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
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.
"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
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.
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
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
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.
Though I wonder, How much influence does the advisory commitee actually have?
The path to hell is paved with least resistance.
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
Posted by 11223:
I have just the T-Shirt picked out for him to wear...
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
I was at the ESR MSR talk as well - Frankly, you seem to remember it poorly. The only people that looked like fools were the NT core team members that showed up. ESR's argument was that with software getting more and more complex, it would be extremely difficult to produce quality without the OpenSource model. The NT dewelopers didn't buy this and kept shouting out - remember that random woman who had to keep telling them to shut up and raise their hand?
As for Mozilla, ESR never said that "the reason why netscape is beating you guys is because mozilla is opensource". Actually, he used mozilla as an example of why opensource is not the cure to all ills. What he did say, however, is that "by open sourcing the browser, netscape drove a stake in the ground that M$ would never be able to remove.."
I was working for MS then. That talk got me really thinking about things. A year later, I'm now working for a Linux startup in the valley. I know that there were many other MS employees that thought long and hard about many of the things he said.
-=t
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
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 --------
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
--
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
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
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
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
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!
Indeed. That post should be the classic application for the "slipped on his own vomit" mod.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
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
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
Rader
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
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