grasp for many, many, years.

Plans to stop money will only hurt people who rely on said money. Unless you make money in a barter system and don't really have a job where you get a paycheck you are totally effected by this. We had a crummy labor marked in the 70's and it could only see a repeat if we follow advice like this. It took a lot of sabre rattling and hard work and innovative stratagies to get out of said slump.

Re:point of no return

[MillMan]

Give me a break...protesting is how we got where we are. Theories about liberals running things? Do you know what theories have to do with reality? Little to none. Give anyone a computer, and he'll type out some theories for you. Rush Limbaugh types are a dime a dozen.

You analogy about carbon dioxide isn't looking at the whole picture. You're only concerning yourself within the box of capitalism.

Environmental concern has to be concern #1. If the environment gets ruined, we get ruined. Our method of getting and distributing scare resources has some connections to reality but is mostly artificial. When you look at the direction that technology takes (or is pushed in) products are developed that make money, not products that benefit man. They aren't developed with the environment in mind.

Re:point of no return

[webster]

Am I to stand by, waving a banner saying "please don't steal my rights"? Or should I practice civil disobedience - thumb my nose to the super-corporations, risk life and property and stand up and say simply "No more"?

I know you know this, but I feel I have to say it anyhow. To do any of the above is to relinquish the field of battle to the enemy. Whenever, in the United States, vast amounts of power began to be concentrated in a small number of hands, other interests have mobilized to grasp more of the power for themselves, and so some semblance of balance has been maintained. These days way too much balance is being concentrated in the hands of corporations. The trouble is, all the traditional interests who whould have fought this type of concentration have become corporations themselves. And so they are, indeed, part of the problem. The solution has to be some kind of mobilization of the citizens to provide a voice for the interests of the citizens against both government and corporations. All of us are part of both government and business in one way or another. But the interests of government and business do not necessarily coincide with our own.

Organizations like EFF and SPI (the Software in the Public Interest SPI) do a great service for us all, but their efforts are somewhat scattered. Government and business do not need a vast conspiracy to help them achieve their ends. The gathering of power and money is just natural to the way they operate. Citizens, on the other hand, do not naturally put lots of time and energy into pulling power and money away from government and business. I suspect that some kind of coordinating organization will be needed to fight the unhealthy concentrations of wealth and power.

It will be interesting to see how such an organization will form, if, indeed, it ever does.

Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation

Re:point of no return

[jgrr]

There is *nothing* *anyone* can do to stop the large money'd interests taking away our freedoms, short of cough up more money. Our system is run by money, the only votes that count are green and have George Washington (or preferably Benjamin Franklin)'s face on them. That's not going to change. It's never been any different.

Corporations didn't exist in the US until the civil war, and the Founding Fathers were very opposed to them. The reason they opposed them is the same as the reason people oppose them now: there is no moral system they can be held accountable to. The law applies to them, and gives them rights like citizens, but the ways that they can be punished are limited because they aren't people. Right now it is correct to say that the only votes that count are green, because you can't incarcerate a corporation, or execute it, or make it do community service. Corporations are legal entities, organized as corporations under state laws. They exist as legal entities only, therefore the revolution you suggest is a legal one. Encourage your legal representatives on a national and state level to make laws regulating corporate behavior carry meaningful penalties.

So what do we do? I don't know. I'm tempted to advocate "open revolution" (whatever the fuck that means) at this point, but if you cut the head off a new one will just grow back in its place.

The problem now is that it is impossible to rebel against the corporations themselves. For instance, one cannot buy a car that isn't made by a huge multinational corporation. Most food comes from large agro-businesses, and large companies control most news outlets, computer makers, tv shows, etc. One must inevitably buy from a company that is part of a huge conglomerate.

Most major change of the kind we want isn't initiated by people statedly trying to make a change. Large change comes by accident, not by design (all hail Eris). On that note, we should keep doing what we do well: write free software. "Fate" will take care of the rest, is already starting to in fact :)

Margaret Mead says, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world, indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Free software won't make Nike pay workers a living wage, nor will it keep GE from dumping toxins in your reservoir. A legal revolution will. No matter how great Linux is, it won't make Amazon.com stop trying to patent one-click shopping. Linux will change things, but not those. That change will come from you writing a snail-mail letter to everyone in congress, everyone on the supreme court, and everyone in the White House, telling them that things have to change.

Then write to every candidate for public office and ask them for their position on these reforms. Don't vote for anyone who thinks things are fine. Don't vote for anyone who votes against campaign finance reform, or who is too afraid to answer your questions.

When enough people do that, it's an open revolution.

Re:point of no return

[Esperandi]

Uhhmm.. huh? My mind is boggling right now over your post. Have you ever heard of guns? Do you know what money actually is?

There is only one way in which people are forced to do anything at all and only one way in which people -- with a gun (imprisonmnet is done at the point of a gun so it fits in here) and that's the government. The gun should be there to stop people from things like murder and such and it will always be there.

Anything else is free, objective choice. If you don't like your choice, that is NO excuse for making the wrong choice. If making the right choice is "hard", you deal with it. You weigh the advantages and disadvantages and you choose the one which is in your personal best interest.

On to money. Money is not a form of pressure. Sit back and realize what is required to survive. A meal every few days, water, and shelter. That's it, and you can get it all without money. When you want to trade in the world of money, you enter into its rules. Its rules are not published and they are not unrealistic or harsh. You do work for someone and he gives you money. This is a win-win situation because it is backed by the principle that you must make one of those free choices. Is the payment he offers worth it to you? If not, you don't do it. Period. You don't do it. If you do it and then want a union and want this and want that, you're defrauding the system and you're going to be unhappy for the rest of your life and start talking about the "common man" and junk.

Money does not create a class structure. Money does not endorse a class structure. A janitor is not as valuable as a company founder and that is a cold, hard fact in reality. There are no classes here, there is one man doing what he excels at at a wage that he agreed to be paid and the emplyer agreed to pay. They are both the picture of human virtue until the head of the company tries to cheat the janitor or the janitor tries to cheat the head of the company or brings the gun into it (a union is a gun since their only arguing tactic is violence). When that happens, whoever is being cheated should retain their virtuous status either by quitting or firing. If they are "backed into a corner", they might rail and whine about being forced, but unless the threat of violence or imprisonment is there, they are wrong. It is a hard choice and they want to abdicate that freedom so that someone else will take care of it for them.

Esperandi

A question...

[Analog]

I have read on several occasions, and as recently as the last few months, that the USPTO has laid the blame for all the bogus software patents they issue squarely on the fact that such a database doesn't exist. Since this one has been there for seven years, and the USPTO is a sponsoring organization (and therefore one would assume does know about it), what's their excuse going to be now?

Re:A question...

[Signal 11]

and the USPTO is a sponsoring organization (and therefore one would assume does know about it), what's their excuse going to be now?

Well, I'm not an employee of the USPTO, but I can think of a few: High workload, underpaid/over-worked, lazy employees, untrained employees, high technical prowness to determine validity (ie: requires lots of training), food poisoning took out most of the staff that week so they just stuck "APPROVED" on everything coming in to keep up, they weren't getting enough money from Congress so they asked Microsoft to *cough* "sponsor" them, they didn't care....

Hard to tell if this is good or not.

[CodeShark]

Featuring hard-hitting sponsors like Microsoft, IBM, USENIX and the United States Patent and Trademark Office,

Hmmm, the FUD mongering "embrace of death", the thankfully mostly reformed but previously anti-competitive Big Blue, ...., and the seemingly clueless USPTO. Why am I not reassured?

I like the fact that they have this huge database online, with lots of search criteria, but what good does it do when they admit that 'The Software Patent Institute has among its members some who believe strongly in the desirability of patents for software-related inventions and some who are strongly opposed to patents for software-related inventions. SPI deliberately takes no position on this issue...'

Sounds more like they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. I for one say this: make the SPI a non-corporate dominated non-profit which the free community can easily support, and which might even work as an arbitrator with the USPTO to resolve when a software patent should be given and when not. (Personally, I don't think patent law should be applied to 99.9% of all software, but that's slightly off topic.)

The SPI also offers courses to the United States Patent and Trademark Office four to six times a year, working with their software training specialists to build a curriculum for the USPTO Patent Academy training program.

Well (see preceding paragraphs), I should feel better now that I know that trainees are being trained...not to take a stand for or against software patents. Hello? What the hell happened to the government's responsibility to defend the common good?? which is mentioned nowhere in the SPI's statements. Just that companies might use the patent info against each other.

Use is absolutely free, provided you're willing to 'click through' an agreement.Well, I for one will read the agreement and all it's fine print before I click through. Okay, I read it. And admit that I need more legally minded folks here at /. to go over the darn thing and see if I lose any significant rights when I click through the damn thing.

Re:Hard to tell if this is good or not.

[CodeShark]

You are all being led down the same path as ESR... (etc.) Please feel free to elucidate your points, because I am interested.

I don't understand what you mean, and I hope I was pointing out some of the flaws, and no, I don't see where the sort of thought will take us. What sort of thought? Only when I understand what you mean can I take the long hard look which you suggest.

Re:Hard to tell if this is good or not.

[FigWig]

I think the click through agreement was written by the same geniuses behind Microsoft's licenses.

In case anyone wants to avoid the agreement just stick this in an html file and click...

<form method=post action=http://m.spi.org/cgi-bin/newqry>
<input type=hidden name=ISA value=Init>
<h2><input type=submit name=submit value="I Suck"></h2></form>

Re:Hard to tell if this is good or not.

[Ralph Bearpark]

It seems to have been modified in the last few minutes such that only submit value="I Accept" will work successfully.

Since your own HTML page including this code is unlikely to have the license text, I wonder what the SPI webpage author believes he/she has achieved with this change?

Odd.

Regards, Ralph.

This bruce is fake

[Signal 11]

FYI to slashdotters - be careful of fakes. Notice the "." at the end of this guy's name and his default posting score of 0.

Re:This...

[cdmoyer]

Note the '.' after 'Bruce Perens'? Take a look... another troll impersonator.

What?

[istartedi]

Listed as a current associate:

Intellectual Property Office, Republic of China

I didn't even know that existed. What's it like working there? Maybe it's like this:

Hello IPOPRC, how may I help you?

Yes, I just got a copy of this new Disney film, is it OK if I dub a million copies and sell them for $2/piece in Hong Kong?

Let me check... (shuffling papers) yes no problem with that. (click).

Re:What?

[Spud Zeppelin]

Umm, in case you missed it:

Republic of China != People's Republic of China
Republic of China == Taiwan

Last time I checked, our Taiwanese friends made a point of paying more than lipservice to Intellectual Property. :)



This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.

Re:What?

[istartedi]

D'oh! Moderate me -1, Asleep at the switch.

Um... Who are their developers?

[JohnA]

This record was retrieved 10:08:30 Wed, Feb 9, 19100

:-)

Impostor

[Bruce Perens]

The user named "Bruce Perens." with "." at the end of his name is not me.

Bruce

Impostor

[Bruce Perens]

Com'on, Get a life, OK?

The real Bruce, the one without any "." at the end of his name.

Impostor

[Bruce Perens]

The user "Bruce Perens." with the "." at the end of his name is not me.

Bruce

That's Not Me

[Bruce Perens]

This user "Bruce Perens." with the "." at the end of his name is not me.

Bruce

Impostor

[Bruce Perens]

The user "Bruce Perens." with "." at the end of his name is not me.

Bruce

This is an Impostor

[Bruce Perens]

User "Bruce Perens." with the "." at the end of his name is not me.

Bruce

Idea

[cameldrv]

Perhaps at this point, those of us who value progress in the computer field need to take a different approach towards patents and start playing rough with the big boys instead of whining on the sidelines. Here is what I propose.

A non-profit organization is created under the auspices of say, the FSF which files for as many pantents as possible, and perhaps, with a big enough bankroll, purchases the patent portfolios of bankrupt companies.

All of these patents are licensed free of charge to any project which meets a suitable definition of "free software."

Further, this organization would retain lawyers, in much the same manner as the ACLU does, to fight infringement cases brought against free software projects. If sufficient money is available, the organization could also help defend patent cases against smaller commercial software companies who would otherwise be forced to settle.

The big stick that the organization would carry, however is patent cross-licensing. Imagine if when the DVD CCA drags you into court, you countersue with infringement claims against all DVD players, and offer to settle in exchange for attorney's fees and the dropping of the suit. In some instances, this organization could even negotiate for patent sub-licensing rights so that more patents could be used in this manner.

Obviously, this organization would wield a lot of power, and so it is important that it be controlled by trustworthy people, as well as having a charter that explicitly defined its goals, but it could perhaps end one part of corporate tyrany -- patent tyrany.

Your thoughts?

Re:Idea

[browser_war_pow]

Too restrictive. Why not allow them to be licensed for whatever purpose you want so long as they aren't contaminated by proprietary extensions?

Open Patent License

[Mark Shewmaker]

Why not allow them to be licensed for whatever purpose you want so long as they aren't contaminated by proprietary extensions?

That's pretty much what I'm trying to promote with the Open Patent License under development at www.openpatents.org.

The OPL also allows you to submit patents with more restrictive conditions closer to the sort cameldrv suggests. You can submit patents under the OPL such that they can be used only in works works entirely distributable under an Open Source license and for which other incorporated patents are at least available under the terms of the same Open Source license.

However, I think most submitters would find the other Options of the license more useful to them--the other Options let the patents additionally be used in various types of "uncontaminated" proprietary products, given different sets of conditions. Those other Options are closer to what browser_war_pow suggested, in that proprietary products aren't immediately ruled out.

(Both Open Source and non Open Source development is harmed by software patents, so I think any solution like this should be inclusive of both groups.)

If anyone's interested, there's a mailing list for discussion of the Open Patent License.

Name just one

[Esperandi]

Name just one company that can survive with 0 sales or with even 50% of its current sales without changing the practices that you believe are stopping you from being happy.

I'd put money on it that you can't do it, but I'm experienced with your kind and money destroys you.

Esperandi
Money is not a tool of oppression, it is the only tool of freedom. Without greed, innovation has no motivation. Greed is the mother of necessity.

Nonsense, how could it be bad?

[werdna]

I like the fact that they have this huge database online, with lots of search criteria, but what good does it do when they admit that 'The Software Patent Institute has among its members some who believe strongly in the desirability of patents for software-related inventions and some who are strongly opposed to patents for software-related inventions. SPI deliberately takes no position on this issue...'

Of course there is no inconsistency whatsoever between being a proponent of software patents, generally, and being an opponent of bad software patents. No one can plausibly defend patents for technology that is not novel, and the strongest advocates for the patents system --to a man-- hold that the system can only work when the number of bad patents issued are held to a minimum.

This is the purpose of the database -- not to defeat software patents generally, but to aid in the defeat of bad software patents and hopefully to avoid the issuing of such patents in the first place.

Only those who are troubled by repairs in the patent system that would deprive the lock-step "antis" of the argument that the system isn't working would consider an improvement to be a bad thing.

Re:Nonsense, how could it be bad?

[CodeShark]

I agree with most of your points. However, my concern about corporate influence in the form of sponsorship still stands. Without a more highly technical group overseeing what should/should not have a software patent, innovation can get stuck in the courtroom instead of the free market.

One of the little nasties that I saw in a law as proposed by Congress (wish I had the link: I'd put it here...) would have even changed things so that the discoveries of prior art would not automatically negate a patent. So while the database being made public is good, I'd still like to see more protections for the public well- being in the form of more stringent requirements and arbitratable review and revocation of current software patents if they just aren't any good.