Slashdot Mirror
ESR Invited To 'Advise' USPTO
alannon writes: "Most of this article, posted on MacWeek's site concerns an 'open source sermon' that ESR recently gave to a group of Mac hackers at the annual MacHack convention. Most of his speech was taken with a grain of salt, though he left a gem of an annoucement: He's been invited to join the the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a member of its citizen's advisory committee! I'm sure he'll make lots and lots of friends there. "
> ESR is a very well spoken, even minded person who will add a great voice of reason
If you follow the news, you'll be aware that ESR is more likely to shoot his mouth off than otherwise.
Also, he's kind of like Chomsky... no matter what you invite him to speak on, you get a political message to go along with it.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
He's not a very good Opensource Advocate.
And I'm serious.
A friend of mine who's a programmer over at Microsoft had a chance to listen to his speech. I got to come along as well (yay!). At the time I was so excited that I finally got to listen to ESR speak.
Well, I was deeply disapointed. He was just very arrogant and wouldn't give anybody a straight answer. He'd be like "The reason why netscape is beating you guys is because mozilla is opensource". A few people questioned this, and he simple would say "... because its open source, and people like that".
I dunno, he didn't come across as a really nice fellow to me. I felt almost ashamed of being a Linux user after that whole ordeal...
These aren't black and white issues, and intelligent, thoughtful people can disagree. In my experience, anyway, the best way to persuade someone to change direction is to agree with them as much as possible, and introduce shades of gray into the discussion. Arguing that they're fundamentally wrong tends to be less productive.
Hmm... I'm reminded of an old .sig of mine...
Fear extremists, for they will not listen to reason.
Intolerant people should be shot.
No, you misunderstand. Formal tests and approval are essential. This wasn't what prevented Penicillin as much as the fact that it wasn't patented. The failure to patent it actually slowed down its acceptance.
In fact, I totally agree with you. Given the time taken for Drugs to be approved, and the fact that there are no arguments to reduce this significantly, the drug industry requires a guarenteed return. Patants may or may not be the best way to acheive this, but they do their job.
Incidentally, I'm not familiar with Phen-fen. What happened there?
"the marketplace" as cure-all. Marvellous. Save your kooky far-right economics for the weekly ESR-fan/gun-club meet.
Oh, grow up.
I probably shouldn't feed the troll, but what the hell.
I never said the free market was a panacea[1], and if you'd bother to read any of my other posts, rather than simply responding in a typical, knee-jerk reactionary manner, you would have noticed that my political leanings (not that they have anything to do with the topic at hand) are if anything left of center. (See for example my arguments about how the free market is not at all well suited for services requiring human compassion, such as medicine and care of the elderly).
However, the free market is a much better approach than draconian, government mandated and enforced monopolies which favor a few at the expense of the many, stifle progress and harm entire industries.
Try looking outside of your narrow preconceptions sometime. You might be surprised to discover an entire planet lying beyond the boundries of your little yard.
[1] for our troll of limited vision: panacea ~= "cure-all"
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp ?theisbn=0465039138&from=bbookbuy
You can do some searches on google.com, etc, to find some articles he's written... there should be plenty that turn up... The book is really good though.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm posting this here because I think there are many on the open source community that don't realize the immense harm that would come to distributed control of IP if patents are abolished or weakened. If that happens, the guys with the most money win by default, since the smaller guys will have no protections whatever.
The following is a letter I wrote to LWN a few weeks ago outlining part of my argument. It will rub a lot of people the wrong way, but we can't afford to destroy the patent system unless we really want Microsoft and other huge companies to call all the shots. I don't think a lot of people here have thought these issues through.
Letter to LWN (at http://www.lwn.net/2000/0420/backpage.pht ml)
I've gotten several challenges to my assertion about patents as a desirable thing
(mostly asking for examples of small inventors that actually did profit from
patents) so here's my quick response, FWIW:
Anyone saying patents don't do immense public good, and provide worthwhile,
needed, and *effective* protection of small inventors against large corporations
is simply ignorant of the history of even quite recent technology. Many
inventors started small, but because of patent protection were indeed able to
profit greatly from their inventions.
From the "gararge-shop" POV, well, just off the top of my head, there are the
examples everyone is familiar with: Bill Hewlett and David Packard (HP,
instruments), Steves Jobs and Wozniak (Apple, home computer), and outside the
computer industry, folks like Edwin Land (Polaroid, polarized materials and
instant camera), Chester Carlson (Xerox, xerography), Henry Ford (Ford,
affordable automobiles), Thomas Edison (GE, light bulb, motion pictures,
phonograph...), and Alexander Graham Bell (AT&T, telephone), all of whom
profited greatly from their patented works. (One could argue for the inclusion
of Jeff Bezos in that list, although around here, that's a bit like whacking a
hornet's nest with a stick...)
But the classic twentieth century example of patents providing exactly the kind
of protection I'm talking about is probably that of Philo T. Farnsworth, whom
you may never have heard of, although you likely use his invention (electronic
television) every day. Farnsworth was the prototypical individualist inventor
who persevered against all odds and eventually defeated David Sarnoff and
Vladimir Zworykin of the immensly powerful RCA. RCA was truly the Microsoft of
its day in terms of control of the market and underlying technologies through
acquisition - often under severe economic and other pressure. RCA had a policy
of never paying royalties for any technology - a policy they managed to uphold
until they met Philo Farnsworth, who just wouldn't give up.
Farnsworth fought virtually alone against all of RCA's power for seven years
before the final court rulings that his patents had clear validity and
precedence over Zworykin's, forcing a tearful RCA lawyer to sign a royalty
payment agreement to Farnsworth. (Farnsworth publicly displayed television
*five years* before Sarnoff unveiled RCA's infringing version to the world
amidst great fanfare at the 1939 World's Fair, leading many to believe Sarnoff
and RCA were the inventors of television - sound like anyone today?)
Farnsworth's experience is, if anything, a case study for the need to
*strengthen* patents and either streamline patent appeals or extend the length
of patents when thier commercial utility is impacted by unsuccessful challenges.
(World War II intervened, and the government outlawed television for the
duration of the war (the technology was needed for radar, night vision and other
inventions Farnsworth then worked on), and so Farnsworth's patents expired
before he could profit from them.
Do you still think patents are a bad idea? I'd argue experience shows that
patents should be strengthened and perhaps that the duration of Farnsworth's
patent should have been extended, due to RCA's clear abuse of the patent system
and the courts. (I also think the government should have been upright enough to
grant extensions in the name of fair play to all inventors whose inventions were
commandeered for the war effort, but that's another issue entirely.)
History clearly shows that often patents are all that stands between real
progress and innovation and the acquisition by force so typical of a Sarnoff or
Gates. Strong patent law is the *only* effective defense against large
companies stealing technology from small inventors. (What RCA tried to do could
be accurately portrayed as theft.) I'm amazed more people don't get this, but
they tend to avoid history, and fail to recognize that our American forefathers
were wiser than we are in pretty much every way.
Although it's not perfect, there are very good reasons the patent system is the
way it is, and we meddle with it at our peril. It would be nice to see a
balanced discussion of this issue rather than the knee-jerk reactions that are
more common in the open source/free software community.
Dub
P.S.: I recommend spending some time browsing through some of the links below
to see how many of the great inventors of recent history were independent - the
protection provided by the patent system allowed them to develop and in many
cases profit handsomely from their inventions. You might be surprised at the
diversity and "ordinariness" of many of these inventors of important
breakthroughs - they're not such an elite group as you might imagine (the list
is somewhat US-centric - our culture celebrates invention, and so links for US
inventors are much easier to find):
National Inventor's Hall of Fame
MIT's Invention Dimension Archive
Good Internet Public Library list of links to Inventor information
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
And don't give me any bullshit about defending the country with your little 12-gauge, or even your ak-47. It's no match for the Army's M1A1 Abrams or its Apache chopper.
Actually, the history of warfare provides many examples of guerrillas successfully countering better-armed forces. Witness the Vietnam Conflict, Afghanistan, and, well, the American Revolution.
When you get down to the house-to-house person-to-person fighting, tanks and helicopters don't help much. It is extremely difficult to control a resistant armed population, even (especially) if their arms are lightweight. A tank or chopper simply kills them. How do you control a population if they are all dead?
Let's get over this romantic notion of everyone being noble patriots who will save us from the tyranny of the whitehouse.
Not necessarily the whitehouse, but tyranny must be fought. I am willing to give my life fighting to preserve my natural rights. Some people (obviously you) believe in life at any cost -- even if it means a life without freedom. I don't feel that way.
How many parts of the Bill of Rights are you willing to surrender? Once your right to self-defense is gone, will you give up your right to free speech?
Will you come on Slashdot saying, "Let's get over this romantic notion of speaking out against the tyranny of the whitehouse. Get real. Criticizing the government has really got to go?"
How far does it have to go before you stand up? When you decide to stand up, what will you use?
I am a law-abiding American citizen who happens to own firearms. I am NOT the problem, but it's easier to come after me BECAUSE I am a law-abiding citizen. I can be counted on to comply with every do-nothing feel-good restriction you devise. Of course, the people who ARE the problem carry on as they always have. They don't care about the law. That's the REAL problem. Show me a solution for that.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
I have to admit I'm confused by your reply to my post. Your subject reads "horsecrap", which means you think that something i've said is, well, less than accurate - and then you go on to agree with me, on almost everything. perhaps i should clarify my viewpoint?
Seems to me that the proper reaction to the ability to enfore a law ought not be to stop enforcing it.
the proper reaction to "the ability to enforce a law" (um, which law) shouldn't be terminating enforcement... i don't understand this sentence at all. we shouldn't stop enforcing a law because of the ability to enforce it? whose ability? what is the ability doing? what law?
If they willy-nilly grant patents and extend the intentions of patent law (see granting patants on business models) they have little right to complain about workload.
why? seems to me if you're overworked and you're doing a shitty job, it's reasonable to think that the two might be related.
If they stop revieing patents methodically as they have then you wind up in a mess because everone is suing claiming patent infringment.
can you point me to the portion of my comment where i endorse the termination of "methodically reviewing patents"? i WANT them to methodically review patents. i want them to submit them to community review, so that when they say "1 click shopping" and the community says "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH" they will say "oh. maybe not."
At least if you went the other way and only reviewed the truely novel inventions then you leave it up to indivudual inventors to protect their intellectual property instaed of lumping the responsibility on the already overburdened legal system.
that's EXACTLY what i want them to do. i want them to review what you call "truely novel" (that's a truly novel spelling, btw) patents only, that is, patents which are not obvious and for which prior art does not exist - and throw the rest out. what i'm trying to get at is that with the resources they have now, and the amount of political and financial might being exerted on them, they don't have a chance. yes, 1.2 billion a year is a lot of money. maybe. except when 30 billion dollar corporations want ONE patent to fuck over the computer industry (read: rambus).
If some idiot can look at your invention and duplicate it because it was too simple then I suggest it's too obvious to be patented.
sing it, brother!
Things like bottle openers and anything easily deducible should not be granted these rights.
word!
More broadly, the current patent system does not suit its intended purpose and is far more damaging to society than helpful
can i hear an AMEN? (you should support this with evidence though, like the oil industry burying the electric-car patents, or RAMBUS. makes a more effective argument).
In the end I do blame the patent office and its current leadership for broadening the scope of patentable IP.
the patent office employees are APPOINTED by the ADMINISTRATION. that was the whole point of my post. they do the will of our elected leader (bill clinton). to blame them is to blame a straw man. if they don't do as they're told, they get underfunded. if they rebel, they get fired.
know your government!
The reason they didn't? It was purely for personal greed and power. there is an inherent conflict of interrest when the head of the USPTO, big business and all lawyers involved on both sides stand to profit from granting sleezy patents. Power and/or money.
DOES the head of the uspto stand to profit from a corrupt patent system? or does he stand to keep his job, while someone in the adminstration (or political machine that elected it) stands to make money? consider the florida tobbacco settlement: $0 to smokers, $75million apiece to hillary clinton and trent lott's brother, respectively. a bipartisan takedown.
i agree with you, it's all about the benjamins.
i just think that you might want to make sure you point your finger at the head of the beast and not the tail. don't missunderstand me.
and FUCKING LEARN TO SPELL!
please.
thanks.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
What they ARE in favour of is abolishing or diminishing the effects of patents on software processes, business methods and the like.
Reading some of the posts above (try this one) will show that these did not become patentable until about 20(?) years ago, due to one or two court cases.
Most of your argument is based on patents for what most of us still think of as "real" inventions, and only a few of the people here would disagree with your examples. But the examples you use predate the type of patents most of us are talking about (and largely(?) disagree with). If the patent situation was to return to the way it was in 1939, many of us would be happy with this (well, happier anyway).
Patents were designed to protect small inventors. But software patents and business process patents are not being used to protect small inventors - they are being used to allow large companies to lock out competition - perverting the idea of capitalism and the free market (unless your idea of capitalism is just to allow large corporations to do what the hell they like, and let the strongest survive).
Only 5 hours. Jeeez, it takes 5 hours for Fidel
(Castro) to finish his opening remarks.
http://db.tidbits.com/tbtalk/t lkmsg.lasso?MsgID=7417
It was referred to as an "open wallet" project :) p.s. I thought about submitting this as a story but figured it wouldn't make the cut.
You actually mean drugs invented in the US, not necessarily produced here. The reason they cost less in Canada (can't say about Mexico) is that there is a set of price controls there which would make it illegal to charge the US price. This has left the Canadian drug industry hamstrung as far as R&D goes. If you compare Canada to the US, the Canadian drug research investment is pitiful, even taking into account the smaller population & GDP.
BTW: Canada charges less for generic drugs, not for new & name brand drugs. On balance, Canadian drug expenditures are slightly higher. It is just that the legally mandated price disparities on the generics get the press.
DB
ESR would be almost the last person I'd choose as advisor. I suspect he'll just stir up bad feeling; he's not exactly the world's greatest mediator.
Surely the best choice to advise on Open Source issues would have been Tim O'Reilly: someone who is calm, logical, intelligent, able to see both points of view and who has taken a close interest in the patent system. Still, perhaps whoever invited him as advisor wasn't looking for the best person for the job.
So your argument is -- you have no argument, other than [argument]
correct. i have no argument other than my argument.
disagreeing with your silly argument that lack of funding excuses the USPTOs excesses and incompetence.
so now i have an argument? i'm sorry that you feel that my argument is silly. however, you have incorrectly summed it up. i did not argue that their behavior was excused by their funding situation, rather i believe it can be explained by their funding situation. the difference is that while i still think they're destructive, at the very least i have a theory as to why.
i.e. poverty doesn't excuse crime, but it often explains it.
Every grammatical flame, however subtle, contains its own grammatical errors, as you so aptly demonstrate
i did not create a grammatical flame. i flamed his spelling. your statement is therefore logically false.
Every blanket statement beginning with the word "every", however subtle, is complete bullshit, as you so aptly demonstrate (even this one).
doesn't parallel rhetoric just annoy the hell out of you?
actually, "flaming" is probably an overly strong characterization, but what the heck, i'll throw you a bone. and a dangling participle. at this point your only recourse is to go back and spellcheck all my posts. i haven't done this, and you'll probably find something to prove your point. and i agree with your point - i have probably made a mistake or two, and people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. my point was that when someone makes a rampant pattern of mistakes, i.e. "i thinks yur nots noweing how to speek pruperly!", it makes them look illiterate, and not fit to converse with literate people.
Alas for you, most of the people reading this forum are smarter than that.
i'm not sure they're mostly smart, but i do think they're mostly independent thinkers. i'm sure they can decide whether they agree with my interpretation. at the very least, they should be aware of the funding situation and draw their own conclusions.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
The argument that the poor, overworked and largely incompentent staff of the patent office is underpaid and that the office is woefully underfunded and should therefor be forgiven for its gross negligence and incompentence is, indeed, hogwash.
no shit. i didn't make that argument. my argument was that the uspto is staffed by appointees, and that change comes from the administration. lack of funding is a tool that the administration uses to exert power.
Destorting markets, hampering industried, and destroying small competative businesses by handing out government mandated and enforced monopolies willy nilly the way it is doing right now is immoral, unethical, reprehensible, and destructive.
sing it brother. i buy that with 2 clicks! (i'd buy it with one but i can't).
. Of course, whoever is president and whichever party is percieved at being in poewr at the time will take the blame, not the patent office, so maybe they (correctly) feel they do not have to care.
i think you may have this situation ass-backwards. but that's just my opinion.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
That this might be a way for the government to take attention off the bad things?
----
Oh my god, Bear is driving! How can this be?
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
I understand your concerns. But those pro-corporate and commerce-friendly stances are why ESR is a good choice. He knows how to talk to the suits. He understands their points of view.
Who do you think is going to get better results: a man who walks into a new office and says, "Okay, there are a couple problems here, I see a few misunderstandings, here's a better way," or a man who cannot compromise in the least? Someone who walks in and immediately starts off with, "No, all of you are wrong. There's only one way to do this, and it's mine."
How are we going to see "real change," as you say, if we aren't also willing to make changes?
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
The idea is that if you know that you will be rewarded for spending several years producing a cure for a terrible disease, people are more likely to spend the time developing.
The drugs industry does still produce a lot of new products, and doesn't find the patent laws highly restrictive. The problem is that the cost of getting from a theory that something should work to a legal drug is very expensive. It has to go through several development stages, then several testing stages. This requires a lot of people to help in trials. It costs billions to get that far, and so far the company hasn't managed to sell a single product.
If the drug is not patented, as soon as a drug is released, competitors can start producing immediately and undercut the company that did the work easily.
An example was penicillin (so I've heard). That was not patented. It took a long time for the research to find out if it was actually useful, since nobody was willing to spend the money needed for tests. In the meantime, a lot of people who might have been saved died.
BTW, you can help stop software patents being introduced in Europe by putting your name to EuroLinux's petition.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Yes nothing ridiculous except that a patent on a telphone menuing system is so broad that it can be seen to include hyperlinking.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
blah. He's probably the right person, for the very reasons you say he's the wrong person.
RMS, as far a business is concerned, is a nut job. ESR shows them that GNU is not a communist conspiracy and can be a good thing.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
thanks for heading us off, I was *this* close to killing this guy
Imagine what would happen if after everyone signed over their right to the fsf it becamse corrupt, reminds me of a few past governments :)
Though I wonder, How much influence does the advisory commitee actually have?
The path to hell is paved with least resistance.
"It's no match for the Army's M1A1 Abrams or its Apache chopper." --Evro
Which is why all conventional weapons should be freely accessable by the public. I would be able to save you from the tyranny of the Whitehouse a lot better with a MP5 than a Smith & Wesson "smart" revolver.
I love you people that assume we are so advanced that no one has any need for a weapon. Evidently, that our non-corrupt, non-weapon-wielding government will protect us with its sheer virtue (not a weapon) from anything (including itself & ourselves (get that, the government can attack us because it is protecting us from us)) that endangers us or our freedom just like on The Next Generation.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Even though ESR is probably not the best choice to put in.. but it's a step in the right direction.. I'm sure he'll give his opinions about everything unholy in the patent office... =)
It's definately a step in the right direction
ChiefArcher
I do agree with you as to the dominant marketplace isue. Back to IP issue: ...you come up with some slick new engine and promptly release your model on the market. Having limited means you can't really flood the market but ... the big gorilla of that particular niche can. So they copy your design and make milions while you get nothing. ...you know what, we don't need them. They are already here and are called IP.
Imagine
Without IP laws it is a very realistic scenario.
You hinted that there could be some laws enacted to prevent this sort of abuse but
Is this like a anyone can join only thing, or does one have to get invited. Also would this just involve technical related subjects, or all patents could be reviewed by ESR.
Jason
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
New from Broccoli Entertainment: "Pierce Brosnan IS Agent ESR with the License to Advise!"
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
While it is true that PTO management has encouraged production at the expense of quality for over two decades, the question of the patentablility of software methods and business methods has been determined by the courts, not the PTO. Both of these, traditionally, were held by the PTO to be non-patentable subject matter (35 USC 101) for many years. Indeed, the PTO fought the patentablility of a method and means for converting BCD to binary (and/or vice-versa) all the way to the Supreme Court, and won (the Benson case). The supremes reversed the lower court (then the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, succeeded by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). The CCPA, thereafter, sought to nitpick Benson to death, eventually leading to it's virtual devistation.
/. . But laying the blame for the concept that software and business methods on the shoulders of the PTO is clearly wrong.
The Methods of doing business were overturned sometime in the 80's When One of the big financial companies got the CCPA/CAFC to overturn a rejection of some financial product.
The point of this is to make clear that it is the courts, not the PTO, that determines the the interpretation of section 101, as to patentable subject matter. This is not a constitutional determination; Congress has the power to change this (good Luck).
Given this, the Office has no choice but to continue the examination of the the application to see if it meets other requirements, most notably novelty and unobviousness, of which there is plenty so say, since that is squarely within the PTO's rhelm, and which much has been vigorously commented on
"I mean... honestly... I think that we're going to find that *quality* is motivated by money."
Except that turns out not to be the case. Take the much overused example of Microsoft (Please.) Microsoft has a lot of money, yet their software is just adequate. Not great, not well-thought out, but adequate, "good enough." Take something like Linux. Linux has shown itself to be quite robust, and while the creators and distributors aren't paupers, they aren't rolling in money either. There is obviously not a nice, neat correlation between money and quality.
Money at times may be linked to quality if it is necessary to spend the money to get the materials, equipment, etc. to get the job done right. For example, if you are going to create an OS that can scale from 1 to 64 CPUs, somebody is going to have to spend the money to get a machine with 64 CPUs.
From what I've observed from the sidelines, though, is that pride is more of a motivator than money. If the corporate culture says "good enough" is OK, then that corporation will ship out merely adequate, or even less than adequate, products. If the corporate culture says "good enough" isn't, then the products shipped will tend to be of pretty high quality.
It is hard to think of too many other people you could choose over him to sit on the advisory panel. For all that is written about his personality and whether he can or cannot play well with others, who else knows more about software development and the importance of public benefits from its intellectual use.
Although ESR is certainly a very out-spoken Open Source advocate, he doesn't strike me as a zealot and seems intelligent enough to offer real solutions to some of the problems the USPTO is having. Granted they committee probably doesn't have a hell of a lot of pull, just a foot in the door will do wonders for the system.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
I wondered where the Linux programmers got all their sleep. They just attend one of ESR's speeches and get a good meal of crackers and water before dozing off into Tux's dreamland. What kind of speech was this? Did he talk like dumbass inFidel Castro at 2 words-per-minute? Or did he talk like Zippy in the Xemacs environment?
without prejudice
One must wonder if this is a good thing, as Martha stewart would say, or something wholly evil. Apple has not exactly been good on patents, if you will recall the ALTO and such, so it is possible that this man will be equally evil in some position of power.
I think in matters of patents, that there should be an elected commitee to deal with disputes. such as the ICANN @Large program, it would be interesting to see an internet process for the US Patent Office so that we can put an end to the Patent Whores.
Pax Digitalia
Posted by 11223:
I have just the T-Shirt picked out for him to wear...
ESR can't show anything beside bunch of inflated IPO based, so called "companies."
Back to reality people.
Mostly depends on whether this group is one of those groups that has an advisory committee because they know they need it, or if they have the committee because they've been told they have to have it.
If the former, they're likely to realize how clueless they are. If the latter, this will be all heat and no light.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
The original inventor would still have the right to persue their invention, persue other ideas to which his/her invention gives rise, etc. And, someone else coming up with the same invention at roughly the same time (a very common occurance historically) would not have the rights to their invention taken from them simply because they lost a footrace to the patent office. Without patents, everyone could play and compete accordingly, and the market, rather than a governmental authority, could decide who "wins" and who doesn't. One of the nice things about the free market is that there are often multiple winners in a given area, a stark contrast to the sole "winner" of a patent.
It sounds good for those that have the same idea at the same time. But my crystal ball shows a different scenario ...
If there is no patent protection than anyone can make use of the invention. So who is going to win, the individual inventor (a college professor perhaps) or a well heeled corporation?
It's worse than this, because the inventor has nothing of value. He can't sell his patents, because he doesn't have any. He can't stop anyone else from using his idea, so no one will invest in him or his idea.
So as a result of doing away with patents we get a few very large companies. And the end of meaningful competition.
At least Microsoft has to pay for its innovations today. Under your scenario it just takes what ever it wants and beats everyone to market.
So contrary to your claim, everyone doesn't have the same chance to take advantage of what would have been a patentable idea. Nope, only those with money can.
Steve M
Ummm, RMS started GCC (lots of undergrads write C compilers as an excercise in programming), RMS started Emacs. I suspect one could dig in to count the lines of code and find that he's written a minority of the current codebase in either. Also, since he 'started' those programs, and nobody ever cites anything newer than those programs when hyping him as a uber-hacker, it's likely those are the last programs he's really contributed much to.
What he really has been good at is hyping the minimal code he's written and getting others to contribute to it's growth. Kind of what Linus also does well (but Linus stays actively involved in kernel development).
Hehe, that's when you say "oops" :)
Voting Moo Anyway!
Excuse me, but I find the thought of the little gun nut/hotheaded fanatic putting a couple of slugs in anyone who disagrees with him patently funny.
Please stop your trolling, sir.
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
This is a good idea that should be modded up! RFCs are not hard to find and read.
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
And I haven't heard an outporing of support for changing the Linux configuration system to Python (though I love Python).
Depends on what you mean by 'linux configuration system.'
RedHat's config tools are wrapped up in thick syrupy layers of Python.
The concept of raising the fees paid by applicants to cover the costs of the PTO go back to Reagan's Commissioner, Gerald Mossinghoff. The goal was to cover all the costs of Patent operations (Trademarks were handled separately) with the exception of a reduction of some fees for "small entities" (e. g., independent inventors, small businesses, non-profits) which would continue to be supported by Congressional appropriations (not sure if this is technically correct in budgeteeese as Congress approves the entire budget; just looking at the balance between fees and expenditures). In addition to to raising the basic fees that had previously existed, new fees, like patent maintenance fees, were added.
This apparently, has worked well; so well, that Congress is trying to use the fee revenue stream to support other government programs. It's kind of like all the special taxes that are placed on telepone service in the US to support all kinds of things, or gas taxes used to support mass transit, etc.
Like you say this is typical Washington whoring (not that PTO management is innocent in many other ways)
Why is 17 years ridiculous? Why should an inventor in the software world be discriminated against as compared to an inventor in the hardware world? (If the invention is novel, as you postulate.)
Of course, if there is such a disparity in patent terms, then patentees will simply phrase their claims in terms of "a device for performing the steps of", thereby magically converting their software inventions into hardware. Software/biz method patents are around simply because courts got tired of the convoluted claiming people were already doing to patent software and business methods.
>The combustability is compared and the rating is
> given as a percent of the flammable octane to
> the mixture of flammable and inert octane.
I thought that the higher the octane number, the less flammable the mixture. Higher octane gasolines are more resistant to knock, which is what happens when the gas mixture ignites too soon (before the piston completes it's upward travel). Using a higher octane gasoline delays the ignition to avoid that problem. A somewhat related problem is premature ignition of fuel in a high compression engine. Engines with high compression ratios sometimes require high octane fuels, because the heating from compression is enough to ignite lower octane fuels before the spark is fired.
Did I misinterpret what you wrote or do I have wrong information?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Well, it doesn't take much to get labeled a nut by suits:
"I'm not interested in making a lot of money. I'd rather share ideas/stuff."
"I would not lie/exaggerate/cheat to make profit."
"Public services are a good thing."
"Consumption is not everything."
etc.
High level CEO suits tend to exhibit clear signs of psychopatic behaviour in their utter disregard of human rights, environment and ethics.
So, this is a good thing to do with him :) it will keep him out of trouble and for a change he will actually be helping the 'libre' side of things simply because there is nothing he could possibly do to make the USPTO hurt it any worse :) I would assume that somehow somewhere he would see _something_ pathetic that's being patented into corporate backed-by-the-barrel-of-a-government-gun proprietariness (there's so much of it!), and would take the opportunity to point it out and cry "HA! See that? That is not suitable for a patent at all!" and the world would be that much of a better place :)
Um, since it's ESR we're talking about, I do hope you mean that in some kind of metaphorical sense, since the literal interpretation threatens to make the community one spokesperson poorer. ;^)
main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
The point is that they're deliberately kept underfunded and underpowered, thus any decisions they make will be by nature be essentially, "Did the lawyers dot their T's and cross their I's?"
That's all they're paid to do, that's the only infrastructure they can put together.
An advisory committee is, sadly, a PR move. Their corruption runs pretty deep; their own head stated quite plainly he'd patent a legal argument if he could get away with it. It's not corruption in the personal sense; they're just an agency with a subverted mission and a gigantic loophole. The best the agency could do would be reject every single Net related patent--and watch themselves get taken over by a new administration.
Patents are an extraordinarily powerful tool of control, and quite a few law schools are churning out people who are more than capable of taking advantage of that. Don't expect a Citizen Action Committee to be able to do too much to change this, unfortunately.
It's an excellent gesture, though, and ESR is a great pick.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
What is your source for this assertion?
+100 points if it was a "suit".
0 points if it was a "hacker"
-100 points if it was ESR.
ESR's positions on corporate boards only tell us that he is a high-profile person who is good at managing his own publicity (which we knew anyway). In my experience, speaking as a suit, Eric Raymond is regarded as a nut, and an arrogant, self-important nut to boot. He has no understanding of the realities of business (nobody who has studied "The Catherdral and the Bazaar" in any depth takes it at all seriously), and his constant libertarian rhetoric is tedious. Furthermore, he exalts the role of code-monkeys at the expense of the corporate planners, financiers, bankers and, yes, lawyers who really made the Internet happen.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
And for the other side of patents see this article on how an attempt was made (is being made) to rig the system to extend a profitable drug (Claritin) by subverting the patent system (much like the Copyright system has been subverted by the continual grandfathered extensions of the copyright term, the most recent being the Sonny Bono law).
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
This is a great thing. ESR is a very well spoken, even minded person
I suppose you either love him or hate him. I think he's a cantankerous(sp?) opinionated old bastard. He's a pretty good writer, but not so impressive as a speaker; and as for even minded... Hah! I can just see it now:
"Right, well I think the international socialist party have a good claim on this patent."
"No! Eric, put the gun down!"
Grandma knows how to pay the boy next door to cut her lawn...she can pay him to troubleshoot her usb problem just as easily. "Here, Mrs. Wilson...it had come unplugged." "Thanks, Jimmy, here's $5."
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
It's very clear that your own irrational attitude toward guns is clouding your judgement here.
I recommend that you read *all* of the essays on firearms that Eric has written. Maybe you'll learn something.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
ESR does. He's in a much better position to speak with authority on what is and isn't obvious to a trained engineer.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Not entirely sure, but i think it's like that until you post stuff that's moderated up.
Voting Moo Anyway!
Image that I spend the last 3 years developing a completly new paridigm in User Interface. I did market studies, and spend thousands and in User Test to see how effective my UI was. This UI though it fairly easy to code though and is elligant in its simplicity, and wins the world over as a breakthrough in design, and everyone wants to copy it.
Now would you say I deserve atleast some protection say a year and a half to be able to profit from my idea.
I think truly invovative software deserves protection. Not for nearly as long, and for only truly innovative thing. But to say we should completly destroy such system is to say my time spent on design was of no value.
But 15 years (or whatever the going length of patents is right now.) Is simply rediculus.
The purpose of the second amendment isn't to allow US citizens access to guns for sport, or for hunting for food. The purpose is to ensure that the populace will be able to overthrow the government if needed. Information has also been supressed in various country's because it can be used to overthrow a government.
After you get rid of guns, is information next?
As the people of Slashdot love to say, you can't put the shit back in the horse. Firearms are here. There is no getting rid of them. Criminals, our government, other governments will always have them; I hope that I can say the same for you & I!
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Considering that the patent office has almost nothing but open jobs for computer-related patent reviewers, who would oppose him? As I've mentioned DOZENS of times before, the only reasons the bad patents (speaking now to the people who don't believe that *ALL* patens are inhernetly evil) get passed is because they're getting through by default - the knowledgeable computing community has decided to not even try.
Esperandi
Previous hacks include using Open Firmware to play Breakout (or was it MacsBug? somebody else remember?), a hack to program the LED display on the Apple Network Server 500 (one of the most obscure pieces of equipment ever shipped by Apple), a hack to render a Mac screen in ASCII text in realtime, and other jems.
The best part: usually, after a month or two, they bundle up all the hacks for that year and stick them on a CD-ROM, along with (in almost all cases) source code. You can usually download them as well. Last year's CD is available here courtesy of MindVision.
It's always funny to see READMEs that specifically advise you NOT to run the accompanying software, not to mention how many end with something along the lines of "I'd tell you more about how this works, but I only have 10 minutes until I have to demo it and it still isn't compiling, so you're on your own..."
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Don't be too hard on him. Nikolai Bezroukov (who wrote the thing) is a nice and knowledgeable guy, however he has two problems:
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Hmm, corporate lobbyists tend be for funding the patent office, since it's beneficial to them to have speedy returns on their patent applications. They have no fear that by funding the patent office more, that they'll be less likely to acquire a patent.
If you followed the recent debate about USPTO funding on the House floor, I'm sure you saw the Republicans pushing for moving more finances into the USPTO, because it's "integral to keeping our new economy growing."
Now actual reform on the process of granting, and the lifetime of patents would certainly meet great opposition by corporate lobbyists.
Blah, blah, blah. All those things have uses other than killing. Guns have one use: murder. Recreational target practice is not a legitimate use. Sorry.
As for your Franklin quote, it's eloquent and sure to rouse the people, but as one of the Founders of this country I doubt Franklin even believed that. In any government the people agree to give up certain liberties for the benefits of protection by the government. I give up the liberty to walk around shooting people and to rape every woman I see for the privelege of living under government protection. So while your little quote sounds nice, it's really stupid. Unadulterated liberty is anarchy. If you want that, feel free to start your own nation. Let me know how it works out.
The Bill of Rights is pretty solid. But AFAIC, the second amendment was a huge mistake. I, for one, would be glad to see it go.
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
We can be thankful Mr. Bozos wasn't involved in the development of destructive nuclear devices when he "invented" one-click.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
I'm willing to surrender the part that is a huge mistake, the part that has singlehandedly caused countless deaths, the part that was included by a paranoid people in a time when the military and the people were one and the same.
Freedom of speech/religion/press is fundamental to the fabric of this nation and this people. I will never surrender that. Freedom to bear arms restricts everyone else's freedoms greatly -- if everyone lives in fear of getting shot by their neighbors they aren't really free, are they?
I agree, you are NOT the problem. The day you forget to lock up your gun and your kid brings it to school; the day you accidentally shoot your brother who comes stumbling into your house at 3am in the dark; the day you get pissed at your boss and take out half the office -- that is the day when you become a problem.
more ranting.
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
I can't find his karma on his user info page, so I can't make any comments. heh.
:)
If he really does have a karma of like 14, then it could suggest he should just ditch his current account and start a new one... or maybe he's overflowing the variable used to keep track of things
Voting Moo Anyway!
Here's a picture of RMS in a patent office. :) Actually, RMS is quite a gentle person, so no one should think he would actually do something like that.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Personally, I believe this line to be pure bull - not only in the Mac community, but also in the Linux community.
I know many people who started using Linux, and couldn't write, without help, a single, simple, syntax-error-free line of C code.
Now that may sound very harsh against Linux users - and it is very well meant to be. All in all, the technical competence of most Linux users IS above average. But that doesn't mean that they all have the competence of commercial quality programmers, or even mediocre programmers. I doubt the majority of them could fix a simple buffer overflow bug given adequate debugging information that points the bug out directly.
The claim that there are "40,000" contributors to "Linux" is very misleading. First off, Linux is more than the kernel. It is all the programs that it takes advantage of or requires to get the job done. Linux would be NOWHERE without programs like 'make', 'gcc', 'gdb', and all those similiar tools. However, those tools WOULD exist without Linux. So, that number (which is pure estimate on the part of anyone claiming it as fact anyways) most likely includes the developers of all the programs that Linux takes advantage of... and in this case, that is like saying a printing company (Which can be run by a handful of people - a manager, a couple secretarys, a couple graphic artists, and a few printing press operators) employees "hundreds of people", by counting the foresting company, the people that operate the paper-making machines, and the people who produce the ink.
IF, on the other hand, said number was restricted to the heart of Linux - for TRUE "Linux" is nothing more than the KERNEL - I wouldn't be surprised if, over the course of Linux's 8+ years of evolution, 4,000 (not 40,000) people have contributed something to the source code for some program for some platform or another - but even then Im wondering how many of those contributions were very minor ones - such as a bug fix - and how many contributions overlapped. How many people provided moderate (more than a few dozen lines of code) contributions, and how many provided SIGNIFICANT conributions (on the lines of a few hundred or thousand lines). I'd guess more along the lines of 400 and 40, respectively. And how many Linux kernel contributors are well known by any kernel hacker? I think the number falls around 4 (to 8).
In the end, the true core work of a project is done by just a few people (scaled to the size of the project, of course). While they may take advantage of existing libraries (such as a PNG or JPEG library, ZLIB compression, a communications archiecture, or some such), that does not truly increase the size of the development team - that actually gives them less of an excuse to have large amounts of people. You can't claim the authors of these libraries on your dev team (tho giving them credit for their work and it's use in the project is something else entirely different).
And finally, what if the project is commercial? The problem these days is that Free Software (Free as in Freedom of Speech/Open Source) is equated these days with Free Software (Free as in Free "Beer"/No Cost). This is a very dangerous equation that is being made, and even promoted by so-called experts such as Richard M. Stallman. Eric S. Raymond has a clearer view, but it is still distorted by the belief that everything can and should be source-available. In many cases, especially Games, this option isn't available while the product is still commercially viable. Hence why Doom and Quake were not Open Sourced until years after they were off the shelves and replaced by better products (in the cases of Doom and Quake, 2 generations of products later).
- Chris Jacobson
(MaineCoon)
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
Seems to me that the proper reaction to the ability to enfore a law ought not be to stop enforcing it. If they willy-nilly grant patents and extend the intentions of patent law (see granting patants on business models) they have little right to complain about workload. If they stop revieing patents methodically as they have then you wind up in a mess because everone is suing claiming patent infringment. Yet more work for the USPTO. At least if you went the other way and only reviewed the truely novel inventions then you leave it up to indivudual inventors to protect their intellectual property instaed of lumping the responsibility on the already overburdened legal system. If some idiot can look at your invention and duplicate it because it was too simple then I suggest it's too obvious to be patented. Things like bottle openers and anything easily deducible should not be granted these rights. More broadly, the current patent system does not suit its intended purpose and is far more damaging to society than helpful. In the end I do blame the patent office and its current leadership for broadening the scope of patentable IP. they should have done the opposite. The reason they didn't? It was purely for personal greed and power. there is an inherent conflict of interrest when the head of the USPTO, big business and all lawyers involved on both sides stand to profit from granting sleezy patents. Power and/or money.
It's good to see the USPTO moving towards a more democratic approach. Although I doubt that ESR will be able to effect an upheaval in the patent law, I think he will be able to introduce the suits over at USPTO to the goodness of open-source methods. I mean, if the USPTO really has more patent applications than they have time to look at, why not get citizens involved, on a voluntary basis, to do research for the excess? Sure, there are issues with confidentiality, etc. but many patents (like Amazon's) are simply new patents on existing implementations, so there would be no issue with having semi-public peer-review.
It works for academic journals, why not for patents?
Can your IM do this?
Meaning that his speeches have a LOT of Q&A most of the time. In many cases, his reply is, "I'm getting to that next.", but in other cases, he'll sidetrack a bit.
He spoke at Cornell 2-3 months ago. It lasted for 2 hours, and would've lasted longer if the room hadn't been needed by other occupants.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The Bazaar, as ESR portrays it, simplifies mass programmers down to intelligent testers refining code and reducing bug counts - this is true, but this does not necessarily mean better, more stable, or more usable software. More problems are revealed and more features creep in, but the real value of Open Source is the sense of personal responsibility people take (at this point in time anyway - perhaps the revolutionary attitudes) to invest their time, talent, and energy in producing something of quality.
Now applying this same attitude to government - I find it pathetic to see the change in the amount of dedication and commitment we currently show to our government. One look at the rusted ornate decorations on most government buildings indicates that most of the American Public takes little responsibility now in making and maintaining our government as something truly valuable. We did at one point in time, but I think Americans take for granted that someone else will take personal responsibility for our government. It's not until these notions of personal responsibility and irresponsibility replace the order/chaos mentality in the minds of the public that a true change in the IP business models will take place.
Raymondism FAQ
A good patent system would encourage true novelty more than copycat drugs.
Lol!
+ %22death+threat%22&num=10&meta=hl%3Den%26l r%3D&safe=off&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=anonymous+coward
.. 13 hits
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The big problems with the USPTO are well known:
- Examiners are missing non-patent prior art. That's getting better, but it still needs work.
- "Business method" patents were probably a bad idea, but only Congress can fix that one, because a court ruled that the USPTO has to grant them if they meet the usual standards for patentability.
- Narrow "interface patents" used to block interoperability are a special problem. The classic is the Hayes patent on "+++" as an escape sequence, not that it did Hayes much good; they went out of business. You can always get a very narrow patent on a new, but not particularly interesting, variation on something. Ordinarily such patents are worthless, but if you're the dominant player and patent some minor attribute of some industry-standard interface, you may be able to stop cloning. This is an antitrust issue, not a patent issue per se.
If those three problems were fixed, most of the complaints from the Linux community would be dealt with. (There's a whole set of different issues in biotech and drug patents, but I don't want to get into that here.)So your argument is -- you have no argument
well, no. i do have an argument - i took issue with his characterization of it.
as far as jabbing at his spelling - yes, it's lame, and i hate to do it. i only do that when the lack of spelling or grammar is consistent throughout the post and actually interferes with the meaning or content of the post. i mean, he barely got out a single sentence without a spelling error, and a lot of his sentences lacked an object or pronoun. i did not at any point jab at his grammar. i don't really think that grammar is as important as spelling, especially on a web forum such as this, when people don't have much time to type their comments. i, for instance, ignore capitalization completely, as i use a one-handed dvorak keyboard and shifting is somewhat complicated for me (it's a long story).
so, to reiterate, not once did i attack his grammar, so your attempt to attack mine is unfounded. yes, attacking spelling is lame, but a consistent pattern of misspelling that interferes with the meaning of an argument is a signifigant detractor from that argument.
and yes, i do have an argument, my argument is that the corruption in the patent office stems from deeper corruption - namely, the corruption of the people who fund and appoint employees to the uspto. he simply summarized my argument incorrectly.
as you did.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Well, no one else seems eager to take on this bit of US Patent Office propoganda, so I guess I'll stick my neck out. This will have to be brief, as I've work to do and can't spend the entire afternoon replying to slashdot.
The Patent system is a lot like the Lottery.
A few small people win big, get rich, and become poster children for the status quo. (e.g. the historical examples cited in the previous post. Alas, for many of the poster children, the honor is posthumus, for many had their health ruined and indeed even died from the stress of fighting a battle against terrible odds.)
A great many more small people are directly harmed in the process. (e.g the many who lost thier battles to better funded, larger commercial interests, such as those inventors who lost all rights to their inventions to Thomas Eddison, who claimed both historical credit for work which wasn't his, as well as monetary gains, all facilitated by the US Patent System. Another example is of course the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of small businesses stillborn due to government enforced monopolies. Other costs, such as inventions never realized because the base ideas are locked down, have been discussed elsewhere).
In the end, poster children aside, the system is designed to favor the large players, again at the expense of the little guy. (Lotteries bring most of the money they generate into state coffers, not the pockets of "winners" or the "little guy." So to, most patents are owned by corporations. Most legal conflicts between small inventors and large corporations end up being resolved in favor of the large corporation, for they have more capital and more lawyers to present their arguments.)
In one respect the patent system is even less fair than the lottery. At least anyone can buy a lottery ticket, even with the same winning number as another, and the two lucky poster children can share their tiny slice of the pie. Not so with patents. Its a winner takes all system, and the winner is almost always the large, well funded and well represented corporation, not the little guy.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Quite right. Guess what? Mac OS X does this. Most system configuration is stored in XML files, which are parsed by shell scripts when the system boots. XML files are plain text, not difficult to edit. The configuration can also be changed via standard GUI Mac-like control panels, or by a GUI XML editor.
Unfortunately I haven't had much chance to play with Mac OS X yet, but in theory this sounds better than anything Linux currently has to offer.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I am not making this up...
http://www.moscowtimes.ru /24-Jun-2000/stories/story2.html
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Patents are a good thing for their intended use, which is physical goods (including computer hardware). They do not make sense for computer software; in this field, copyright is the best way to secure rewards for authors. Patents on computer programs create a legal minefield for small developers and allow companies to get monopolies on business methods, by phrasing their patent as one on software.
The critique at lpf.ai.mit.edu was written several years ago, but the points it makes are just as true today. Also freepatents.org has some useful links.
People who oppose software patents are not (in general) opposed to patents themselves. It's just that patents are inappropriate for computer software.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Patenting drugs is completely reasonable, because drugs go through this rigorous testing process. There are no "novel inventions" in the drug arena due to this, and that is what the entire patent debate is trying to prevent.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
You are one great troll. Seriously, masterpieces.
When he spoke at Cornell, it was just the opposite. He was very well received by not only the Linux users group, but by the many people from the Engineering department who had never really heard about open-source before.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
That is ass-backwards. Raymond is widely regarded as a nut. RMS is much less high profile, but for those who have heard of him, they'll know him through his writings on free software, and for his code -- neither of which make him look like a nut. As someone has already said here, sure, he looks "to corporate demands. Of course the fact like he's been living in a cave in the forest with a bear since the 60s", but since he doesn't do constant personal appearances a la "ESR" (for which heaven be praised) this isn't really an issue.
Hey! I _know_ you had to stop applauding to type that. Get in the gallows, now!
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
"No! Eric, put the gun down!"
Look, just because one feels that one has a right to keep and bear arms does not believe that all of ones problems are solved by putting a few shots in the offending person. I believe that one should be able to carry a gun if they're trained and responsible in its use. Perhaps you should read John Lott Jr.'s book "More Guns Less Crime", and read something more than the Democratic Party Line.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Just because the code size may be small doesn't mean that the contribution is meaningless. If that line of contributed code was a bugfix, it's a bug that may never have been found if the main developer(s) had been concentrating on doing real work on improving the software. (Or if it had been found, it would have held up the main developer significantly.)
And if you'd ever listened to any of ESR's speeches, you'd realize that he doesn't believe that Open Source is the solution to everything. In fact, he specifically brought up games as one of the few cases where the software might really be as valuable as what it's selling for. And in another case, he was called in to advise a company on whether or not they should open-source, and his reply after looking into it was, "Absolutely not." - It was some sort of software to automatically determing how a logging mill should cut logs into lumber to minimize waste.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Oh no. ESR likes to shoot guns. Therefore, he must be untrustworthy and dangerous. Anyone who actually enjoys shooting must be an unstable lunatic.
Were you born an idiot or did you have to work at it?
Is he going to dress like Obi-Wan again?
I'm sure that'll earn him some respect from the USPTO!
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Maybe because the dude is permanently -1'd? certainly seems like it from his other postings (one or two being at 0, the rest of them are at -1).
Voting Moo Anyway!
Instead of having a bake sale to buy lunch, why not just eat the baked goods instead?
-sigs of the world unite
Holy Cow! 1.2 billion dollars per year is probably enough cash to keep somewhere between 6,000 - 8,000 or so competent people on staff, with money left over for nice offices and plenty of well-paid outside consultants.
How many patent applications do these guys get every year, anyhow? How much work does it take to process a patent application?
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
5 hour keynote speech? 5 HOUR? Good god. Castro could learn from this man.
When Emperor Nero of Rome gave speeches, it was said that there were spies in the audience, and when he finished (eventually), the first person to stop applauding would be executed. Likewise with Stalin.
5 hour speech, huh? Open source really brings out the fanatics!
;-)
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
I have a soft-spot for the bear/geek type. ESR is one such specimen. Especially with the moustache, he is very hot! WOOF!
(haha, bye bye karma)
I'm curious: are you actually suggesting that people be able to purchase weapons like tanks and attack helicopters? I would have to say that that would be one of the worst, most insane, most bizarre suggestions I have ever heard. I think the military should have firearms and that's about it. Flame me if you want, but I think the problems with guns far, far outweigh any possible perceived benefit, and some guy firing his gun for fun is not a legitimate reason to keep guns. As for hunting, all you jackasses can use a crossbow like Ted Nugent. At least he eats the meat.
Anyway, I would rather live with the possibility of governmental tyranny than with the FACT of accidental gun deaths and other assorted violence stemming simply from the fact that murder is available at the pull of a trigger.
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
The sort of change which is done to drugs is more of the order of replacing a few atoms with similar atoms, or replacing a group of atoms with another group of atoms.
Asprin was first created by adding an acetyl group to salicylic acid. The pain relief portion of the molecule was not affected, and a patentable medicine was invented.
Copycat drugs (ie generic) appear on the market after patents expire. No generic drugs are the same drug, but sold by a different manufacturer, usually under the chemical name instead of the brand name. Copycat drugs are a different drug, but with broadly similar properties & side effects, sold under a brand name chosen by the new manufactuer.
Prozac is a SSRI, it's chemical name is Fluoxetine Hydrochloride. Currently there are no generic's, because it is still patented. However there are copycat SSRI's available, including Zoloft, Paxil & Celexa.
It's a step in the right direction but is it far enough? Only time can tell but I suspect this token gesture won't go far enough. ESR is only going to be one voice in the wilderness, how is he going to make the whole of the US patent office change their ways? We need a radical reform of the patent system (and scrapping software patents immediately) and if we do have to keep patents due to the fast moving nature of the computer industry computer related patents that are granted should not be for as long a period as a normal patent, a year should be enough otherwise innovation will be held back.
--
My theory is that someone from the USTPO is reading Slashdot, and saw ESR's name poping up all over the place and thought "Hey, they don't like us. They like this ESR guy though. Hey, i have an idea!"
;)
O.K maybe not, but it would have made a better conspiracy if RMS, Linus & Natalie Portman had been invited to join too
Syllable : It's an Operating System
I support capital punishment, but not in its present form. That guy who just got killed in Texas sat on death row for 19 years. That's not right. I would say that it's cruel and unusual punishment. If someone is sentenced to death, it should be carried out within the month. Then again, there are lots of people convicted of crimes they didn't commit, so maybe we do need some time for appeals. Regardless, the system is not right the way it is now. But people will always be convicted for crimes they didn't commit, so maybe the death penalty isn't such a good idea after all. I don't know. I support it in principle but it would suck to get killed for no reason then exonerated a month later.
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
The Bill of Rights is pretty solid. But AFAIC, the second amendment was a huge mistake. I, for one, would be glad to see it go.
And you, Evro, are obviously the voice of reason. Because if it weren't for a thing called law enforcement, you would go around raping every woman you see.
I'm glad gun control has wonderful people such as yourself on its side. You are one of the reasons we need guns. So that when the government fails us, as it recently did in NY (were you there, Evro?), we can defend ourselves from the likes of you.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Now if we can get some true patent reform that recognizes the fact that after a while thoughts and algorithms become too ubiquitous to be patentable, the US patent system will finally be halfway decent.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
BTW, you're the one that wants to change the constitution. Shouldn't you be the one leaving to start your own country?
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
As somebody with their hands in both sides of the open source pie, I can honestly say that it's nice to see that the government is responding to criticism from the open source movement. However surely ESR is the wrong person for this kind of thing since he is known for his pro-corporate views and commerce-friendly take on free software.
As a consultant who has worked with several major software houses over the last few years I've been part of the increased uptake of open source solutions into the e-commerce market, doing my bit to promote Linux and other products like Apache to customers for whom scalability is not 100% essential.
Anyway I've talked to some of them over a few beers (expense account of course) and they all seem to say the same thing about the open source luminaries. They are worried about RMS - about his rabidly anti-corporate stance and his Communist philosophy - and would much rather see ESR move into the limelight as he seems extremely sympathetic to companies that want to promote a tech-savvy image in the software market.
So surely ESR is the wrong person to let onto this USPTO committee if we want real change in this area? It seems likely he'll be all bark and no bite, and when it comes to the crunch he'll fold and let the corporations stick it to him in a very private place.
At least RMS wouldn't give in to corporate demands. Of course the fact that he looks like he's been living in a cave in the forest with a bear since the 60s wouldn't help, but it'd still be better for all of us.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Word up!:) (or even Mod up.. that'll be the day)
Totally agree about the logically correctness
of that, but you miss a convenient point, that
patents have become unconstitutional in US.. ie
they no longer promote science. If we had just
a copyright system, then companies, like for
example auto manufacturers, would just have joint
research facilities, and while this may mean
slighly less profit overall, it means more science,
more benefit for consumers; besides.. the
government is supposed to be for the people *wink*
not the businesses *sigh*
ICQ#2584116
-- d'arcy poirot
Why on earth is this modded up as funny? It sounds like the guy's honest opinion.
It looks like the moderator thought that the opinion was dumb, and wanted to do the Slashdot equivalent of "point and laugh". Since there's no +1 LookAtTheDancingFreak, he chose +1 Funny instead.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I guess this isn't really a bad thing, but I don't really know how good it is. While it seems nice to have somebody from "our side" on the pto's team, I wonder how much ESR is really on my side. There is enough difference between his ideas and mine that I don't know.
Then again, I don't think the patent office can get any worse
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
Your premise is wrong. Since bad patents hurt all companies, the pro-corporate stance would be to oppose them. So even if ESR is so one-dimensionally pro corporate as you say, it wouldn't mean what you think.
Besides, isn't ESRs opinions on patents well known? He's not usually coy about his opinions.
Really, normaly I would take this occasion to bash him, since I am definetly in the Anti-ESR camp. But this time I'll just ask why. Why ESR, and not someone like Tim O'Relly who's actually taken a stand on the issues of patents directly? Is ESR even against patents? ESR's said time and time again that the only reason that open source should be used is because it produces better software, not because it's a 'good' thing, or whatever. Has ESR ever taken a stand against patents?
m l&pic=/rnd/img/bloop11.jpg&back=sat>this
And secondly, what exactly has ESR done to even deserve this anyway? What has he done to deserve any of this? I mean, other then open his big yap, spit some obvious platitudes, and of course try to push is libertarian ideals onto the 'open source' movement.
The majority of those who oppose the death penalty have never been a victim of violent crime -- CNN href=http://www.stileproject.com/pic/?page=pic.ht
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Don't go the URL at the bottom of the page, really, don't. In fact, moderate the above post to -1.
The majority of those who oppose the death penalty have never been a victim of violent crime -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Moo.
Voting Moo Anyway!
Who would just say that 'all patents should be abolished' - more or less...
ESR can at least see that other people have opinions that matter as well (except when they come to gun control...)
BlackNova Traders
First let me say, that this was something I one said (here on slashdot about a year ago.. hmm whos readiong my posts?) would make a killer OS. MAC GUI with a UNIX kernel. Their is no denying that UNIX as an OS is stable, it has had over 20 years to get this way. Their is also no denying that Mac makes some really easy to use GUI, after all they were one of the first ones to actually market one. (first apples then macs).
That being said and probably flamed by now. I think that I should state what I think MAC will have to do to get its OS X flying into the masses. The GUI will need to be able to configure everything. I mean everything, else it will be only half done. However you will still need to be able to edit the files manually. This can be done. Linuxconf is a good example of a GUI that can be modified. Although it is not perfect as linuxconf does not do everything people will expect a mac to. I mean when they advertise plug in the phone line and plug in the power and you are connected to the internet, I think people will expect the same of everything else. Just like most mac stuff is supposed to be. EASY. The reason that I say that they will need to let people be able to edit the files is because some people just hate GUI. Since this is based on BSD you will get those command line people, who think that the command line is faster or easier. Well that depends on what you are used to too. Personally I use both but that is another arguemnt.
The next thing that they will have to do is come up with some way of allowing people access to the source code of not just darwin, but also carbon and cocoa and aqua. Either this or be quick to fix bugs that may arrise. And there will be bugs! There is always bugs in software. If they have bugs that do not get fixed they will turn off many developers. My suggestion is that they implement a bugzilla method or something like it where people can search and enter bugs.
That this the end of that rant, and my .02 cents on that subject. On the topic of ESR, I'd have to say good luck. There is a lot of beaurocracy(sp?) in the patent office. Personally I think it needs to become privitized like the US postal service and regulated. I also think that it needs to have more interaction with the outside community. Maybe patent application announcements. When someone files for a patent maybe they should have a message board about this. A place where the public can see what applications have been submitted. Then if someone knows of some relevant prior art there can be a way for this person on the outside to contact the patent examiner or the patent office with this information. If they need to they could implement a screening process of all this data that would flood into their office. money would not be an issue to the USPTO either as they are one of the few goverment agencies that actually make revenues. In the year that I worked their that took in 119 million dollars. 98 million of which billy clinton took to balance the budget. If they were privitized like the post office this would not have happened and the money would have been able to go back into the USPTO. I hope that ESR has some good karma going for him and wish him the best of luck in this endeavor.
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
Wouldn't that mean that the drugs would still have to go through the same set of tests though?
Surely it would be years before you can have the new drug approved for use on Humans.
I almost fell for it myself.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I mean... honestly... I think that we're going to find that *quality* is motivated by money. While we can get ADD programmer types to get interested in linux now, what about when their grandmother is having problems with USB or something? Will we still see programmers interested in programming for a market-saturated product *for free?!* I think that we'll see GPL programmers wanting more interesting things to do, perhaps. Something they can really get glory for.
----
Man, it took a long time for you to reply.
.loaded.html
The Second Amendment was not a huge mistake. It provides the fail-safe for making sure the rest of the Bill of Rights is respected. You are obviously willing to trust our government and elected officials to respect the Constitution. I don't share your faith. History provides too many examples of benevolent leaders who stopped being benevolent once they stopping fearing the people.
We have enough problems in this country getting the government to respect our rights as it is. It is a strikingly bad idea to unilateraly reduce the power and autonomy of the law-abiding citizens.
You say that you will never surrender your freedom of speech/religion/press. My question is: Once you have surrendered your ability to defend yourself, what choice do you have? How, exactly, will you protect your other freedoms?
I am more than a little insulted at your suggestion that I would "forget" to secure my weapon or shoot someone by mistake. You obviously don't know the first thing about responsible firearms handling or even good defensive tactics. What you DO seem to know is every piece of misinformation and half-truth passed off by ABC News and Time magazine. It amazes me that some people can be so good at spotting anti-Linux bias in a ZDNet article, but can't spot one-sided reporting on guns. Here is an article that explains things far better than I could:
http://www.reasonmag.com/0006/fe.ks
You're damn right the founders of this country were paranoid. After what they went through, they had every reason to be. You are fortunate. You live in a small window in history when most of the freedoms you seem to care about aren't immediately threatened. It is incredibly self-centered and arrogant for you to assume that it has always been this way and will always be this way. You also don't seem to care about the rights other people cherish and that shows a degree of selfishness.
We are approaching a holiday in the United States. It is the anniversary of our independence. Please take the time to really think about what it took to secure your freedom of speech. Think about the price paid by those who came before you.
Faced with a similar situation, would you do what they did? Would you have risk everything to insure that your descendants could enjoy freedom?
Or would you march down to the nearest government office, turn in your weapons, and call for everyone else to do the same? Would you choose an illusion of safety over liberty?
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
And this is the crux of the real dispute within our community. I fall on the side of software patents being a very good and necessary thing. I do think, though, that due to the pace of innovation in computers and software, that patents for computer hardware, software, or methods should be limited to 5 (and certainly no more than 7) years.
That provides the best of bothe worlds. The extension of patent lifespans has only exacerbated the problem we face. There was no reason to extend their lifespan beyond 17 years, and a lot of reasons why the lifespan should be shorter.
As I see it, there are basically two options: Break the patent system eliminating protections entirely for at least a subset of important inventions, or reform it slightly. I argue the latter can be done via nothing more intrusive than limiting the lifespan of patents in certain high-activity areas.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
5 hours for a keynote speech????? I normally don't do anything fun for five hours. It looks like it was more of a QA session than a "you listen to me" session though.
I also gotta say that the guy is consistent. As long as I have been reading about him, he hasn't deviated one iota from his course. His arguments are sound and he makes good points.
--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - Accelerating Business with Linux
* Education
* Integration
* Support
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Repealing an amendment has been done before, and I encourage everyone to do it again.
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
could this be the same ESR that cost our local linux and ACM clubs (actually, the personal funds of one of the members) a few hundred dollars in wasted airfare when he decided (without telling us) to not come to our conference?
yes, quite bitter.
go ahead, moderate it down...
I'm sorry if my rhetoric was lost on you. I was using "me" as a placeholder for "anybody." While I would not become a serial rapist without law enforcement, I'm sure there are many people who would.
What failing of the government are you referring to? The Diallo case? Wouldn't that have gone much better if police didn't have guns? Or maybe if crooks had no way to get guns, the cops wouldn't have shot him because they would have known they weren't at risk.
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
So, what is he going to do suggest they disband everytime they ask for input?
Listen, the guy is an intelligent important idealistic intellectual in the Free Software Open Source world. However, is he the guy we really want talking to the USPTO? Are they going to use his input as an excuse to ignore their own screwups by turning around and pointing to the man's extreme positions on some of the issues (I say extreme by the way only in light of the current USPTO's line of thought).
It would be interesting if they actually took or considered his point of view. Yet, I feel he is going to be token techie in view but unheard.
ACK
Rader
I don't know where you guys have been digging up your information, but perhaps try a little farther from the manure pile.
A new drug entity, which is what a copycat drug would qualify as, would require a completely new FDA approval, which runs about 40-60million average, and takes at least 5 years, once safety trials and efficacy studies are performed.
An interesting point is that patent protection on new drugs is extended by 7 years when a drug is approved by the FDA (this may have changed in the past few years, not definite on this number). If a company can't get a product to market and turn a profit in that time, then there are serious issues with their choice in which drugs they have chosen to develop.
So, assuming another company can duplicate a new drug, there's at least a 5 year delay to get it approved, even with fast-track approval. If there are patents involved, which there usually are, there's at least 7 years protection.
Drug approval is a time-consuming and expensive process. The protection built into the system is pretty good right now -- there's no need to extend those profitability curves any higher.
-Tec
(used to work in a drug R&D lab... a legal one, mind you.)
------------------
got a tiger in my tank. fish very unhappy.
Instead of having a bake sale to buy lunch, why not just eat the baked goods instead?
i thought of that when i posted it, but i left it because i was in a hurry and i couldn't think of anything better. all the moderation gets done in the first 5 minutes, and i'm a karma whore!
j/k. actually i just wanted my voice to be heard, like everybody else.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
The argument that the poor, overworked and largely incompentent staff of the patent office is underpaid and that the office is woefully underfunded and should therefor be forgiven for its gross negligence and incompentence is, indeed, hogwash.
If the patent office is unable to perform its constitutionally assigned task (however misguided that task may be), then the ethical and appropriate thing for it to do is to shut its doors until it gets the necessary funding and staff.
Destorting markets, hampering industried, and destroying small competative businesses by handing out government mandated and enforced monopolies willy nilly the way it is doing right now is immoral, unethical, reprehensible, and destructive.
The US Patent Office is single handedly gutting the very industry that is arguably responsible for our current record setting economic boom. This cannot and will not go on without serious detrimental economic repercussions. Of course, whoever is president and whichever party is percieved at being in poewr at the time will take the blame, not the patent office, so maybe they (correctly) feel they do not have to care.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Point: altering a molecule slightly (ie adding/subtracting atoms, changing structure) changes the entire chemical principle of the molecule.
Even when dealing with macro molecules (say more than 100 atoms), this is true. cf unsaturated, mono-unsaturated, poly-unsaturated, and partially hydrogenated fats. The difference between these four fats basically amounts to half a dozen molecules and their placement. Yet, unsaturated fat is good for you and the rest are very bad.
Copycat drugs (ie generic) appear on the market after patents expire. As mentioned above, the incentive to innovate (though this is being abused to no end by drug companies and the rest of the health cartel in the US--no amount of patent abuse in the realm of IT comes close to these fat cats) is the knowledge that a drug is theirs to use for 14 years without competition.
Most of that time is there because of the appeals process. Appeals take a lot longer in capital-punishment cases because of the stakes. I know, if capital punishment is mandated, I want the judicial system to make damn certain that somebody is guilty of some serious sh!t before they snuff him. The fewer chances for screwups the better.
Any good judicial policy must take into consideration a simple fact: People Make Mistakes.
This is why I oppose the death penalty. At least with a life sentence you've got the rest of somebody's natural life to find exonerating evidence. Add to that the fact that keeping somebody in prison for life is actually cheaper for the public than executing the person (due to the expensive and long, yet very necessary appeals process), I think the choice should be clear. Not only is capital punishment a moral grey area, but it's more expensive than the alternative.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I think the Patent Office just needs to go back to what the Constitution seemed to intend for the transfer of knowledge to society as a whole and not this useless lifetime plus some very large number of years timeframe.
That would be hilarious. Just need to bug the office and release it all on MP3.
A bit of history: Fourier came up with the idea of approximation of quite general functions by trigonometric series (i.e. Fourier series) in the study of heat flow. This was before 1850 and it took many years for the fundamental mathematics to be properly understood. (Cantor was actually looking at point sets on which functions could be discontinuous and still have representations as Fourier series when he formulated his theory of sets.) It was a good idea and it was later generalized to the continuous Fourier transform by others. (Fourier's approach only dealt with periodic functions). The Fourier transform has a discrete analog that is useful for sampled data. In the 1960's Cooley and Tukey came up with a fast O(nlog(n)) algorithm for the discrete Fourier transform. The use of Fourier, Discrete cosine and wavelet transforms for efficient compression is nontrivial and lots of people contributed to it: it wasn't just a direct use of Fourier's work.
This 150+ year development might actually support your broader argument that there is a lot to be said for not patenting fundamental ideas. But you aren't giving credit where credit is due. And, anyway, the MP3 patent doesn't cover anything as fundamental as Fourier transforms, or even the use of Fourier or related transforms for compression. Patenting something as specific as the MP3 algorithm doesn't hinder the development of science.
IMO, some sort of patent system for very specific ideas with direct commercial application would be a good idea if it were fair to the small time inventor. The current system doesn't meet any of these standards. I'm agnostic on whether it can be repaired in principle or should be scrapped; but politically neither is likely to happen.
Are you sure that software patents, as we now have them, are a good thing? Is it a good thing to have thousands of patents on trivial ideas, or trivial combinations of existing ideas, any one of which you could unwittingly violate in writing your program?
You could speculate about having a 'proper' software patent system in which patents are only granted for new and inventive algorithms that required some amount of research. (I'd be opposed to that too BTW - I see no evidence that such research would not be done anyway, without needing to grant a monopoly on the results.) But that's not what we have now, and it's not the choice being offered in places like the EU where lobbyists are pushing for software patents.
The choice is either a broken patent system that damages competition in the software industry, creates a legal minefield for developers, and effectively allows patents on business and educational methods - or no software patents at all, relying on copyright to reward authors.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Before you jump on the patent office, it's important to realize that they are understaffed & underfunded - Rambus (intel & sony) have more lawyers doing a single patent application than the USPTO's entire staff. Go to their web site and read their complaint - they aren't even getting to keep the money they make in fees! from their site:
"All of our revenues, projected to be 1.2 billion dollars in fiscal year 2001, are paid as fees by the knowledge-based high-tech leaders and individual entrepeneurs who rely on us to help them flourish in this economy. We are no burden to the American taxpayer. Moreover, we use activity-based cost management principles. Our fee revenues relate directly to the work we do. We do not "have a surplus" or "make profit".
The proposed mark would seriously impair our ability to effectively manage our operations and provide our customers with the quality products and services they expect and deserve.
well guys, you're not even doing that NOW.
Since the mark would fund us at 900 million dollars, or about 25% less than the the total fees paid by our customers, we would be forced to make significant modifications to our operations.
i don't blame the uspto one bit for the insanity that is our patent system. i blame the whores in washington who are giving in to lobbying pressure to underfund the patent system.
ESR can yell at them all he likes. maybe he can talk them into denying patents they don't have time to read, rather than granting them. of course, if they do that, they'll probably have to start having bake sales to buy lunch as of the next year's budget.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns