Slashdot Mirror
Freedom of Speech in Software
akpoff writes " I've been struggling with the question 'what's wrong with software patents' but haven't been able to find the right words. I was over at John Gilmore's website and found a link to John Salin's 'Freedom of Speech in Software' letter to the USPTO back in 1991! This is one of the best explanations I've seen. He reminds us that computer programs are essentially like literature or music -- they are expressions of ideas. Just because they run on a computer doesn't make them uniquely different from other creative mediums. We should think player piano (patentable) vs the music (copyrightable but not patentable) it plays. Europeans -- put this letter into the hands of your MEPs!"
what a refreshingly elegant way of getting the point accros (piano vs music)! I have this very minute emailed the article to my MEP!
... do we really want to encourage a bunch of code that is a blatant rip-off of existing ideas, just re-implemented? Perhaps a balance needs to be sought in short-lived patents. That was the original concept, IIRC... except the crusty old lawmakers who came up with it didn't realize how the rate of change in technology and ideas would increase.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
You can copyright a song.. but can you copyright the ideas behind how you made that song... I mean it's your idea etc but the basics of music aren't copyrightable. So why should we give people the right to own the ideas behind making software.
It's what's wrong with patents in general. Quite simply: There are natural rights, and there are granted rights. Your natural rights include such things as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of travel, right to property, and so on.
The natural rights are things that can be released to some extent by a person, but cannot be taken away. Therefore, as a government attempts to take these rights away, it drives anarchy, crime, and disorder, eventually resulting in the fall of the government.
Your granted rights include such things as welfare, right to a single national language (nationalism), right not to compete against foreign labor, right to a monopoly, (as in Spain) right to tax funds for your family title and property, and so on. Patents and copyrights fall into the latter class. They are granted rights.
The granted rights are those things that make it easier to live, especially when people are not good to each other on their own. You break your leg, and didn't have insurance, and can't work, and haven't been paid justly for your labor in the past, so you have no assets? Well, we will make others pay for you.
The problem is that every granted right that is given to one person requires the government to attempt to deprive another person of their natural rights. So the more granted rights you have, the more unstable your government is. A sign of this is that your economy will be bad, the unofficial (criminal) economy will be larger, and violent crime will be greater, as well.
Where your balance point between natural and granted rights is, is a balance that is forced by people not dealing with each other rightly. But there is another factor, as well: when those with power just want benefits, and have the ability to take them by controlling the law. When this happens, though, the government is not going to last long.
Unfortunately, I'm seeing this happen in the EU, so I don't expect the union to last. But if I am correct, it also means that no argument you use will work. So by all means, try your own. But if you want, present this to them as well. Maybe it'll wake someone up, but I doubt it.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The real problem with software patents is that the field is too young to support them. It's as though people were able to take out patents on "the wheel" and "fire". The patent office has completely abdicated its responsibilities as well and allows too many patents that are obvious to any competent practitioner. Ideas no longer have to be reduced to practice (i.e. implemented) which allows for a vast number of frivolous patents to be filed for.
It's unlikely that we'll be able to get rid of software patents entirely, but perhaps some changes could be made that would make the world better for us all. A peer review panel to reject obvious patents would be a good start along with some changes outlawing overly broad patents.
This article suggests that free speech might not be the prime issue from a MEP's point of view.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
Just because code is text and literature is text doesn't make the two equivalent. Using this code is art principal, you could take a piece of hardware and take the mechanical drawings used in the design of the hardware and declare those to be art and whine about those patents too.
I'll agree that software patents are freaking stupid but come up with a better argument than code is a form of art. I don't know who the hell came up with this concept but I've heard it long before all the ad agency artsy folks broke into the "software business" when they got their first copy of Dreamweaver or Hotmetal.
'Same speed C but faster'
Just because a system is abused, that doesn't make it a bad idea. The original concept of patents was a good idea, and it just needs a major overhaul.
And just for the record, I think software patents are one of those abuses of the system.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Article 5 of the proposal says:
and this is explained on page 15: And on the bottom of page 7, it says The way I interpret this is that "free speech" objections to the proposal are effectively countered. The proposal denies patents on algorithms and on software 'as such'.In other words, your rights to write and publish software are not affected (free speech), but you are not allowed to run any software that allegedly contains patented technology, without paying for a license!
I think the only useful (and powerful) objections to the directive are economic ones. Patents as allowed by this directive stifle innovation rather than promoting it, and can easily be abused for anti-competitive purposes. The directive allows over-broad patents that pose a risk to the software industry (although the "explanatory memorandum" sounds very reasonable, the actual articles of the directive provide hardly any limitation to the scope of software patents or guarantees that they are not too easily granted).
For example, the broader version of the "Amazon one-click patent" that was recently granted by the EPO, would be allowed by this directive.
In the long run, the negative effect on innovation would not even benefit the big software companies (who initially may profit from software patents as anti-competitive tools). It will only be profitable to a small group of patent lawyers (at the EPO) and a number of patent sharks, at the cost of the European citizen.
Read the proposed directive for yourself and shudder:
Nothing wrong with making money of an invention. If it is an invention, that is. I believe it to be quite rare to come up with something entirely New and of Inventive Nature.
I know a programmer. He's good. I believe that he can program anything you throw at him. I believe that there are many more programmers who can do that. So, where is the invention if all is required is the skill of a good programmer? They all could easily run the risk of infringing just by applying their usual trade.
Another thing to consider: Patents last 20 years. That is a long time for software. Special arrangments have been made to allow drugs a somewhat longer protection. If there are software patents, they should be shorter, 10 years max. at best.
I'm a (Dutch) patent attorney. I will never write a software patent (and never have). I believe that software patents should be possible, for example if you come up with an algorithm that allows video to be broadcasted requiring only half the bandwidth. However, I have sincere fear that the system will not be able to come up with rules that do justice to real inventors and to society, which should not be hampered by patents that are granted too easily and subsequently overstretched in court. Even on more straightforward matters (such as mechanics) the USPTO is certainly not what it should be, and unfortunately the EPO is slowly deteriorating towards the USPTO level. In addition, it is extremely hard to determine what the state of the art is (how are you going to search?), so patents will be granted while they shouldn't have been. In patent law, the onus is on the person accused of infringment. Not a good thing if it is nearly impossible for you too to determine what was already there.
OK, the "programs are writing" makes complete sense, and I woud think that when distributing source only, the only worry would be infringing on copyrights, but if a program is compiled, it's no longer writing.
I can write a piece of music with a pencil, using standard musical notation. I can also punch holes on a roll of special paper in exact positions so that a player piano (a machine) can then reproduce the music as I intended. The process of doing this may be patented. The melody I write is copyrighted. Does my translation from human-readable to machine-readable media somehow change the nature of what the music is? Why should my song be patentable just because it's on a player piano roll?
If another person came up with the same tune that I did, but can demonstrate that they did so independently, they are not guilty of infringing my copyright, because they didn't copy from me. If each of us makes a piano roll of our respective songs, this is still true. Why should I be able to patent the piano roll of my song, but not what I wrote with a pencil?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
There, of course, is no reason that you shouldn't be allowed to make money of your invention. The real problem is the anti-competitive nature of the software patent. IBM holds a patent on a "list of words connected to business objects" which is basically every application including Excel, Word's "Font"-list or your browser's location bar.
Adobe has a patent on "floating palettes" for their toolbars. Macromedia has a patent on tabs.
If there was a consensus on how these patents would be handled, I could imagine a software patent law so inventions like RSA can be protected, but the way it is now, we make big software companies follow the RIAA's footsteps.
Imagine your a shareware developer and have a new and cool application. You make money of it, but suddenly Adobe can't sell its special Photoshop filter package anymore, because you do everything for $39.99. Suddenly, Adobe comes along and sues you, because they have a patent on buttons with grey borders. Even if they don't win, you're so broke you can't afford bread.
Imagine your a independant developer. You have a great new encryption algorithm and patent it. So you obiously have to publish it. It gets scrutinized by the cryptographic community and is found secure and ultra-fast. IBM implements it as part of its new java-crypto-webservice-thingy. You sue, because the patent grants you the right to license payments. Thing is... you have to sue in Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Luxenburg, the Swiss, Spain... you get the idea. IBM eventually settles to patent your idea in the US. Suddenly you're so broke, you can't afford bread.
Anyone remember the american inventor of the "Sony" walkman? No? well, I thought so. He's so broke he can't afford bread. Sony's still making billions of his patent, which he couldn't enforce.
This system is so broken, there is no way you can fix it gradually. We're better off without allowing software patents for the moment. Really.
But the biggest joke hasn't been mentioned yet. The initiative comes from the UK and might work with the UK's laws. In Germany, if you are the managing director of a company with limited liability (AG or GmbH), you're not allowed to knowingly engage in any illegal activity. If you do so, you loose the protection of the law and therefor can be hold liable with everything you own. The problem: knowingly infringing on a patent is illegal in Germany. Therefor, if IBM sends me a cease and desist letter, claiming that I MIGHT infringe on one of their 3600 patents from last year, I must immediatly stop selling all potentially infringing products. If I don't do that, I might loose all my private belongings to satisfy IBM's damage claims... even though I have a registered company with "limited liability"...talk about anti-competitive.
The author states, "Computer Programs are Writings." He compares computer programs to written essays. I believe that both his statement and comparision are generally incorrect.
Yes, there may some cases where this is so, such as might be entries in the "obfuscated C code contest". But this is very seldom what we are speaking of when we talk about "computer programs".
More so than it is similar to an essay, the computer program is similar to the collection of specific gears, sprockets, pins, and their particular arrangements which cause a machine to work in a useful and well-defined way. These parts, similarly, like components of computer programs, have yet more primitive components and specifications which provide for those at the higher level.
Perhaps a more useful example due to its comparative complexity is a clock.
That the analogy of gears, pins, sprokets and their arrangement, to software and the computer on which it runs, is successful, is illustrated by the case of the swapped watch internals.
Suppose that we have an existing mechanical clock. Now, suppose we take a duplicate watch casing, but inside we insert a "general purpose gear, ping, and sproket emulator". Like the computer, this device, in order to function in a useful manner, requires a set of instructions. Specifically, these instructions must instruct the emulator how to perform operations with equivalent results to those that were in our existing clock performed by real, rather than emulated gears, pins, and sprokets.
The success of the clockmaker is determined not by creativity in ordering or commentary on the natural world. Rather, success is measured by efficiency, and correctness. Optimality is measured (when it is computationally possible) by precise mathematical metrics. Correctness is determined not by asthetic appeal, creativity, or insight, but by nothing more than the solution being provably correct through the employment of established mathematical techniques. In fact, we might wonder what "correctness" should mean, if anything at all, in the context of an essay.
In the case of the computer program, creatvity or imagination are desirable not in the structure, choice, or ordering of the instructions, but rather in coming upon a correct solution or in visualizing the problem.
A source listing's utility is perhaps directly proportional to its lack of creativity.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
> but if a program is compiled, it's no longer writing
This is a confusion of what a compiled program is. A compiled program is also code--machine code--and hence a valid form of speech, even though only intended for a computer. There is no reason not to believe that the compiled program could have (not as easily) also been produced by a person--it certainly can be read by a trained individual.
Compilers translate one form of expression into another. The letter expressly indicates the difficulty that patent claims make in light of machine generated software (amongst other things).
Your granted rights include such things as welfare...
So you are saying that because European governments tend to tax higher in order to support a richer welfare system that EU countries will also suffer more violent crime?
This is the strangest anti-state argument I've heard in a long time, and I'm really unsure what it has to do with patents.
If anything, the European-style welfare systems achieve something quite extraordinary: a society in which the poor and the weak always find support, and a society in which spare time is valued over simple wealth, demonstrated by the long holidays most Europeans enjoy.
Violent crime has its origins in things very different from high taxes (again, this linkage boggles my mind, the high-tax countries in Europe are generally the most calm, think Scandinavia and Belgium). Violent crime comes from organised criminal gangs who operate where the state is weakest. This happens when the state fails (in places like Albania) or when the state loses control over large segments of the population (in drug-ridden inner cities). A strong state is almost always a good cure for violent crime, but so is the avoidance of criminalising anti-drug legislation.
You want violent crime? Look at the USA in ten years' time, when almost 1 in 11 men will have been imprisoned at one time or another, and 1 in 3 black Americans will have a criminal record. Somehow, taxes and patents are not behind this. Bizarrely punitive lawmakers and courts, yes.
The EU is a nice place to live and work, and the union will last for much longer than people like you expect.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
It would be _so_ much better if software was patented. Patents still expire in reasonably short amounts of time, and you could ensure that any software patent had to come with source. Then, after 14 years or so, you have gobs of open source software, as opposed to nearly a century (95 years as current US copyright goes).
Just a thought.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
if a program is compiled, it's no longer writing.
You clearly aren't a programmer. I have written code directly in "compiled" (numeric) form.
I'll certainly admit it isn't the easiest form to read and write it, but there is no question that it is readable and writable. There is no real division between source and "compiled". They are merely different translations of the same thing. And there is no need to compile it at all. Absolutely any language can be run in interperted mode. The source code and executable code are identical. Compiling just helps it run faster.
You think a compiled program becomes a "tool", and as such it it's ok to put all sorts of restrictions on it restricted. This is the exact same error the authors of the DMCA made. They claim they are outlawing "piracy tools". But consider this: The DMCA makes it a crime to descramble encryption, no matter how you do it. But you don't need a computer to descramble something. You can "run" a program (tool) in your brain just by thinking through each step Your brain is the computer and a sequence of thoughts is the program (tool). It may be slow and laborous, but absolutely any program a computer can run can be run by pure thought. So by sitting motionless and just thinking certain thoughts you can descramble a DRM encrypted book to read it and commit a felony!
The DMCA says you can go to federal prison for ten years for sitting motionless and thinking certain prohibited thoughts.
Non-programmers seem to thing that computers and software are myterious and magical. They aren't. Software is just a peice of writing, a sequence of steps just like a recipe for baking a cake...
Step 1)Soften butter, and mix with 1 c sugar (leave behind 1/2 c to mix with egg whites).
Step 2)Sift flour, baking powder, and salt, together twice, then add to butter/sugar.
Step 3)add milk to the mix.
Step 4)stir until uniform.
Step 5)whip the egg whites (if you dont have a wisk try a fork, but it takes longer), and slowly add the remaining 1/2 c sugar (what you now have is called a meringue).
Step 6)add meringue and vanilla to batter, and mix again.
Step 7)bake in two 8 or 9 inch round cookie pans which have been greased and flowered. bake at 350F for 35 minutes.
That's all software is. Compiled software is the exact same thing, it's just written in a way that is easier for a computer to understand.
The only thing special about computers is that they are able to follow the instructions really really fast and bake 1000 cakes a minute. A person can always follow the recipe themselves and bake a cake.
Recipies get copyrights, not patents. Does it really make sense to grant a patent on the idea of any sort of Flambe? Even worse they are granting patents on the idea of seperating an egg yolk from the egg white.
A program is no more a "tool" than a recipie is.
Yeah, a computer is a tool that lets you use a program really fast, and a commercial baking plant is a tool that can run a recipe real fast pumping out thousands of cakes. Computers and bakery plants are tools. Software and recipies are just written instructions.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.