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

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

[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.

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: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.

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.