Slashdot Mirror
Making the Case Against Software Patents?
heretic108 asks: "I'm an open-source developer in a small western nation, which is slowly starting to take interest in Open Source, but whose (still MS-dominated) government is currently considering adopting a software patents regime similar to USA. This nation boasts a smart and feisty IT community, who have been terribly under-represented in government. I have a meeting in a week with a prominent member of the legislature (who has IT portfolio interests), during which I will have the opportunity to put the case against software patents. I'm asking for help in assembling information for use in the anti-patents case. Thank you dearly for any and all help you are able to provide here."
(Also, if anyone can find the source of the quote attributed to Bill Gates arguing that the modern patents regime, if it existed decades ago, would have slowed the industry to a standstill).
Also very desirable will be testimonials from senior staff of small to medium R&D and body-shop houses, truthfully showing the negative effects patents have had on their ability to compete.
And, very importantly, any brief testimonials from indepenedant developers who have not intentionally stolen intellectual property, but have actually been squashed under patent laws."
"I'm looking for references that cover the following subjects:
- Triviality of some patents
- Patents as anti-competitive instrument
- Patents' discriminatory nature - difficulty faced by smaller developers with patent enforcement
- Costs of patent searches, and their impact on the creative flow of software development
- Clear evidence that a software patents regime is squeezing small and independent players out of the industry and creating an oligopoly for the largest players
- Clear evidence that under the software patents regime, the entire 'space' or public commons of programming concepts is being subsumed into private ownership
- Clear evidence and examples of patent law being abused and having a net anti-innovation effect
- Anything else you have bookmarked, or can google upon, which can help build the most solid case.
(Also, if anyone can find the source of the quote attributed to Bill Gates arguing that the modern patents regime, if it existed decades ago, would have slowed the industry to a standstill).
Also very desirable will be testimonials from senior staff of small to medium R&D and body-shop houses, truthfully showing the negative effects patents have had on their ability to compete.
And, very importantly, any brief testimonials from indepenedant developers who have not intentionally stolen intellectual property, but have actually been squashed under patent laws."
are you from Finland?
Slashdot topic 155
everyone knows the way to get legislation passed (or not passed in your case) is by providing sexual favors for the legislature. make your moves wisely son!
Take a shower before the meeting.
A copy of Donald Knuth's argument against software patents can be found on the LPF's web site. He is a very well respected computer scientist and programmer and makes a good argument.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." -- Bill Gates, Microsoft, 1991
KWTCMA
Being -slightly- less secretive about the country you're talking about might help people analyze and answer the question at hand...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Who wants to bet that this clown is a troll.
I smell a nark. He's a microsoft lawyer trying to figure what he's up against! NARK! NARK!
It's simple, really, all you need to do is explain that most software patents are on shakey ground, as soon as someone bothers to write an implementation of the patent in Haskell (which is nothing more than Lamda calculus), it has then been implemented as a mathmatical algorythm and is no longer a valid patent. Having companies rely on such a shakey ground could mean disaster for the economy if someone were to rock the boat just a little to hard.
Secondly, software patents go beyond the original idea of patents, in that if you designed something different enough, it would get it's own patent, but in the software world you must build your program in almost the same way in order to maintain compatibility. Otherwise, the company that patented the thing in question could have a stranglehold on the computer world for twenty years.
You will, of course, be willing to work for free, too. Somehow, this sounds j-u-s-t a little too good to be true. Small western country w/o patent law? Western of what? Japan?
Whoa there. Leave they're chicks alone. I just know a few of 'em would like a taste of some good ol' American sausage, if you catch my draft.
Just say:
I don't want money, I don't want money.
Repeat ad infinitum.
The guys looking for anything that makes big business and patent law look bad and opressive. Espescially anything that makes Bill Gates look like the anti-christ.
If you have any evidence to support the notion of software patents, or know of any real world situations where they are called for, then keep it to yourself.
This story is for anti-patent trol^H^H^Hpeople only. Otherwise this guy would be directed to GOOGLE.COM to do his own damn research.
btw, what 'small country' is he talking about?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Status of Tux2?
Sign the petition to get rid of software patents: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/pasp01/petition-sign .html
And for anyone who wants info on why software patents are bad:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/patent-reform-is-not -enough.html
Before you dive into google and read the thousands of pages listed on this subject, try to think up some arguments for yourself.
Once you've formulated some arguments, then use google/google groups to look for confirmation - writings of other people who have formulated the same argument.
This will give you confidence when making your case because you will really understand what you are saying.
If you just recite somebody else's argument without understanding the proof you won't come across as very convincing.
Good Lord! Don't help this person!
It's bad enough our country is destroying its technology sector with special-interest legislation, patents and the DMCA - don't make things worse by helping some other nation get a leg up by avoiding this morass if idiocy!
Show some patriotism!
MjM
Satire Impaired? Please don't mod
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
They lock up issues like "compatibility" and "interoperability."
Suppose there are aspects of a communication protocol (say, SMB) are patented by a company. All the reverse-engineering and data collected packet-sniffing in the world are useless when the technology is patented. Compatible software written totally from scratch still falls [victim] under the hypothetical patents.
It is, of course, very anticompetitive.
Proprietary code should be protected by a copyright, not a patent.
You can copyright a work that is a product of intellectual endevour, but you can't patent the words used in writing it, nor can you patent sentence structure and the language used, or the media used to store and distribute. And that is what software patents try to do, restrict the very language use and tools we use to contruct our bodies of work. It is so easy to accidentally discover a method used to solve a problem strickly in a clean room setting that could infringe on some patent.
Copyright is the way to protect software, not patents.
Dave has written a ton of stuff...some of it might be useful.
A day without programming?
Patents and the W3C
Killer Patents
Amazon's XML Interface
Patents, lawsuits plague the Net (Dave is quoted.)
Notes on competing
How to Download YouTube Videos
i understand if you post a question to slashdot and it's sensitivity leads you to keep your company's identity a secret... but your country? i don't understand the secrecy here...
;-P
ireland? portugal? bulgaria? jamaica? suriname? senegal? burkina faso? togo? can someone throw us a bone here?!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This site at MIT gives a good overview. Even though it has a more american slant I think the arguments are pretty universal.
It's amazing how spiritual an elaborated beer commercial can be. -- Philip K. Dick
Patents as anti-competitive instrument
The whole idea of patents, AFAIK, is to grant a temporary monopoly for the patent holder, and thereby giving them a greater chance at a return for their invested R&D. This isn't a flaw of the system at all. Now how certain patents (software, etc.) are approved is another story.
Read the July issue of Forbes magazine, which talks about patents and how they can help, but how they are being used to not help the economy.
Link 0. This is the entire issue
Link 1
Link 2
stupid fucker. go live on in your tiny naive world.
so they can protect the intellectual property of their programs and the security of the installations in which they are being used, like the Death Star XP. The Emperor Bill has determined that an open-source advocate, Linus Organa, has reverse-engineered the operational schematics of the Death Star XP, and is, at this moment, preparing to take those plans to the Rebel Alliance. Emperor Bill has dispatched Darth Ballmer to intercept.
The basic problem, I think, is that there is no shortage of ideas for computer software...there is mostly a shortage of good implementations of old ideas, and locking down the ideas so that only one entity has a monopoly on implementing them doesn't help matters.
Put another way, when most patent infringement cases seem to involve independent invention, the patent system is not doing its job.
If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared. S. Augustine
If you are in Europe, you could contact eurolinux.org. They run an extensive campaign against software patents.
OK, let also do the same for stupid slashdot posters.
Jamey Kirby
Perhaps this could take the form of internships for a dozen senior undergrad CS students - put them in a room, tell them the problem that the candidate patent solves, and give them one hour to describe as many solutions as they can come up with. If they can't come up with a solution (or at least not the same solution) then it merits a patent.
I'm not a big fan of software patents, but the first thing that struck my mind is that you're going about this the wrong way. you've made up your mind, and now you're asking for arguments to support your position. it's all backwards, baby, jus' backwards.
you should think about the reasons, both for and against whatever issue at hand, before making up your mind.
The concept of a Patent was never intended to relate to computer software ; a Copyright is a much more accurate and viable protection option for individual companies rights.
With Software Patent, you are protecting an actual system of execution or problem solving. The problem is that the essential knowledge any computer programmer has is not protected (and could not be), and with software in particular there is no *system* that is not a very simple extention of commonly understood concepts. In short, computing overall is simple when you analyze software modularly.
Take for example the attempts to patent, 'click-throughs' or 'downloading software after authenticating'. Attempts have actually been made to patent these concepts, and they are not *bad* examples - in both cases the wording of the patent request was executed in such a way as to gain control over something that was seemingly legitimate because it was a simple extension of 'click-through' or 'downloading'. In both cases the patent *would have* given control over these actual acts. This is not simple wording, it is the nature of software.
My own company develops software, we have a representative for patent and copyright, and we are more than happy to utilize his services as a Copyright agent to protect our rights. We copyright the documents that explain our business, our systems, and which we feel portray us best. Over all the end result is protected business, not a protected product. It is in the representation of a product and a business that competitors gain their foothold ; that should be the real focus here.
Ace
"Oracle filed its first patent application in November 1991, not because it felt that its software was suddenly worthy of patent protection; it filed that application because of concerns that other inventors, afforded patent protection by a flawed patent system, might find themselves in a position to seriously weaken the Company's competitive edge by alleging patent infringement."
r acle.html
http://www.base.com/software-patents/statements/o
... which prefers to remain anonymous.
/A
Patriotism, racism... What is the difference. It is just another way to define differences between people so we do not feel bad when the screw and abuse them.
Patriotism: n. Love of and devotion to one's country.
Nationalism: n. the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation
Just like a knee-jerk anti-American wank to not even know the terms he is using.
OK, let also do the same for stupid slashdot posters.
So long. We'll all miss you.
Remember that the reasons that patents were invented is basically to help society. It is a contract, basically saying that if you will tell everyone your idea, we'll give you exclusive rights to it for a limited time. Yes, this does stop other people from using this idea, but in the long run, everyone can use it! Don't look at the short sided arguement that "I can't use it today", but the reality is that you get it in the future.
It is the responsibility of governments (although, I'll be the first to argue they don't do a good job alot of the time) to look at the long term effects of what is going to happen. Government, by it's very nature, can't act fast enough to deal with little, everyday issues. Most of the polocies that they implement don't take effect for 10 years, much less be effective before then!
Sorry, I know this has been rehashed here again and again. But I ask you to look at the longer term issue of people giving thier ideas to the public - this is the open source ethos, but with a little bit of protection to feed your family built in.
A good recent example is the story in the MIT Technology Review magazine about the history of Glenn Curtiss and his role in the development of aviation. In the article, the writer describes the bitter patent battle between Curtiss and the Wright Brothers -- and makes very clear that the Wrights attempted to abuse the patent system to advance their own interests instead of advancing Progress in the Useful Arts. This was in the first decade of the 1900s! Curtiss, on the other hand, made a point of always making his ideas (though not necessarily their specific implementations), including those on which he held patents, available to everyone as a matter of principle. The article strongly suggests that aviation in general would have been significantly hindered if the Wrights had ultimately prevailed (they didn't).
The excerpt on the web site doesn't contain the passages to which I alluded, so you will either have to purchase a reprint or find someone who has a copy. But it's definitely worth a look in advance of your meeting.
-FB
Can I simply make a request that if you are able to gather this information together in an organized format, could you please put it online for the rest of us? If so, maybe there can be a slashback getting the URL back to everyone. Thanks.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Richard Stallman is known for his wit and intellect. I am sure he would be a great addition to your meeting with the government.
/. for a week. It would become clear to them why patents suck. They really hinder innovation. I couldn't possibly build a better car if a car had never been built, but having to acknowledge that someone built one first hampers my ability to innovate a new, better design.
Or you could just have them peruse
Do your own fucking research. There seems to be this increasing trend where people decide, "Hey! I'm going to argue against ! I'll get Slashdot users to make my arguments for me!" If you want to present ideas, present credible researched ideas and information. "Well, sir, GoatBoy211 on Slashdot said that patents are bad because they make it illegal to steal!"
Software patents aren't necessarily bad as a concept. It's the implementation that sucks.
First of all, software is a nascient industry, and patent terms should reflect that. Patents should expire in less time for software.
Second, you need people who know the industry to make determinations on what is patentable. Prior art should be given priority, so to speak. A high bar should be set for determining what is obvious.
But there are some really novel and useful ideas that come up now and then, and some of them required significant investment. If the USPTO did a better job of separating the wheat from the chaff, I think we as professionals could stand to benefit from a properly implemented patent regime.
But I ain't holding my breath...
If you post it, they will read.
I think the easiest example why patents are bad is the recent JPEG patent: JPEG is, without any doubt, the most widespread compression format for images. Every expert should know it. But just last month, after over 10 years of existence, some company came up with a patent that has valid claims against JPEG. How can any company build a product without violating somebody else's patent when nobody noticed JPEG's patent violation for 10 years, not even the 'inventor' of the patent?
The main problem is that the concept of patent seems to assume that it is impossible that two people have the same idea. If somebody uses a patented technique, he must have 'stolen' it. But that's not the way it is in reality, because people 'reinvent' things without knowing the existing patents all the time. Often you just need to think about a problem set and get the same, patented idea. And this is exactly the thing that should be changed of a patent: when you use something that is patented, and you have never seen the patent's content before, you should not have to pay royalties or damages unless the patent holder can prove that you 'copied' his invention and not reinvented it yourself.
1. Current debate exists over the low quality of all currently issuing patents, not just software patents A better patent system
2. Theoretically speaking, the patent system was set up in this country in order to induce the expenditure of resources in order to achieve the innovation that would then allow our country's economy to evolve into one that could compete on a global basis.
This fostering of innovation applies to software innovation as well.
Difficult innovations that could be solved via software that would not attempted without the lure of patent protection DO EXIST.
The patent system is appropriate in order to foster innovation in these areas.
3. The problem lies in devising a system in which the software innovations as described in #2 above are rewarded patent protection and the majority of trivial software innovations are not. One interesting proposal suggests a reduction in the protection afforded most software patents
http://slashdot.org/~heretic108/. org/comments.pl?sid=34564&cid=3742 519
:P
http://slashdot
Mod the parent up, even if he is unable to clearly state that based on the previous comments of heritic108 Australia seems very likely to be the country in question.
fuck it,
mod me up,
you know you wanted it spelled out clearly
that'll learn him to be clearer next time
Why bother implementing Nazi-like patents when other, large economy countries have it, for which to expoit?
;-)
1. If you don't have a patent presence, you become less restrictive in which technologies are implemented. For the government, they don't have to worry about huge royalty licensing fees for products developed in house, no?
2. You won't scare off business, because they will just patent their processes in the big countries anyways.
3. A "weak" country without a decent economy will just suffer more from restrictive patenting. Businesses will be locked out, or pay deeply for innovative technologies that were simply patented to block competition. AKA strategic innovation
4. None of this matters. Either your country has envy over more prosperous countries, and want "in on the action", or else they are getting bullied by those countries to conform to "their" system of law.
No offense to most Americans here, but your government is brutally arrogent when it comes to foreign policy. It seems that you want the backlash that insues to keep your place over the rest of the world.
Bye!
Which communist nation is this?
Quoth the poster (heretic108):
I worked for the Australian subsidiary of Wang Labs, at the time when Wang was the #2 computer company in Australia.
You go to the user page (ask.slashdot.org/~heretic108 in this case) and read a few articles at random - you can usually find out where someone is from.
Given that you're speaking with an Aussie legislator, I recommend a national sovereignty / defense argument. You should point out that likely rivals in the region of the continent of Oceana - I speak in particular of India - have huge, established software industries that could prove a threat to Australia if Australia doesn't maintain software autonomy. It's okay to be vague, but use some everyday words as if they had some specific technical meaning in terms of "information warfare over the next century."
That ought to persuade the nuevo-Thatcherites in your xenophobic government.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Can be found in the memo here.
Did you check out the philosophy of GNU and the Free Software Foundation, and their GPL (General Public License). You also might want to see the views of Richard Stallman.
Jonahweb.com has stuff.
... that isn't wrong with the entire patent system.
Anyone who agrees that patents should exist will have to agree that there are some software innovations that are worthy of being patented - for example if someone invented a superquick way to sort a string of numbers, say, or when someone invented the concept of indices on database tables.
The problems you have with software patents apply to other areas too: the discrimination between poor and wealthy companies as far as patent application and enforcement is concerned, the cost of validating patents, the stupid patents that slip through the cracks, the cost of doing a patent search prior to development, etc.
I don't think you will do very well trying to make a case against software patents on those grounds to someone who has considered those arguments and believes the patent system is beneficial - unless you're pitching to the average politician who is incapable of logical thought and therefore won't extrapolate on the arguments you are making.
Mmmm.. Donuts
The sooner software patents lock out innovation the sooner there will then be new laws supporting the right to creativity and innovation, for the benefit to society, created.
Just because you have a patent or copyright on some piece of software does not mean you have somehow magically aquired the all knowing knowledge as to how all to impliment it for the benefit of society, nor are you somehow magically granted the resources to do it.
GNU/Linux and how far and wide it has been implimented is a good example of what such laws supporting creativity and innovation can help to increase the rate of return to society.
It is this playing around in the the middle area of this divide that is delaying the ultimate in advancements.
Either shut down creativity and innovation completely so to know the stagnation and death that will follow it, or get the fuck outoif the way and let people who will do moving forward, have at it, for eveyone benefit including yours.
So as a country they've got the brains but not the capital to get things done.
To submitter of th question...have you approached businesses in this field in your country to see if you can get support there? In Moldova http://compudava.com/ comes to mind.
but asking anyone in the US... we have the exact same problems as you... no representation of any iota or segment of the population with an IQ over 115. the government is HOSTILE towards software or computer intellectuals or freelance engineers/scientists.
good luck... as 99.997 of the western countries mirror US actions to keep the big nasty crybaby happy.
Also, make certain that you point out that the ability to patent file formats (.dwg, .mp3, etc) creates a situation that can encourage a monopoly and stifle growth (Autodesk, Fraunhaufer). Think how much better Autocad would be if they had to compete to keep their customers based on quality instead of compatibility with their current files...
Murphy was an optimist.
ireland? portugal? bulgaria? jamaica? suriname? senegal? burkina faso? togo? can someone throw us a bone here?! ;-P
Most of those countries do not fall under the category of small western nation.
Burkino Faso always reminds me of The Simpsons
"Three Weeks Later," says a caption on the screen, as Homer sits on the couch and reads a phone bill.
Homer: Burkina Faso? Disputed Zone? Who called all these weird places?
Brain: Quiet, it might be you! I can't remember.
Homer: Naw, I'm going to ask Marge.
Brain: No, no! Why embarrass us both? Just write a check and I'll release some more endorphins.
[Homer scribbles a check, then sighs with pleasure]
GMD
watch this
Since when is Wang a computer company? Here in the U.S., Wang means something slightly different..
Just think: someday I'll be able to tell my grandkids where I was when I heard the news that a Bill Gates quote was modded as +5 Insightful on slashdot....
GMD
watch this
The oft-appearing sentiment on /. about Europe not having software patents is flatly not true. Let me quote an exchange I had with a European patent attorney:
/. posters like the above without a grain of salt, of course!
I write: "Our client may be interested in nationalizing the a PCT application in Europe. Because we understand that the European Patent Office is not receptive to software patents, we are interested in obtaining your advice on whether the referenced PCT application may be successfully prosecuted in Europe, either in its current form or as amended to specifically avoid EPO rejection with respect to its software content. Additionally, if you are aware of any substantively different treatment of software patent applications in the national offices of Germany or the United Kingdom, we would appreciate your thoughts on the matter."
He replies: "I do not know from which source you have received your information regarding the problems in prosecution of software patents before the EPO. The desicions of the Boards of Appeal within the last three years clearly demonstrate that the criteria set by the EPO are in line with those made by the USPTO (the harmonization aspect is here very important). It is possible that the prosecution period at the EPO was relatively long in the past for reasons of waiting for principal decisions in this field that were, however, made in the meantime. In Germany (national) we can see more restrictions at the moment but here the situation is also changing. Therfore, filing the application at the EPO or in UK or Germany will make no difference from our present knowledge."
So, which source made me look silly in my profession? Why, taking
Also, the time frame during which one holds a patent needs consideration. Our technology is advancing at an accelerating rate yet, big companies want to hold patents longer.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
The main website for software patents ressources is:
e _e.html
http://swpat.ffii.org
You can contact the Eurolinux team (see: http://www.eurolinux.org ), they are the best experts in this field.
Otherwise you've a very short sheet that you can distribute here:
http://www.europe-shareware.org/pages/fich
"Let's talk about software patents. There's a guy, Mr. Gates, who's brilliant, right? He's brilliant. A brilliant business man; he has some insights, he is even a brilliant policy maker. Here's what he wrote about software patents: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." Here's the first thing I'm sure you've read of Bill Gates that you all 100 percent agree with. Gates is right. He is absolutely right. Then we shift into the genius business man: "The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors." Excluding future competitors. "/ lessig.html?page=2
Source: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15
my money's on finland.
Well, I wish I had some useful reference or proof, but I'm sure you'll get a lot of that if you simply go to the patent section of slashdots history. I seem to remember some good ones. Anyhoo, a useful way of illustrating the problem that patents cause. Immagine if the screw were patentable. Everything sold with screws in it had to pay royalties to someone. Now the 2x4 is patented, same deal. Next the nail. Then dozens of different types of glue and staples. It's not long before only a small minority of already well-off companies can afford to produce things at industry standard. Ok, not the best analogy, but you get the idea. Software patents (unless perfectly regulated) deny programmers neccessary tools to build competitive programs.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Don't forget the old standby - the MIT LPF's rather huge paper from 1991 on the subject - it's still one of the better papers against patents around: Against Software Patents
11*43+456^2
Ireland
If you believe this, then do you believe that mathematics can be patented? How about the Pythagorean theorem? Root-finding by the Newtonian method? Eulerian primality testing? Or the number Pi?
You don't seem to have thought very much about the implications of algorithm patentability for the progress of mathematics and computer science generally. It is the nature of our highly networked, competitive society that most discoveries are made nearly simulataneously by two or more groups. Granting a 20-year monopoly to the "first" of these - as opposed to simply insisting on their rights of citation - does nothing to advance the progress of science under these conditions. Abolish all patent rights tomorrow, and progress in these fields will continue - or, more probably, accelerate.
The quicksort algorithm - developed prior to the present age of software patents, and available in many free implementations - is actually a perfect example of this.
-Renard
This nation boasts a smart and feisty IT community, who have been terribly under-represented in government.
Smart people are generally underrepresented in every government. Tough luck...
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
Okay, I'm going to go into extreme cynicism mode here. You've been warned.
We get these Ask Slashdot posts from time to time along the lines of:
"I'm going to be meeting with a <government representative> about <topic> and what are some arguments I can use."
And to me they always seem futile. No matter how good your arguments are, if the other side has millions of <monetary units> to spend on lobbyists, it won't help. Politicians are fundamentally immune to logic. And this is a mistake that geek lobbyists keep making.
Anyway, on a more constructive note, I'm put in mind of a quote (which I unfortunately can't find the attribution for) which explains lobbying:
"If you're arguing, you've already lost."
The way to get your point across in political circles isn't to have many, well thought out points, unfortunately; but instead to have a short, pithy saying that you keep repeating over and over and over.
You're confusing the means with the end, which is the sort of thinking that got us into this mess.
If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared. S. Augustine
In a presentation like this, it's a must that you present factual information...but a little swaying opinion here and there always helps. I think that in making this case, a point I would bring up is that software is something that is for the betterment of humanity. In today's world computers are a neccessary part of life, something that businesses, and many individuals, cannot live without. Because new software could potential benefit human kind by making work easier or by allowing processes or technologies to emerge that were never possible before, it should be something open for all to enjoy. A metaphore would be a company finding a new planet with intelligent life on it and only revealing that it existed without telling everyone else the details (ie: location, type of inhabitants, etc.). Or, perhaps, a company finds the cure for cancer but patents it and charges large amounts for something that every human could benefit from. Creating new software is much like discovering these things...and this is why software shouldn't be patented
SIGFAULT
Get as many of your own software patents you can in your "small western nation" before the US rolls over you!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
In this post, he mentions being glad to have moved out of Australia, and that he is now living in New Zealand. That post was less than a week old.
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
Unfortunately, even if your country rejects software patents, your smart and feisty IT community will still need to deal with US-style software patents, at least if they want to sell their products in the US. In fact, you can bet that many of your local companies are already applying for US software patents to lock their competitors out of international markets.
It's certainly worth pressing your legislature to avoid software patents (or at least adopt minimal versions), but I doubt it will make much difference.
I sure hope software patents are accepted on the same basis as the USA--that is how I make my living!
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
Check out "The Future of Ideas" by US law professor Lawrence Lessig. ISBN 0375726446
It is extensively footnoted and contains tons of useful quotes and references. The basic premise is that current IP law in the US has far exceeded the scope of the authors of the Constitution and is now impeding intellectual progress, freedom and the common good. A great read.
It's clearly a case of optimal disoptimization. You hold patents not because your idea is particularly valuable but because other developers with equally mediocre ideas hold patents and use that to attack others. You could hold a copyright but that's only useful if everyone holds copyrights. The first time someone holds a patent among copyright holders that person is the big gun. So everyone else has to arm themselves as well because the big gun will use the gun against everyone else and your only protection is either to attack the big gun and hope for the best or be coopted by the big gun and attack everyone else who doesn't have a big gun.
In this day an age patents really don't protect anyone because that is not the purpose they serve. They are the economic entry fee to the market. The financial hurdle over which a developer must hurdle to have something worth selling. Either you buy a patent or you sell one. That is what they do and that is all they do.
Canada seems to have a sane policy on software patents:
1.Computer programs per se are not patentable;
2.Processes which are unapplied mathematical calculations, even if expressed in words rather than in mathematical symbols, are not patentable;
3.A process and/or computer program which merely produces information for mental interpretation by a human being is not patentable, nor does the process or program confer novelty upon the apparatus which uses it;
4.Claims drawn up in terms of means plus function which merely produce intellectual data are not patentable;
5.New and useful processes incorporating a computer program, and apparatus incorporating a programmed computer, are directed to patentable subject matter if the computer related matter has been integrated with another practical system that falls within an area which is traditionally patentable; and
6.The presence of a programmed general purpose computer or a program for such a computer does not lend patentability to, nor subtract patentability from, an apparatus or process.
Taken from http://www.shapirocohen.com/softpatents.htm
You can tell him that in this day and age property rights should not exist because they are not fair to those that have not earned the property. Tell him that the people should replace the current system with nihilism and anarchy. Tell him that along with the people, there are many supporters in the open source movement who support copyleft, the third way, etc--even though the rejection of property rights would allow the strongest thug to use (steal) Open Source code however is seen fit. Proletariat Unite!
Or you could tell him to respect individual rights, and maintain software developers rights to their property. Including the rights of Open Source developers who 'submit' 'their' 'property' to be used for the development of the software I use every day.
--
"If someone comes to you with the "third way" defence of statism, go tell them to stick it up their last way and make certain that it is their last way."
--
Unfortunately for software (and also for business ideas) the costs are exactly reversed. Anybody capable of inventing something already has spent 100% of the manufacturing costs and already possesses the machinery necessary to produce the invention (ie a computer). The patent does not protect the small guy. I expect if you check you will find that there are absolutly NO examples of any single inventors owning a patent on software or business methods.
Instead patents can be used now by large companies as the only method they have to prevent the little guy from starting up. This was true before but completely dwarfed by the need for expensive manufacturing facilities, so before patents did not screw up the market.
There is also the problem that due to the average public's poor understanding of software, the equivalents of nuts and bolts are being patentened. Or a certain thread spacing on bolts is being patented after it has been adapted by virtually every manufacturer, forcing the inventor who cannot afford to license the patent to mill their own bolts and make a machine that nobody can fix because standard bolts don't fit.
Today it is impossible to write any piece of software without violating patents. Linux probably violates hundreds. Windows probably violates hundreds as well (many of the same ones as Linux). Nobody knows.
Any real invention in software is large and complex enough that it covers many pages of paper. It is easily protected by copyright. Or you can make it a trade secret and try to obfuscate the invention in the resulting product (this works very well, simple compiling seems to hide the original in a way that makes it very difficult to retrieve). There is absolutely no reason for patents in this area, their only purpose is to deprive the small inventors patents are designed to protect, and move power to those able to afford the patents.
Patents are just another form of monopoly.
But this type of monopoly is probably the most dangerous strain:
Patents are legal monopoly, enforced & protected by the state of law.
Big businesses realized the unique benefits that patents grant. Thus big businesses are now much more interested in patents, than anything else (copyrights, trademarks, etc.).
yeah, whatever loser. it's all about context.
I understand why people sometimes want to remain anonymous when posting to Slashdot, but come on. Can you tell us what small Western nation you're from, or will that blow your cover? Must be a pretty small nation if you're the only programmer in it.
- They do not promote innovation, but merely fast patenting. The nature of CS is such that many ideas are independantly developed, and would be available without patents
- Software progresses faster without them. Here[PDF] is a (very) detailed analysis of the topic.
- Patents Don't encourage disclosure -- it's not very disclosed if no-one who might implement it will read it for fear of a lawsuit! I think M$ has this as a policy, but I can't find proof.
- Limited times are a joke -- many products are obsolete in 6 monthes. Others take 6 monthes to get going.
Hope this helpsSig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
"small western nation" ..that just doesnt sound right? who calls themselves that?
.. that would be what I would expect a genuine person to say. Also, why be secretive about hte country?
"small european country"
A GOOD arguemnt against software patents, just suggest what would have happened to modern computing if say, Edsger W. Dijkstra had patented some of his inventions, we would be YEARS behind where we are today in operating systems and various other fields.
# Costs of patent searches, and their impact on the creative flow of software development
Paradoxically, the result of the patent system is to amplify the NIH ("not invented here") syndrome that is the bane of innovation. At the startup that I have been associated with, the explicit policy was that researchers and developers were NOT to go searching in the literature, and especially not in the patent literature.
The reason was very simple: if we found a good idea from somewhere else, it might make our product a better one. But there was a good chance that it would be patented and that we would now be "willfully infringing" on the process and get hammered in court. (We fully expected to get sued at some point.) Moreover, being aware of the prior art would get in the way of our making outlandishly broad claims in our own patent filings. (After all, the inventors must sign an Oath declaring that they believe all the claims are truly innovative. Apparently, willful negligence in doing literature searches has no legal penalties!)
By closing our eyes, the goal was to enable us to pull the wool over the eyes of investors and potential customers. We could swear that there were no violations that we knew of and also present patent applications for them to view (under draconian NDAs of course! otherwise they might just show them to someone who could expose the game. The real point of NDAs is to isolate the person who signs them and make them dependent on you. Sort of like the pimp who demands his ho's cut off family ties...)
The point of all this is that the real cost of the current totally screwed up patent system is that searches are NOT done and innovation is slowed down in the process of everyone reinventing the wheel.
A good case against copyright in software and elsewhere can be found here.
And if the mpaa/riaa/uspta/cia can't find the place on the map, they can't nuke it :-)
for example if someone invented a superquick way to sort a string of numbers
quicksort? its fairly trivial and obvious to an expert in that field so even going by the patent office's definition, it shouldn't be patented.
...and cry and whine. Oh wait, that's what the OSS movement does now doesn't it?
OK, you named several categories that supposedly would help your position to do away with software patents:
1. Triviality of some patents
Fix the process, don't get rid of it.
2. Patents as anti-competitive instrument
Well known as one of the purposes of patent law in general. This will not help you.
3. Patents' discriminatory nature - difficulty faced by smaller developers with patent enforcement
Law firms take patent infringement suits on a contingent fee basis all the time, and win.
4. Costs of patent searches, and their impact on the creative flow of software development
That's a price of doing business. And they're not that expensive anyway.
5. Clear evidence that a software patents regime is squeezing small and independent players out of the industry and creating an oligopoly for the largest players
Smaller players have just as much access to the patent system as the big boys.
6. Clear evidence that under the software patents regime, the entire 'space' or public commons of programming concepts is being subsumed into private ownership
If true, symptomatic of a flaw in executing the system, not a flaw in the system itself.
7. Clear evidence and examples of patent law being abused and having a net anti-innovation effect
Again, if it truly is abuse, the abuse should be stopped; sacking the system isn't the solution. A certain saying involving babies and bathwater comes to mind.
8. Anything else you have bookmarked, or can google upon, which can help build the most solid case.
I have a feeling that if you do come up with something to help your cause, this is where you'll find it, because 1-7 are irrelevant.
I published a virtual encrypting disk (with source) back in 1979, giving the technology to the world. However recently a company was awarded a patent which they were using to try to get money from a company who had an encrypting virtual disk for a PC. Clearly software patents have major problems in that the true inventors are not being considered, and the patent office does not search nor enforce search for prior art nor for the obvious. Seeing that in the case of software, areas like every BBS that published code, user group libraries (mine was published by the DECUS library), and later ftp sites and still later websites, gopher sites, and so on, are places where software might have been published, such searches would be massively hard, yet to ensure the inventor is being found and not some latecomer, it is necessary to search them. A software patent regime should recognize this. Quite apart from all other considerations, the basic inequity of not searching prior art or obvious art should prohibit software patents (and various others). Where the norm has been to patent new ideas in a field, one could conceivably limit searches to old patents, but where a public information base has existed or exists, it should be fully searched first before a monopoly is granted.
The US patent system on the other hand says in effect you must disclose prior art you know about, but you don't need to search for such. Thus if you haven't happened to see (or don't recall) prior art you may apply freely as the Nth inventor of some idea. Questions of obviousness seem seldom to be considered either, though one might argue that if you ask 10 people about a technical problem (people who understand the question) and any of them give the patent application's answer, that is evidence the idea was obvious. But the USPTO does not do it like that...and the intellectual landgrab goes on.
I myself have tried patenting some network stuff (it's still pending). I would get some money for this patent, but I think I would rather post it on a Open-Patent forum if there existed a serious one. As we all know, patents cannot be claimed at the patent office if it allready exist by any means in a text on the internet.
I find it especially silly that all those mobile companies (nokia etc) have claimed patents that are so silly that even my dog could have made them up. So I say: Let's open a forum where people can post open-patents (like a more open ietf).
The big problem I have is simply software should be either subject to patents or subject to copyright, not both. I can't think of anything else that is subject to both.
If at first you dont succeed, relax, success is overrated anyway.
99% of people (incl. companies) don't bother to patent what are 'obvious' ideas to them. The 1% that do, get the patent and spoil it for everyone else. There is a patent on an 'embedded webserver'. 'embedded' is just an acjective and can meant hat that web server is on a PC, a PIC or a hand-held device. No one within reason would ever try to patent the location of a web-server. But someone did. Someone suceeded. So now we all suffer. We live in fear that our webservers will one day be called 'embedded' as devices get smaller and more connected. Are patents liek this really for the 'good' of a people? No.
You will find material on all those issues and more on the web site of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure. The site is incredibly well researched.
Technology needs to slow down. 20 years is a good time to let things settle. Let's go back to the old ways. Church, baseball, and mom. OP.
The problem with most of the arguments presented on /. is that they are U.S. and E.U.-centric. What a country needs when developing a technology sector is to make sure that the companies in that country can grow and thrive. In order to make that happen, the local companies have the advantage, and not the multinationals with big bucks.
A patent system will cause all the multinational software companies to come in and register their preexisting patents in your country. Then, they will use your court system to bankrupt and destroy all the software companies in your country. They don't want competition from some small software house in a country with a developing tech sector. Multinationals want to own your market, and will not play fair. If they can get that kind of monopoly on your country's market and suck all the money overseas through the patent system, then that's what they will do.
The only thing that a politician may hope for is that they may move branch offices into your country, but they will supply far fewer jobs than growing the industry on your own. And still the majority of the money will be used to fund the home office in another country.
Patents as squeezing out small businesses: Spend $13 and buy "The Incredible Secret Money Machine" by Don Lancaster (also author of The CMOS Cookbook). Or go to www.tinaja.com for a web-based version of the same. He points out that patents are easy for the big players to squeeze by, simply through finding historical artwork that looks similar -- if you have the money to do a good search. At the same time, they are deadly for a small business to work with. That is, if you get a patent, and a big company steals it, you will be bankrupted fighting them, even if they are completely in the wrong. My experience has been as he described: that patents are not the way to go. Competitiveness is. Triviality of some patents: http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/12/15/ 001215hnbtprodigy.xml?p=br&s=5
Clear evidence of an oligopoly? Consider BT's 15000 patents, one of which they discovered was the hyperlink.
Patents as anticompetitive device: Encyclopedia of Britannica. Look at the history of patents. They were used historically to benefit friends of the throne, in conjunction with copyrights which were used to censor. Note that this does not fall under common law.
Patents as anticompetitive, and economically disasterous: Look at what the drug companies are doing, prohibiting "parallel importation" of drugs -- meaning that they set a price of $13/dose in one country, $2/dose in another, and people are not allowed to go to the $2 country to get the cheaper medicine, nor to import it from the cheaper source. This is just a means to bleed countries white.
Patents as against natural law: point out that when governments try to legislate the impossible, they lose respect and drive civil disorder. One of the impossible things about patents is that it claims that once you release an idea, you can control what other people do with it. This is more obvious with the copyright actually, as people violate them all the time (witness Kazaa! -- though I don't do this). But when you have laws that benefit those of ill intent, you drive social decay.
I doubt that any of this will have positive effect -- the large corporations are too good at subverting justice. But not to worry -- evil empires don't last long.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Doesn't seem quite consistent with one of the first US patents (1790) being for a method of making potash and Pearle ash. And that's to say nothing of the first British patent hundreds (?) of years earlier. Sure, founders would not have envisioned software patents, but just because they don't fit into some clumsy 'machine shop' metaphor doesn't mean they don't still make some sense.
.... all time patent thief: Edison, and the Incandescent Lightbulb. Quoted, interestingly, as saying that Tesla would never be a great inventor, "because he doesn't know how to steal." Now go to Scientific American -- you'll have to do some research, but I'm thinking it was around 1982 or so -- and you will find that in his notebook he has pasted on one page an article about how a British man had successfully made a long-lasting lightbulb by using a strand of carbon fiber. On the next page, Edison has written "It Works!" Now look up patent history on the lightbulb. Edison fought him into *poverty* over that patent, and eventually won an agreement that the British man would get the patent in Britain, and Edison would get the patent for the rest of the world. That same story has played out again and again; there are companies that do nothing but patent ideas they think are coming, and then later go and hit the real developers over the head for money. Patent law *discourages* innovation; it doesn't encourage innovation.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The GPL will not prevent the distribution of technologies, ideas or methods. The GPL may prevent some methods of distribution of particular implementations and expressions of technologies, ideas or methods.
If you don't like having to distribute source, you can write a new implementation of the same methods from scratch. You can't do that with patented methods.
I think you should make the case based on economic welfare, since arguments based on freedom or fairness are not considered legitimate by some (and will help opponents to characterize you as extremists, idealists, etc - in fact it is the everything-should-be-patentable campaigners who are taking the ideological position).
... is hardly a significant barrier to software developers.'. This is
... discourages
I wrote to the European Commission when they asked for comments on their (rather biased) study of software patentability; I have pasted in these comments below.
Comments on the study 'The Economic Impact of Patentability of
Computer Programs'
Ed Avis, ed@membled.com
These are comments I would like to submit to the Commission about its
study on software patentability. The order of the comments follows
the order in which the study is presented, which means that comments
on the study's conclusions come first.
At the end are some more general comments on whether it is useful to
grant patents on computer programs.
SECTION I
* Open source development
I feel that the authors of the report have misunderstood the position
of open source developers summed up in the quotation from one open
source developer. This developer points out that while the platform
itself is open, individuals are free to create proprietary products
based on that platform. This is usually true. and it is what
copyright achieves. But I know that most open source developers would
not support the idea that a particular use of their platform could be
patented by one company which then prevents others from making their
own implementation---in effect making the platform itself proprietary,
since it no longer provides an open base for competing developers to
build on.
The anonymous developer comments: `The goal of open source is to make
sure that IP rights or other proprietary rights do not interfere with
that platform'. This is the case for copyright on software, but
software patents often do interfere with a previously open platform
and limit choice. This is particularly true given the broadness and
triviality of many software patents currently being granted.
Actually, I feel that the emphasis given to open source developers is
misleading. Certainly the individual developer is vulnerable to
software patents, but then so are all development groups not big
enough to fight back. It just happens that unpaid open source
developers are at one end of the scale. (They are also more
vulnerable because they cannot keep their development secret, a point
I'll mention again later.)
* Software patents necessary for American SMEs
Commenting on the situation in the United States, the authors write:
`On the one hand there is abounding evidence that the profitability
and growth of independent and SME software developers in the States
has often been to a significant extent dependent on possession of
patent rights'.
It should be clear that this does not imply that the existence of
software patents helps small and medium-sized developers to grow. It
could just as well be true that the legal climate is such that a small
company without sufficient patents to use defensively is vulnerable to
attacks from large patent-holding corporations, and thus it is
necessary for small companies to acquire patents if they are to
attract investment and grow. In fact I believe that this is the case.
The fact that, in the present US legal climate, it is necessary for
small firms to hire patent lawyers and start acquiring patents does
not mean that small firms in Europe would be helped by the
introduction of a similar system. It might just be a burden they
would rather do without.
Also remember that a fast-growing, highly profitable company which
holds many patents does not necessarily indicate a healthy
marketplace. It could be that this company is doing well through
blocking competitors from entering the market and through demanding
licence money from other firms. Such behaviour does not usually help
consumers, who would prefer an open and competitive market. It might
be better to have several companies, not quite as fast-growing or as
profitable, who are competing freely and growing the total size of
this market segment faster than a single monopolistic firm.
It is jumping to conclusions to say, as the report does, that
patentability of computer programs has helped the growth of SMEs in
the US. All one can conclude is that in a market where your
competitors are filing for patents, you need to do the same yourself
if you expect to grow.
* Do software patents help small companies?
The authors claim that lack of software patents in the early days of
the computer industry made it easier for large companies to copy the
ideas of smaller developers. But is there any evidence that
widespread software patentability has stopped this trend? A small
developer holding one or two patents on a key idea will not stand a
chance in a legal battle with a large developer holding thousands of
patents, many of them vague or extremely broad but nonetheless
granted. Software patents certainly do not level the playing field in
favour of the small developer---except perhaps for the company which
does no development work itself (thus not infringing on anyone else's
patents) but distorts the market by accumulating patents on whole
classes of computer programs.
(There is also the implicit assumption that it's a bad thing for other
companies to market their own products based on a particular idea.
But in order for competition in software to exist at all, this must be
allowed. The advantage of being first to market is particularly great
in the software industry, there's no reason to create extra barriers
to entry for those who are trying to bring competing products to
market.)
* Invalid patents
The report acknowledges that many software patents granted in the US
are invalid, but doesn't consider this important: `Their existence
to seriously underestimate the problem.
Even an infringement suit for an invalid patent requires hiring a
patent lawyer and a trip to court. Even if you win, the process can
be cripplingly expensive for a small software developer, impossible
for an individual or start-up. (This is true even under a loser-pays
system, since it can never be absolutely certain who will win.)
Multiply that by the sheer number of vague, possibly invalid patents
held by many large companies, each one of them the subject of
infringement proceedings, and you will see that invalid patents are
just as much a problem as valid ones.
The overheads of software development are much lower than those in
most industries where patents are used; so the costs of fighting
patent lawsuits are proportionally much higher. Any patents, invalid
or otherwise, represent a real risk for the small software developer.
Large companies can usually countersue with their own collection of
patents and reach a cross-licensing agreement, so invalid patents
aren't so much a problem for them.
* Current quality of software patents
The report concludes that we need to make sure European patent offices
(national and EPO) do not fall into the same trap as the USA, to make
sure they do not grant `obvious' patents. (It's not clear whether
this means obvious to a software developer, or obvious to a patent
examiner, which in practice is rather different.) There's no evidence
that this is happening. If patentability is to be extended, it would
be prudent to clean up the patent examination procedure before such an
extension, rather than afterwards.
* Antitrust law
Anti-trust regimes are not an effective way to stop companies abusing
their software patent portfolio. The speed at which the courts work,
and the speed at which the software industry works, mean that any
possible action would come far too late and take far too long. It is
not good to introduce one layer of litigation through software
patentability, and then try to fix it with another legal process.
Better to allow companies to write software without the threat of
legal action hanging over them, and let them respond quickly to market
demand without waiting for courts to make decisions.
* Options presented for changing the law
On aims II and III, the report presents three options. I feel that
these options are misleading and do not show the whole story.
OPTION 1: The report tries to present the status quo as being that
computer programs are patentable, and suggests that the `computer
programs as such' exception be removed from the EPC. But this is not
maintaining the status quo at all. The EPO has very cleverly managed
to reinterpret the law to make an arbitrary and unclear distinction
between `computer programs as such' and `computer programs not as
such'. This happened very recently in the lifetime of the EPC; if it
were really the intention of the EPC's authors, surely it would not
take several decades for this new, enlightened interpretation to
appear?
Since the EPO's decision was not based on any economic criteria or any
research of its effect on the software market, there is no reason to
suppose that it represents any improvement on the previous, clear
position that computer programs were not patentable.
The criterion of `technical effect', which is supposed to distinguish
between software as such and software not as such, does not have any
clear meaning. Patents have been granted for purely abstract,
mathematical algorithms such as data compression on the basis that
this has a technical effect---the effect being that you might use such
an algorithm to encode data travelling across a network, for example.
But the same could be said of any algorithm to translate data from one
format into another, so at a stroke all network protocols and file
formats become patentable. Patents have been granted on user
interfaces, so we can assume that any software whose purpose is user
interaction is not software as such. So already all means of input
and output are considered as having a technical effect; and for any
other software patent application it is not difficult for a computer
programmer to think up a possible technical effect which gets round
the `software as such' exclusion. For example, the EPC rejected a
patent application for a homophone checker on the grounds that it did
not have a technical effect---but conceivably one could use such a
program to get more efficient data compression, thus putting it into
the ever-expanding category of software not as such.
I'm sure you have seen the software patent `horror gallery' listing
very broad patents granted by the EPO on setting prices in a Website
(WO9615505), dynamically generating web pages from a database
(EP0747840), printing ingredients required for a recipe (WO9529453)
and many others. Apart from the serious implications for competition,
these should be sufficient proof that the notion `technical effect' is
in practice just used as an excuse to grant patents on as wide a range
of programs as possible.
It's hard to imagine the EPC ever ruling that something previously
considered a technical effect is no longer to be counted as one---the
border between patentable software and excluded software would move in
one direction only. For these reasons, there is no real difference
between Option 1 and Option 2.
But there is an option left out:
OPTION 0: Uphold the status quo as clearly defined by the EPC, making
it clear that computer programs are not patentable, just as methods
for playing games and methods for doing business are not patentable.
This would not stifle competition and innovation in the software
market; it would not expose small developers to legal threats; it
would mean that companies can get on with writing software and not
fighting court battles.
I urge you to consider this option too, and to recognize that the
EPO's fig-leaf of `technical effect' has no real meaning when applied
to software.
SECTION II
Since I am not a lawyer, I will not write much on Section II, but I
would like to say a few things about lawmaking:
Firstly there is the obvious point that there is a fundamental
difference between a physical invention or process, and something
which is purely information such as a picture or computer program.
Making a clear, legally enforceable distinction between the two has
already been managed by copyright law, so there is no reason why
patent law cannot do the same.
But more importantly, the patent system exists only to serve economic
interests. Any decision on what is patentable should be made on
economic grounds and not by trying to carry across decisions made for
a different area.
So removing exemption of computer programs on the grounds of
`technical effect' alone is not sensible, because having a technical
effect and being economically justified are two unrelated criteria.
What is worthwhile for other industries may not be worthwhile for
software, and vice versa.
Finally, on the question of whether software is `technology', I would
like to point out that while marketing departments often refer to
software as `technology', you will not usually hear a programmer use
this term.
SECTION III
Section III has a mixture of pro- and anti-swpat viewpoints. But
those which favour software patents, or at least suggest that the
anticompetitive effects they cause would not be too great, tend to be
founded on the assumption that `the system works properly'. So large
numbers of bad patents are not being issued, companies cross-license
on reasonable terms, antitrust laws work swiftly and effectively, and
so on. But this idealized software patent world is not real. The
software patents being granted by the EPO are frequently of very poor
quality, just as bad as those in the US if not worse. And it only
takes a single firm to start aggressively enforcing its software
patents to cause serious trouble to every other firm which is not big
enough to have its own defensive portfolio.
The claim that `the existence of a patent system
business secrecy' may be true in other areas, but not for software.
Many companies cannot disclose their source code, even if customers
want it, for fear that this would allow others to trawl through it for
possible infringements. On the other hand, the typical software
patent will not disclose anything of value; either it is too broad and
vague to give any details, or contains ideas which would occur to many
programmers thinking about the same problem. (There are some software
patents which contain descriptions of new algorithms, but in these
cases the algorithm would have been disclosed anyway without a patent,
if it is to become any sort of useful standard.) So software patents
actually encourage business secrecy and discourage disclosure.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON SOFTWARE PATENTABILITY
The hard work of software development is usually not in thinking up an
idea but in implementing that idea. This is particularly true given
the obviousness of many of the ideas that the USPTO and EPO consider
patentable, in some cases simply because they involve a computer. It
is not like (for example) the drug industry where many years and lots
of money must be expended to generate new patents. Rather, thinking
up new ways to solve a problem is what a computer programmer does
every day, and the same idea will almost certainly have occurred to
many programmers in the past. The expense comes in implementing and
testing code based on that idea.
The work of implementation is already protected by copyright, which
provides a good balance between incentives for development and a
competitive marketplace. Software patents tip that balance too far
towards monopoly, and in any case it's unlikely that the first company
to file a patent actually `invented' the idea.
But even if, in theory, it were possible for the patent office to
examine all the millions of lines of program code currently in use and
grant patents only on genuinely new algorithms, the price would still
be too great. The software market is unlike most others in its strong
requirement for compatibility; competing products need to read each
others' file formats, for example. A patent on a file format, or on
an algorithm used to encode that format, allows one company to block
all competing products that might perform the same function as its
own.
Developers are expected to check every line of their code against
thousands of existing patents. Consider that the USPTO has allowed
the same algorithm (LZW compression) to be patented twice, by Unisys
and by IBM. If even the patent office cannot check an application
against previous patents, what hope is there for the developer
checking a 500,000 line program? Copyright, on the other hand, does
not have this problem; you have legal certainty that if you have not
copied anyone else's work, you are not infringing. Copyright works
well for computer software; patents do not.
In short, the possibility of infringing on thousands of software
patents is a serious burden for small companies, and patents on file
formats (or on business methods, which could effectively be granted if
the business method involves a computer) affect even large companies.
The result is reduced choice in the market and less software available
to the consumer. And patents on file formats mean total monopoly with
no possibility of competing, compatible programs being written.
The fact that American firms are stuck in this mess is not a reason to
inflict it on European companies. I urge you to recommend that the
existing wording of the EPC be upheld, so that computer programs
(along with methods for playing games, doing business, and so on) are
made explicitly not patentable.
Also, any change to the EPC which allows the EPO to decide for itself
on changes to the rules would be very unwise. The patent office is
not equipped to make a proper economic analysis of changes to the
system. Past experience has shown that the EPO would move the
frontier of patentability in one direction only.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
"A system for registration of ideas, providing for exclusivity of rights to production and marketing of said ideas, and providing for recourse against individuals or organizations infringing on that exclusivity of rights."
Hmmm... if we word this right, maybe we can patent the patent system.
I think we're being asked to do someone's term paper for them...
well quicksort complex is about n log n rigth ? I remember that theres a way (or two ways I dont remeber) to sort numbers in n, yeah I'm not crazy but is wastes LOTS of memory, you actualy have an array from the lowest numer to the highest number and keep in them the times that the number apear, its quite insane to keep about 65536 vars. for sorting integer values, but the speed is almost unbeatable.
Also quicksort is beaten by heapsort in most cases, but i dont remember the algorithm.
DON'T PANIC.
Since you aren't even considering the other side of the issue I suggest you quote the communist manifesto. Which as your quotes would imply you already seem to be a devout follower of.
If you are truly interested in understanding the issue I then you should study the founding of the United States Patent and Copyright system. Although it is hobbling along without proper review of patents, these days, its still does what it was intended to do. Tha is to allow the inventor of a new technology to reap the rewards for his own work by protecting him for others particularly large groups or organizations.
The most fundamental reason to (re)outlaw software patents and patents in general is that monopolies are supposed to be illegal. Patents originated from US Constitutional law as an idea, and were regretted by the originator (Jefferson?) before he even died.
At his time, the industrial revolution had not occurred. At least, the idea of a government granted monopoly for a valuable idea made sense *at*that*time* since it could be prohibitively expensive to manufacture products before someone copied the idea with existing facilities.
Compare that situation 1. to post-industrial evolution, and you begin to wonder why patents would be used at all. They were arguably a mistake even outside software.
Compare them to software, and the whole idea of patents (to give the small guy a chance in the face of manufacturing costs) is turned on its head. Copying bits to a CD is trivial (negligible manufacturing costs). Software does not need patents.
Furthermore, today's patent system has very low integrity in both quality of patents (the nature of the beast due to explosion in software industry) and the counterproductive nature (legal expenses and hidden exposure) of any software entrepreneur or open source project to patent suits.
IOW, patents were a mistake. Software patents not just a mistake but just plain destructive of the very entrepreneurial intent of original patents.
That's the basic problem with patents and software patents in particular. They should never have been approved by Bruce Lehmann and his USPTO committee of lawyers.
= Joe =
A purely logical argument against software patents is that they are logically absurd. In concept, you are patenting ways of thinking and could patent thoughts that people have. Logically, that makes no sense and is unenforceable.
Logistically, software patents make no sense as well. The USPTO has no system and can not with any serious integrity compare quality of ideas in software nor provide a reasonable (no) cost way to check software for patent violations --- a crucial component to software management. As a result, all software is susceptible to patents.
Of course, the real value of patents is to the legal industry. These non-computable problems become a cash cow for them even though they are insupportable from a logical or logistical point of view.
Ultimately, the answer is that software patents cost society far more than they ever offer in terms of innovation and record keeping.
They should be outlawed and should never have been approved by the USPTO under Bruce Lehmann and his lawyer cronies.
= Joe =
I'm against patents (any kind of patents). I just believe that knowledge should be free (like free beer). \- another topic
But what's the matter ? An open source program is just a publication, a mere text. And it is not forbidden to publish something related to a patent.
A software patent could be specified by an open source program (a good specification for an algorithm indeed). The only thing forbidden would be closed source programs implementing the algorithm.
Patents protecting open source...
Is that fiction ?
YAAC (yet another anonymous coward)
Whats really needed is for someone to patent software and open source it. That way, MS would either have to Open Source Windows or gradually fall behind into obscurity!
On the subject of Microsoft, what about the Stacker patent. Stacker wrote disk compression software. Microsoft reverse engineered it and put it into DOS 6. Stacker almost went bankrupt (if it's in DOS, why buy it?) until a judge awarded them damages based on Microsoft ripping-off their idea.
Big corporations like Microsoft are a threat to small ones. If you are on their radar screen, either they buy you, or make their own version of the software you live off (i.e. copy your idea and add their own improvements) and you are out of business. If you had a patent, at least you stand a chance of surviving.
And, very importantly, any brief testimonials from indepenedant developers who have not intentionally stolen intellectual property, but have actually been squashed under patent laws."
I remember reading a ton of these on Slashdot's patent topic; all I can say is read the articles and comments to get plenty of examples...
AC comments get piped to
I was at the second of two public hearings on whether to adopt software patents in the US. They were led by Bruce Lehmann who was heading the USPTO at the time.
With hindsight (actually the next morning), it was clear that he had made up his mind to institute software patents before the second hearing was over. So, the hearings were a public relations hoax perpetrated by Lehmann and his lawyer cohorts.
To be clear, every person on the committee was a lawyer. As a legal industry, they decided to institute software patents.
As to their clarity of thought, I can tell you that Bruce Lehmann was no sharp cookie (perhaps politically, but not technically or socially for the good). He was more interested in having his cake and eating it too, than clearly understanding what a logistical and socially negative impact software patents would have on the software industry and innovation.
However, the key point is that they provide an excellent issue of contention (socially negative), immeasurable source of research (since there's no way to validate safety from existing or submarine patents). They also have a wonderful 17 year life confused by hidden existence until approved. The people approving them are not the cream of the crop (according to Bruce Lehmann) but smart enough to know what they're doing (how could they be?).
In sum, the whole software patents disaster can be laid at the feet of the US legal industry who was in severe conflict of interest (must have known it) and followed through in their personal interests.
Bruce Lehmann got his excuse to bulk up the USPTO indefinitely with software patent reviewers while also providing a cash cow to his legal industry.
-=-
So, if your country's legal industry needs a shot in the arm, or you just want to suppress innovation, entrepreneurship and open source in software industry, software patents are great.
Otherwise, I would suggest steering clear.
= Joe =
New Zealand. The nsoss.org.nz list has a post that is verbatim.
But whenever I submit a story with New Zealand in it, it gets rejected. So I guess he was thinking the same thing.
You on the other hand are an apologist, but at least you know about the sins you defend.
Kiss my donkey!
Everyone laughs at New Zealand. That's your problem. Either that or (contrary to popular opinion) Taco doesn't enjoy your sheep pr0n stories.
Say hello to the Wizard for me.
The following assumes they are going to allow software patnets (which is wrong...)
If your patent office currently is rejecting software patents, then their database on prior art in the field should have no entries. When the 1st software patents comes in, they will need to check it against all other software patents and see if its unique. Since its 1st, it will be no matter how much prior art exists in the rest of the world, it will appear unique. Your patent office must have a seeding time (I would say 5 to 20 years or so) where any one can file a patent like application which protects their inventor's right to nonexclusive use and prevent future patents for the same thing. This is much like the "sunrise period" for domain names in new TLDs.
I think the best evidence of abuse is the Rambus debacle. There was a slashdot story about the FTC bringing an anti-trust action against them.
To write and distribute software, you get a computer, a fast internet connection and a website, all for around a thousand bucks a year. Since it's all so cheap, and you like coding, you just write stuff that benefits us all (everyone uses free software, whether they know it or not) and release it for free. Then you start to get nice letters from patent lawyers. Or you're selling your software, but you can't get a decent profit because all the big boys with lots of patents know how to use the system to make their competitors starve to death.
See? Patents in all areas, be it steam engines or audio compression algorithms, do both good and bad. They encourage innovation, but they also discourage the implementation of already existing ideas. With the above example I'd like to show that the negative effect of patents are a much larger factor in the software area than in other areas. It costs too much to get licenses, if they are at all for sale. The patents owners have too much power, beacause patents last for at least 20 years, in a fast-moving business that's only 50 years old. Software patents that expires after, say, two years would be OK.
I remember reading a few years ago that IBM had the most software patents (I don't have a reference). If they're really sincere about open software, perhaps they should show their good faith by relinquishing them.
GE's patent on an array of stacks? Yup! They hold the patent on it. Unbelievable, but true.
[Of course it's client-server; it runs on a LAN]
The reasons against software patents are pretty much the same reasons against patents on mathematics or scientific discovery or language/grammar (all of which currently are disallowed). A most basic case is one where that which is discovered is something that always existed and was not 'invented.' This would be the most "low level" of knowledge. The next level would perhaps be two or more pieces of basic knowledge combined for some purpose. For example, we know that friction produces heat, that sticks rubbed together have a high coefficient of friction, and that wood burns when it reaches a certain temperature. So perhaps a second level "idea" would be rubbing sticks together to make a fire. Still not an invention. Note: I believe this is the level at which most software patents exist--trivial discovery or the application of basic facts to accomplish a basic goal. For example, the mathematics of bandpass filtering and the fast fourier transform have existed for a long time. So has the physiological knowledge of how our ears work and the psychological knowledge of perceptual hearing. Put this body of past knowledge together in a formalized algorithm and you have MP3, which Frahnhofer has a software patent for. Bogus? I surely think so. Especially when alternative psycho-acoustic algorithms superior to theirs are available. Furthermore, you don't even need psycho-acoustic algorithms to decode MP3.. yet they still claim they have patent rights on decoders! If this is not a clear cut case of software patents inhibiting innovation, I don't know what is. LZH compression, another trivial (but patented) mathematical algorithm, is perhaps even more obvious.
So what should be patentable? Consider first that patent law is only good if it is good for society as a whole. All ideas are ultimately composed of previous ideas--nothing is new under the sun. So to imply that anyone truly owns an idea is ludicrous. There is no way to absolutely prove an idea is truly original, either. Someone else may have had the same idea a hundred years ago and simply never expressed it, or perhaps wrote it down but never shared it. So to begin, we must realize that patents are an economic compromise, not "property" as some would have us believe. Patents allow the first person that implements a significant idea to be the sole player in the market for a limited time, so that there is an incentive to try new things and explore new ideas while recouping production costs. With the case of software, however, there are no manufacturered goods and no overhead costs. Anyone can write software. And software doesn't even need to be a commercial enterprise. Furthermore, no one idea used in software is truly significant. Software development is an evolutionary art and science. It requires small ideas, small advancements. Such progress is impossible if those small ideas can be patented and restricted from use by the general public and software developers worldwide. Where would computers be today if say.. the linked-list, quick sort, or memory register had been patented.
Patent systems must ultimately weigh the economic incentives granted against the net result on society as a whole. Software patents fail this test consistently.
What's a `pederast', Walter?
It was not out of convenience that early patents required a model - a physical representation - of the innovation requesting a monopoly. There is a reason, and it speaks directly to why software patents are such a bad idea. Patents are meant to be advances into the undiscovered world (progress in Nature), not advances in organizing the already extant human endeavor (progress among men). Requiring a working model does this. Just because economics is unprepared to understand this is no reason to abandon the fundamental principles of a system that had worked very well. nor is bureaucratic sloth.(bureaucrat implies management, not worker)
Progress is more than rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic - unless you are a malthusian, keynsian or Patent Inspector. Progress is the discovery of a skill beyond all current knowledge and any rearranging one might make of it. it is not an easy thing - that is why you get a patent. you don't get a patent just for moving shit around. you get a copyrite.
This is a giant blind spot in most all current economic thinking that fails here as badly as it did in the Microsoft anti-trust efforts. You have reached the edge of your tools - jump
ok - requiring a functional model eliminates "semiotic" patent requests and demonstrates the previously impossible function.
ok - one last time - if it can be deconstructed by a french philosopher, NO PATENT.
sc
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
At the risk of getting modded -1 flame for taking a politically incorrect position in a slashdot post, I feel compelled to point out that there is nothing wrong with software patents.
There *may* be something wrong with some of the patents that have been issued. And that goes for all kinds of patents, software or non-software. But I'm not even sure about that.
There's certainly nothing wrong with the length of the patent. 20 years sounds really long in computer time but it isn't really-- the fact that computers move so fast means that the patent is more likely to be worthless before it expires... meaning if you want to exploit your patent you have to strike while the irons hot. There is no potential of monopolizing a segment of the industry for 20 years here like there was when the cotton gin was patented.
As party to a couple patents, one of which was claimed by posters on Slashdot to have "ethernet networks" as prior art-- I think a lot of the hullabaloo is from people who don't bother to read the patent, see what really IS being patented, and then just claim that anything that does networking is not-patentable because ethernet's been around. Never mind that it is a novel and original process (which to this day has not been beaten by others.)
Now, the market being what it was we were unable to successfully exploit that novel process. But if we had, the 5 years since the patent was issued would have given us time to get some business going. As the SMALL GUY, the patent was critical to protecting the company's interests--- otherwise a large company would have just taken our idea and run with it and we could have done nothing. Eventually one of the large guys bought the company, something that also never would have happened if we hadn't been able to patent the product.
So, basically, all the people saying "software patents are wrong" are saying that the dozen of us who labored for 4 years coming up with this novel process should have enjoyed no protection from others copying it and profiting from our work, and deserved, essentially, no compensation for our work at all. You literally want to take food off of our table. You want us to be poor and possibly unable to feed our families. You are arguing for the oppression of the small guy (as usual) under the guise of protecting the small guy.
Anyone with a two bit lawyer can get themselves a patent. Only multibillion dollar corporations have multibillion-dollar market presences to leverage in the competitive landscape. The patent is an EQUALIZER, not an OPPRESSOR. If the corporation came up with the novel idea first, then they earned it and deserve the patent... but fortunately something about large organizations makes them less competitive. They are less likely to come up with the killer innovation-- hell its even become a trend with companies acquiring innovation by buying small companies rather than developing it in house.
Without intellectual property protection, how is the small guy to protect himself from the bigger companies with better market presence who can just copy the product wholesale, put their name on it, and sell it? WE were dealing with the constant announcements by Microsoft that they had already exceeded our capabilities (A flat out lie, but one that the potential customers had to take seriously.)
Yes, there may be poor software patents. But I don't think Amazon's "one click" covers just clicking a button, the prior art of the Macintosh in 1984 does not obliviate that patent-- there's got to be more too it.
If your country wants to be a good country for IT, to compete against the US. Go to your political friend and make the case FOR software patents. Caution him that the patents have to be decent, and that they need engineers who can understand them to evaluate them. But if you want to have a job a decade or so from now, the best thing your country can do is protect intellectual property.
After all, as IT people we don't make widgets, we move bits. Either the configuration of bits has value or it doesn't. Any configuration of bits is only intellectual property, its not real property, its not a physical product. Since it has value to those who need it, those who made it deserve compensation, and protection from those who would steal it.
Support software patents. They are not only necessary to protect the small guy, they are a form of HUMAN RIGHTS.
It not coincidental that those who lead the opposition of software patents, in the guise of stallman, et. al, also opposed human rights. If they had their way, nobody would be allowed to charge for their labor, no programmer would be allowed to get paid. Oh, they won't admit to it, but what else will it be when it is illegal to ship software without the source code?
The software economy is driven by innovation, and getting paid for that innovation. Once its no longer innovative, its in everyone's best interests to open source it. Market forces will insure a continuing supply of new open source software.
But if you take it too far and make selling your innovation illegal -- by removing the protections of patent and copyright and implementing the Stallman Politburo-- you will kill the software industry.
Protect software patents. You have a right to your body-- you own it, it is property. The work you do with it you own as well, as property. You have a right to trade that work for money, and to REFUSE to make the trade with people who won't pay.
Taking away software patents is essentially saying that anyone who is a programmer doesn't have the right to refuse to work for someone who won't pay.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
\A*pol"o*gist\, n. [Cf. F. apologiste.] One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity.
Sorry, try again. I did not write "in defense" of anything, so you will have to come up with a better perjorative.
Thanks for playing though!
Which is, of course, irrelevant. Patents propmote progress by protecting proprietary inventions and their profits.
Patenting software processes promotes progress and protects proprietary profits. Not to mention human rights.
Now say that 500 times fast, until you can say it without laughing and understand what it means rather than just trying to get to the end
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Patents were not included into law for the profit of the inventors; they were included because it was thought that a lack of patents would result in significantly fewer inventions.
This is why software patents are unnecessary. With rare exceptions, people come up with new algorithms because the algorithms are needed to solve a problem in the larger software, hardware, business or scientific product they are trying to create... not because they plan to sell the algorithm as a standalone product.
And because algorithms are essentially just mathematical truths that are waiting to be discovered (unlike physical inventions that depend on someone actually creating them where they did not exist before), if one computer scientist or programmer declined to pursue the realization of a new algorithm because he/she couldn't patent it, there is a high probability that someone else in the near future will develop the same algorithm or another one that accomplishes the same result.
There are few or no algorithms that would not have been developed if they could not have been patented. Lack of the ability to patent would not cause a database vendor to stop seeking faster algorithms for searching and sorting data. Lack of patents would not stop a Word processor developer from including a better grammar checker.
That patents are also unnecessary is also evidenced by the growing abundance of free software that exists today.
Algorithms have been and will continue to be developed in the natural course of solving other problems, or in mathematical research by universities, so it is not necessary to have patents in order to promote the progress of software. Lack of patents will rarely or never prohibit the creation of software, but the existence of patents can and has become a great obstacle to the creation of software.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Here's one example of a reductio ad absurdum semi-proof of this: most people would consider a typewriter a patentable idea. How about an improvement to a typewriter that allows correcting errors? How about a mechanical tab stop? How about an electroluminescent display on a typewriter?
In a logical chain of patentable improvements that almost no one would argue with, you can invent an entirely electro-mechanical device that is in every way perfectly and exactly identical to the DOS edit program.
So... let's suppose this invention is patentable and is indeed patented. Should Microsoft's DOS edit program be considered to infringe this patent? If not, why not?
It's very hard to argue that DOS edit should be allowed under that patent. If it is, then anyone can implement practically anything comprising a software element that performs some function equivilent to the mechanism of any patent and happily infringe on it.
The final nail in this coffin is that all you accomplish by banning software patents is that people will describe an entire electro-mechanical equivilent device that is equivilent to their software, and then just not ever implement or sell that device, but only do it in software (this isn't, and shoudn't be, a requirement).
"...It's `let me tell you' this and `listen to me' that..." (-:
I live in Western Australia. We have a town shire bigger than Texas, used to have a cattle station bigger than Texas, you can fit seven Texases into the state without overlap, yadda yadda, and tourists - notably Japanese tourists - still hop into taxis in Perth (that's the dot on the left edge) every so often and ask to be taken to Sydney (that's one of the two big dots on the right edge), two full days (ie 24x7) driving at the speed limit away.
By way of righteous indignation, I should add that Jindalee could do local air-traffic control for you (China's OTH radar is the only other that comes even close) from here, including for your stealth aircraft, and we're all-round tougher than you (for example, we don't let little things like the absence of water deter us from having yacht races). (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Ok then. You must be first?
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Patents are bad, m'kay? Don't do patents, kids. M'kay.
http://www.researchoninnovation.org/
These guys have lots of economic studies and papers
explaining how patents can and do harm innovation.
Medical analagy to software patents.
.. monopolistic behaviour, consumers, government, firms all the users of software gain from having the choice of peer produced software.
In medicine, medical procedures are generally developed via a peer production system, and are explicitly not allowed to be patented,
ie if I work out that a better method to perform a gall bladder removal, I can not patent the method. If the method becomes adopted into medical practise the world hopefully benefits, (I'm particulary thinking about key hole surgury for gall bladder removal as an example.) If I develop a new scapel, that helps with key hole surgury, that I can patent. Western medicine is based upon a duel intellectual property system, public commons for medical procedures (essentially a method) and private property for physical equipment and drugs. If doctors and/or patents had to license patents the cost of treatment would increase and choice would inevitably be restricted. Probably occasionally fatally.
Software patents unlike copyright, strongly retards peer production. The introduction of the internet has dramatically assisted peer production of software as has the adoption of GPL and similar copyright licenses (with results like Open source, free software, software libre). However all this innovation is at risk of becoming null by software patents as strong peer production has no recourse against patents. This would leads to monopolostic behavior by propiarty systems to the detriment of the general public. The best that could be achieved in a "closed" system would then be cross licensing which may have simialar characteristics to anti-competitive collusion. The worst....
However peer production based software is all about choice for the general public, with about the only prohibion being
My own suggestion is that software patents should only be allowed where they can not discriminate against peer production. Something along the lines of -> if a software patent is implemented into a GPL class software (independant creation, donation or otherwise), the creation, development and use of the GPL'd software does not become invalidated (illegal) by the software patent. Correspondingly, software patent rights are not reduced when dealing with other non peer production technology. Both GPL'd and patented software add to the body of prior knowledge.
To me this appears to be a sensible and valid compromise between the 2 opposing stances involving software patents, which would allow both parties to grudgingly remain satisifed.
Also for further reading
Coarse's Penguin by Yochai Benkler
Forbes magazine (recent issues)
for an example of trivial anti-competitive behavior against small companies research Videodiscovx vs Optical Data patent interactive method. ala socrates method (I looked it up at EFF)
cheers
finally who in my own country Australia would I lobby to cover this opinion of patents, and yes I do own patents.
The 'Patents are bad' mentality is similar to that. Patents are just patents, and if you get rid of them then expect to stand in line for your rationed bread and TP while all your liberties are sold for what is told to you is security. Sort of like taxes and welfare. Many where I am from rarely had much money to spend, but whether through monetary or other indirect resource donations (time and work, tools, food, etc) we gave to all who were needy (needs are not the same as wants). Now take welfare, now take some more (hahaha, just couldn't help myself... aha, another pun!!! double layered) The issue of government inefficiency, corruption and incompetency aside the fact is that ANY 'stuff' that is taken away by force then applied to others is never right no matter what the justification. If you choose to put something out there that is in essence patented to nobody or to you but is not enforced in anyway then good for you. Do not try to prevent others from having patents however.
The obvious caveat to this is to ensure that frivolous patents are not passed out. Also, if you are intersted in giving your patent to the world, then I suggest publishing detailed specs, with proof of prototype development and sucess (by whatever criteria is appropriate) and then prior art will apply. This in theory would work, but due to aforementioned governmental incompetence, stupidity (by choice not genetics), corruption, laziness, inefficiency, etc there could be a problem.
Put the picket sign down, pick up a history book and start THINKING. Then start voting in people that stick to the constitution and what our Founding Fathers wanted, not what your particular team... errr Party told you is right. Stop being monkeys and start being civilized, thinking humans.
Just look at the ratio of bad patents to good patents. ("Good" meaning encouraging real innovation and rewarding fairly for it.)
I suspect the breakdown would look something like this (rough-ass guess only):
Good Patents: 0.2 percent
Bad Patents: 20 percent
Patents that were never used: 79.8 percent.
Table-ized A.I.
It was drafted by me, with help from RMS and Bruce Perens. The arguments it presents are, I believe, representative of the problems with the patent system in the US today.
See my sig below...
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
To have trivial patents incurs a trivial patent gathering arms race where large technology firms waste resources protecting themselves from one another by accumulating trivial patents. For a government to prohibit trivial patents expends resources in arguing what patents are and are not trivial. Small firms can't amass much of an armory of trivial patents, so the innovation that comes from small firms is curtailed since a small firm's only defense is to avoid innovating in areas where they might be defenseless to an infringement claim. With software patents, your society pays, and the lawyers benefit.
You might want to look at the science angle. Computer algorithms aren't really different from mathematical algorithms. Can you imagine a mathematician patenting his method for finding large primes? Patenting software algorithms is exactly equivilent. Wouldn't it be terrible if Dijkstra had patented the semaphore? Computer science would have come to an end! Computer science is a science like any other. New discoveries should be credited to the people that discovered them, but that shouldn't prevent other people from using and building upon that work. It just stagnates the whole system.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
How is this a human right? Making money is not a human right. Now, let's talk about basic fairness. Say someone gets a patent on something. Five years later, somebody independently comes up with the same idea. Is it really fair for the second person not to be able to use HIS innovation, just because he approached the problem a few years later? Software isn't like most products. Usually, when you come up with a product, just selling it causes the information behind the patent to become known. Thus, the patent in this case really does protect the person's right to utilize his work. Software isn't like that. Thus, it is entirely conceiveble that certain software could use patented algorithms without anybody else knowing. Now the patent system here just prevents competition, instead of protecting the first person's right to his work.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Read how Microsoft planned to use patents to stifle competition.
p hp
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween2.
goatse might like some sausage
It's been years now, and has the US spoken out against any atrocity they have committed or facillitated? Of course not. Every US citizen this planet LAUGHED when they saw what happened(to the Native Americans, East Timorese, Palestinians, and on and on and on . . .).
They must be destroyed. They have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to live in the developed areas of the world. Let them writhe around in their own filth for the next few decades, before they come begging for forgiveness from the rest of the world.
Let them die. Let the Making the case against islam die first and most painfully.
No, its not. The poster said he was in a small, western country. Austrailia aint small. heretic108 stated that he moved to new zealand. which is a small (relative austrailia), western country. Good night!
Given the limited tools available, there are only so many efficient solutions to any given task or problem. So, most computer programs are going to fall under the same category as math, algorithms, formulae, and observation of natural phenomena.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
United States Patent 5,864,874
Shapiro January 26, 1999
Community co-presence system
Virtual Places
I think this patented idea and method is obvious and useful. The methods practised allows a community of users to interact depending on a resource (ie. you visit a URI and can interact with others at that URI using the protocol developed).
Pixels keep you awake!
>>"You ***ing Americans are all the ***ing same..." "...It's `let me tell you' this and `listen to me' that..."
One of my all time favourite quotes! "Well you're dead now..."
Although I understand you've chosen to not state your country for probably good purposes, I might have country specific material and/or links and/or people to connect you to. Just e-mail me (tord/dot/jansson/at/swipnet/dot/se) and I'll see what I can do.
;)
However, if you are from Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Finland and therefore have a good chance of understanding Swedish (or at least knowing somebody who does) you might find this link interesting.
It's the homepage of my webzine called "Patentnytt" where I provide abstracts of and links to articles and material that is useful for anyone working against patents on software.
I have somewhat of a suspicion of who you are and that you already have mailed me though
Let's talk about the real world ok?
Patents don't have to be correct to be issued.
Most patents seem to be issued incorrectly - just a short look will show you that most aren't novel to someone in the same field - it's often the next obvious step, or even already done step. See Rambus vs DDR. You'll see lots of issued patents with prior art. Probably someone has repatented the wheel again since I last checked.
The patent office process encourages rubber stamping. The patent office can't be staffed by experts in all fields. The patent office loses little when issuing invalid patents.
Patents in the real world only help the big corps. The small guys don't have the resources to win a legal battle against an invalid patent, they usually don't have enough patents of their own to fight back and do cross licensing. Whereas corps like IBM can always pull out a "how to draw line on x y grid" patent or thousands of other patents. The big guys can afford to apply for tons of patents even trivial ones.
The patent system is pretty broken it's doing more harm than good, allowing more things to be patented will just extend the range of the shit it's spewing.
Unfortunately I don't see how it can be fixed to do more good than harm. Throwing it away may actually do more good than harm nowadays.
I don't mind if people keep things secret and never release them to the public. Other people are likely to come up with it on their own. If not, hey good for them for being so uniquely brilliant. Whereas patents nowadays don't encourage brilliance, they just encourage "first to patent some stupid thing".
With patents even if you think of something yourself, you end up with tons of limits on how you can use it, I find that repugnant.
I see the adoption of Software patents as a serious threat to educational and scientific programs. Numerous students and professors currently write software to solve real world problems. Once the software prooves it works and is of value, these tools are often made available for free or else sold on the open market. Once software patents enter the scene, these type of developments are most likely to die.
During my Masters, I wrote a small piece of software together with a professor and a fellow student. Today, we license it to many universities for a very modest fee. The software has been proven to measure up against commercial software and even convinced others to include models and methods we developed. Would we have been able to license this software cheap to universities if software patents succeed Worldwide? I don't think so. I think we would have had to pay for many things and it would have killed the initiative in a very early stage.
I think there are marked differences between software patents and patents in chemical and biological sciences. For the latter, one needs a laboratory and experienced staff who require a long time to research for finding innovative and develop new products/processes and breakthrough medicin. The time it takes to find such innovations typically is measured in years.
In the software industry, such lead time for innovations are typically much shorter and do not require staffing and runing costs of a complete lab. Most things patented in the US now are typically trivial things like one-button-click to order that children can invent. I also see no trend that long research will be required. Worse, I see that the software industry is using idea's developed in government paid institutions.
Patent law was institutionalized for it was seen to catalyze developments. Currently there seems little need for such a protection: the IT industry is very much flourishing.
Software patents just result in increassed costs for education and engineering, as well as in more legal fees (and more lawyers). They do not add to the production of a nation, they just add on overhead.
I guess we must hope that the EU won't fall pray to the process of yet again being forced by the US to follow suit with their manner of bussiness... (just like the DMCA! It is not a law EU citizins wanted or had a say in. Neither does the DMCA protect consumer rights).
If the legislators are lawyers, then it may help them to understand the issue of software patents if you ask them to imagine a situation of patented legal arguments, where complex license searches and random royalties are required every time a lawyer needs to perform virtually any legal task.
Then make the simple case: Is law, which is an intellectual business quite similar to programming, an unprofitable business? Would your small western nation be better off if legal arguments were encumbered in this way?
Sure, 80 years of royalties for "A system and a method of supressing evidence in a legal forum when laws were broken or rights infringed during the gathering of evidence" would be a nice way for someone to get paid for the rest of their lives for patenting the application of some already existing idea: Nice work if you can get it, but it clearly wouldn't help any "honest" lawyer (now that's a concept) nor would it help the society. Would lawyers "work harder" or be more creative if they could patent their arguments (or win the race to be the first to patent common legal arguments)? Absolutely not, they work very very hard already, and their creativity is so extreme that it, well ok in a lot of cases it ruins the reputations of lawyers and half their profession but don't get me started on that one. Would programmers "work harder" or be more creative if they got to patent their code? Nope. Programmers worked very hard before anyone patented code, and the vast majority of programmers work hard while never even considering patenting their code.
Richard Stallman has been thinking about freedom and software for a long time. He's made documented speeches. When I searched in Google for the notes I know someone made of one that I heard in Cambridge, UK, with "cambridge software patent richard stallman" as the search, I found this page http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html which has just about everything you need to construct your defence.
It would probably be a fine idea to put your collation online, so that other people can use it too.
Regards,
Jeff Veit
I think the best possible solution would be not to fight patents but to make it very difficult to hold bad patents. This can be done by making it very costly to lose the rights to a patent.
If a company holds a patent and say a person or a company thinks that it is a bad patent then they can sue the patent holding company. When the court case is decided then if the patent holding company wins the case then they get money for the case proceedings, but if they lose they have to pay in addition to the court proceedings a hefty amount depending on the amount of time the case took plus another amount depending on the income of the patent holding company. There should also be an extra fine when patents have been made in bad faith, like the Rambus patent.
This will enable people to do bounty hunting on bad patents. And it will be extremely dangerous for companies to acquire bad patents. Companies will make sure that they only claim patents which are defendable. I think patents are not bad Bad Patents are bad, and they should be made extremely expensive. If it is done this way Patent Office will not have to police things at all companies will police themselves. I am sure once it is done there will be a scramble by companies to throw away their bad patents, and world will be a better place.
I think the best idea would be to make bad patents extremely costly for the holder to contest. Best would be if it so costly that people can do bounty hunting on bad patents. Basically if a patent is brought to court then if the holder loses he/she/it must pay really hefty charges including court fees, fine depending on the time since the patent was filed to the time when it was challenged. Also fine must depend on the income of the holder in question. In addition a fine if the patent was done in bad faith like the Rambus patent. Make it so costly that a person or company will think many times before patenting anything. Of course there will have to be an exemption for the cases of prior art that is proved to have been unknown to the holder. In that case of course the holder did not know that it was invalid. Also for forcing the patents to have the smallest scope, make a patent invalid if it is invalidated on any single count. So that the holder must hold different patents for different points, and not club it together. If all this is done then Patent office need not do anything for approval of the patent, the applicant will make sure it is in good faith.
There is a website which documents the whole
mess and lobbies massivly against software
patents.
It's called
http://swpat.ffii.org/
I think I get it now--how's this restatement: If the (historical) purpose of a patent is to make sure that an inventor gets some money from his invention, a patent is not necessary for software inventions because the inventor can make money by selling the invention herself (she doesn't need the machine manufacturing capability that only a large company could have).
I don't think I can agree with that.
First, I don't agree with the premise that a patent is only for ensuring that the inventor gets paid. For example, it may be a good thing to encourage the inventor to disclose to the public how the invention works--such a good thing, in fact, that it may be worth giving the inventor an exclusive right to protect the invention in exchange for the disclosure (i.e., a patent), even if he could have made money without that protection.
[Note: Many people have a strong opinion that (i) patents (particularly patents for software inventions) do not in fact disclose anything useful, and/or (ii) there is no real need to encourage disclosure of software inventions in the first place (e.g., developers are open, sharing, and peer-focused and don't read patents anyway), so the intended Bargain (disclosure in exchange for exclusive right) provided by a patent is too expensive for the public, who is excluded from making or using the invention. But those are different arguments from what you're making here.]
Second, there is no guarantee that, even if the cost to manufacture is $0, that the inventor will make any money from the invention. Other software developers could independently develop a competing product (so no copyright protection). So your premise that the inventor needs to get paid could in fact support the use of patents for software inventions.
you suggest you already have a strong opinion about the subject.
I'm not suggesting that your conclusion is wrong, but you must have reached it somehow. What materials did you read to draw such a strong opinion?
Provide some proper evidence from a respectabel source. Sequential Innovation, patents and immitation by James Besen and Eric Maskin provides evidence that patents do not work in some industries and provides a proper economic model for why they do not - and why they can slow innovation. It also makes the practiacal point the point that extending patents to cover software in the US did not lead to an increase in R & D spend. I do not know if the paper was published in a journal but it did appear as an MIT working paper dated January 2000 (available on the web).
If you have the time a paper by Bronwyn Hall on innovation in semiconductors suggests that patents do not encurage innovation in industries where technology is developing very quickly.
Concrete examples:
Pick something that the person you are talking to can understand and show how its development would have been affected by patents. Take spreadsheets as an example, they have developed a huge amount of functionality becusae of competitive pressures. If Visicalc had taken a patent (which they only did not do because at the time software was regarded as unpatentable) on spreadsheets they would have had no competition and no reason to invest in adding features like database funtionality, solving, plugins (I used to use one that did Monte Carlo simulations), macros etc.
It may also be worth pointing out the number of advances that have taken place as a result of free software without the patent incentive (web browsers and quite a lot else internet related).
Software is unique in being protected by patents and copyright. Is it a mechanism or an artistic work? Creators of software are given the advantages of both. This is on top of the intrinsic advantage over artistic creations and mechanical/electronic mechanisms that the work itself(i.e. source code) can be kept secret.
Finally, network effects are common in software and this combines with patents to give a patent holder more monopoly power than a patent holder in most industries - for example consider how strong a position is gained from having a patent on a file format or protocol that is a de facto standard (actually one suggestion to make might be that protocols and file formats are excluded from patents).
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/05/technology/05COD E.html
Open source is clearly hampered by patents, viz GIF, MP3, etc. So if your country wants to move toward open source, supporting software patents is not the way to do it.
adéu,
Mateu
"And we're happy here, but we live in fear, we've seen a lot of temples crumble..." - Concrete Blonde
Of course making money is a human right. If it isn't then you support the idea that someone can say "you don't have the right to work for anyone else. you have to work for me for free."
Eg: if selling your labor for money (making money) is not a human right, then you believe everyone is a slave who has to get permission to live.
Who says the person who comes up with the idea 5 years later can't use it? They just have to pay a license fee to the person who patented the process. If the license fee isn't reasonable (market forces will ensure that it is) then he can come up with another way of doing the same thing or use the prior art, well known ways of doing it.
Patents only cover *exceptional* novel processes. This is something many people seem unclear on. Its as if they think someone will patent the if/then structure and then nobody will be able to use it in programming.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
throw this article entitles "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm" at http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.PDF to the econ or legal types. thanks
vice chair orange county java users group (ocjug.org).
I have just recently stumbled on to the entertainment that is /. and I was wondering how often Bill Gates - owner of Microsoft - is refered to as the casual Bill?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I will not give you any ideas against patents, although I am against software patents. But, you should be ready to answer the following.
"It is virtually impossible to distinguish between allowed and abused software patents. And it is stupid to disallow all software patents just as Greeks disallowed all computer games in public places."
(I do not know the answer)