Slashdot Mirror
Stallman on Software Patents
An Anonymous Coward writes "On Monday Richard Stallman gave a speech at the Cambridge University (UK) Computer Lab. Over at ZDNet UK they have a transcription of the speech - the most eloquent discussion of the subject I have yet seen. Software patents victimise developers, he says, but there are ways to get around them. The best part is his comparison of writing software to writing symphonies: 'Oh Beethoven,' they would have said in 1800 if there had been patents on music, 'you're just bitching because you've got no ideas of your own.'"
Can Music be patentable? I mean software is just a bunch of zeroes and ones being processed and when they're in a certain order something cool happens. Music is just tones at different pitches and when in a certain order it sounds cool.
If one-click shopping is patentable, shouldn't one-hit rimshot be aswell? Why is copyright enough to protect music but not enough to protect software?
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
If you're in the patenting biz, or have some patents (copyrights, environmental problem, any sort of valuable asset/liability), it's worth alot to you. You will spend alot of energy [money,time,...] defending your interests and trying to make things go your way before the Courts, Legislatures, Regulators, media, markets, public opinion.
Your very-numerous prey/antagonists do many things. You little asset/liab is a small part of their lives. It's hardly life-or-death for most of them to put up with you. [Parasitic!] If they ever found out, they might not like what you're doing, but it's not worth enough to them to be worth fighting. A whole reservoir of opposition gets trapped below the inaction thresholdaa.
Now some people will always complain, and more do if the inaction threshold can be lowered [email & Internet]. But how do you _prevent_ the squeeky wheel from getting the grease?
You don't know the difference between patent and copyright, do you?
Microsoft would make just as much money if the patent system was done away with... it would be just as illegal to copy Windows under copyright law, and, with the closed source code, it would be just as hard to reverse engineer.
Patents have little to do with open-source vs. closed-source, the majority of closed-source software is unpatented.
The issue is that if something was independantly discovered, the patent should hardly be granted since it doesn't induce anything that wouldn't otherwise happen.
It seems to me that what they do is strike fear into the heart of all but the richest inventors, the legal fight to prove that you are not infringing a patent is more than most people can afford even when they are right. Patents encourage the small inventors to scrap the whole thing and just keep their day job, then everybody loses.
This is not an effect we need in the software industry where so much progress is made by individuals.
From what I gather the biggest flaw with patents are the clerks not the laws.
Software moves so fast that no prior-art system is ever going to be able to keep up. The only way to fix the clerk problem is to slow down the entire field to the point where they can cope. Sacking the idiot in charge of the USPO would help, too; paying clerks on the number of patents they approve is hardly professional or responsible.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
What I like is at the end of the article, he implies that part (or most, or all) of the problem is that the US patent system is based on patenting a Physical Process, and here we have people patenting Idealized Processes. Copyrights are more apropriate for the Idealized Process, or at least it's a closer fit.I'm sure he's not the first to notice this, and he won't be the last, but it needs to be repeated over and over until we get it though the US Goverment's Thick Skull(tm).
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Although I didn't see him mention this specifically, I think it's worth pointing out, given his discussion of music and the borrowing of material from other sources. In particular, how borrowing is important culturally.
One moment I recall quite clearly from my college years is the day in class when the teacher of the survey course in music asked the question "What makes American music American?" This was something I hadn't considered before, and the answer wasn't clear to me until he asked more precisely "Why is the 1812 Overture so distinctly Russian? Why is Appalachian Spring American?" The answer is that both borrow themes from the folk music of each country. The Russians knew that Tchaikovsky was writing Russian music because it had recognizable themes that reminded them that they were Russian. The Shaker melody in Appalachian Spring is something many Americans had heard many times before, when that piece was written. (And even moreso now, as "Spring" is itself a common piece of music to hear performed.)
So without the ability to borrow ideas and themes and work them into new compositions, music would be a barren landscape.
One could argue, similarly, that if we impose stronger and stronger restrictions on what we can build into software, then we are resisting the natural cultural synergy that results from algorithms and features being shared among the community members.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I think this analogy is a bit of a stretch. One of the problems with a software patent is that it can broadly cover A BUSINESS PROCESS. Let's say that a composer had been granted a patent for creating symphonies as "A method to glorify God through the use of music." That patent would preclude anybody else (for a set period of time) from glorifying God through the use of music (unless the method could be improved upon). This patent does not necessarily stop Beethoven from glorifying God and it does not prevent him from finding a better way to glorify God (even through music). While ultimately restrictive, even such a broad based example doesn't fully apply to the situation of the 18th century composer.
You can make an argument that says that protecting a composer who pioneered the glory of God through music is important, maybe patentable. But the REAL issue (in every patent argument I've seen) is that patents are being issued for processes where there is prior art and where the method does not qualify as "not-obvious".
The real issue for Beethoven (and all other composers) was copyright and royalties. Scores might only be distributed hours before a performance. Otherwise, they would be swindled and the composer could not get paid for his/her music. The strong (but not too strong) protection of copyright is a pillar in the Capitalist develompent of Intellectual Property.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
No its called being second. If the idea was truly obvious e.g. took zero effort to come up with, then ya, but lets not mistake things
Look at RC5 [sorry I'm a crypto nut so I have to pull from what I know]. Its a trivial looking cipher and doesn't look like much design was put into it. You might think that was "an obvious design" e.g. not worthy of a patent.
Don't let simplicity be mistaken for obviousness.
In your case you might have a legitimate claim, but you have to realize that its no the spirit of the patent system to lock out obvious ideas. I'd say get others on your side of the story and see if you can invalidate the patent.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
> Intellectual property is fundamental to the peaceful progress of such societies and, without them, everything does break down to the very concept of "might makes right" that RMS claims to fear now.
... ?
And your proof is
Methinks you need to read:
Against IP
The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights
A patent is a temporary monopoly on a process granted in exhcange for a description of how it works. This means that software patents ought to include source code for whatever program is being patented, and pass into the public domain after 20 years (or however long the patent is valid).