Perens on Patents

Prior Art by hipster_doofus · 2004-01-23 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the biggest problem with some of the patents we're seeing these days is that the issue of prior art isn't being taken into account. There are not many things that are totally new in the software industry - just things that are improvements upon something that someone else has already done. We see a lot of patents where companies try to patent the entire idea, when they are responsible only for a certain improvement upon the original idea.

--
Five Dolla Moddy-Moddy? ;->

Re:Prior Art by dtfinch · 2004-01-23 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't forget that they last up to 14 years. Like LZW and MP3.

Nowadays, if you're the tiniest bit inventive, you have a great chance of being sued for it. Patents worked well for manufacturing techniques and physical products where development costs can be huge, but in the area of computer science, you come up with an idea and can have a working prototype the same day. Patenting your day's work can cost a few weeks of wages. And people rarely get their work notarized. Computers are a great equalizer. Suddenly the tools to turn ideas into inventions are in everyone's hands, not just the well funded. But patents still only protect the wealthy.
Re:Prior Art by Mozz+Alimoz · 2004-01-23 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Its not the inability of the patent examiners to look for prior art. Just using Google and NEC CitetSeer would help them. It's that they aren't even enouraged to look. It's in the Patent Office interest to grant patents - the more patents they grant the more revenue they get.
There are many more problems too. A good article on the problems with patents, the unworkable solutions and possible solutions can be found in Jeffrey D. Ullman's article Ordinary Skill in the Art
Re:Prior Art by HiThere · 2004-01-23 06:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

No. They aren't creating an asset. They're walling off a piece of the commons.

The argument for patents was, essentially, "Well, nobody's using that spot right now anyway, so I'll just wall it off and develop it". This works fine when you have an unlimited space, but we DON'T. And there are currently a lot more people developing than there used to be. So now it's destructive to the social welfare.

Now this isn't an exact analogy. The reality behind this isn't physical property, it's information, and thus several different people can successfully develop it at the same time as long as nobody is allowed to keep everyone else out.

This isn't property. Calling is so is a gross misuse of the language. I might go so far as to say that claiming that information was property is a vile form of black magic. As in deals with the devil. (Again, don't take this literally. I just mean that this is another way of saying the same thing in metaphor...and that it's always been a metaphor, whether people knew it or not.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Prior Art by Tablizer · 2004-01-23 07:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Patent System is based on the old mechanical model, where every minor invention was patented (because your competitors would just disassemble your machine and copy your stuff anyway). You could argue that the computing industry relied far too heavily on the "trade secrets" of compiled binaries.

I think what is really needed is a government or "official" service that allows one to "date stamp" documents as evidence that the idea existed and that a company claimed it at a particular time. It would just record an event or claim, not evaluate the merit of it. That way if somebody came along later with a patent, you at least have evidence of prior art. It should be a lot cheaper than patents because there is no human evaluation of claims. Plus, it would not go into public domain. The closest we have now is [what are those called where they have a license to stamp documents and record the date they stamped them?]. But those don't keep a copy of the document itself and stamps can be faked with enough money.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Prior Art by ThosLives · 2004-01-23 08:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Given that, I figure getting a patent should be a time consuming and expensive process, if for no other reason to prevent people applying for - and potentially getting - trivial or ridiculous patents.

Part of the problem with making patents expensive is that it then makes it more difficult for the garage inventor to get a patent, who is whom patents are supposed to help. I think, originally, patents were to protect the "small" guys from the "big" guys - think about it, why does a big huge company (and I work for one; our annual revenue is about $165 Billion) need protection when they can afford $100 Million in equipment to make it en masse tomorrow, where the little garage guy can't?
I think I'm going to work on a proposal where you can only work on a patent if you don't have the capability to do something already, and that you can't transfer a patent to [a big company] either. I'd have to do some thinking on how to make this work fairly, to be sure, but the patent system currently does not promote innovation; it merely promotes fear of getting sued.
As far as "prior art" is concerned, I think the bigger issue is not "prior art" but "obvious to someone skilled in the art." Most of the stuff getting patented might not be in prior art, but it sure as anything is obvious to people skilled in the art. That, in my book, is the real shortcoming of the current patent examination process.

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Re:Prior Art by nothings · 2004-01-23 12:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is a huge myth.
Prior Art is NOT the biggest problem, because prior art can be addressed in court. (It sucks, and costs money, but it can be addressed.)
Obviousness is the big problem. Inventions are supposed to novel (no prior art) and non-obvious. The granting of patents on obvious inventions is the big problem. As far as I can tell, this can't be addressed in court. (I guess because you bring in your expert witness to say it's obvious; they bring in theirs to say it's not. I don't actually know; I've just never heard of it happening.) Upon occasion, you do hear about the patent office deciding to reexamine a patent, but it's pretty rare.
95% of the time I read on Slashdot about something being patented and people run around starting to post "wasn't this prior art", the thing being patented is the obvious solution to the problem. Half the time, the patent is really just on the problem: "we have patented the idea of solving this problem", e.g. displaying if the other person in an IM session is actively typing.
(Well, and then the other big problem is the profit motive; those in favor of software patents--the PTO, patent lawyers, and current patent holders--all profit from them, even if the public doesn't.)
Re:Prior Art by arkanes · 2004-01-23 17:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

The "garage inventory" thing is a load of hooey - the deck is stacked against the garage inventory from the start. Pretty much the only way the "little guy" makes money off of patents is by submarining them, not because someone ripped you off. The fact that Joe Inventor can't run off 100 million units is precisely why he doesn't benefit that much from patent protection - he's got a limited ability to enter the market already. There have probably been a few cases where a no name guy really did get ripped off and he really did manage to get his day in court and he really did win. On the other hand, there have been cases where cutting your arm off with a dull knife was a good idea - it doesn't make it benefical in general.
Getting rid of this bullshit about process patents and only allowing patents on things that you've actually created and work would be a really good start.

Niche software still safe? by RobertB-DC · 2004-01-23 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

We're looking at a future where only the very largest companies will be able to implement software, and it will technically be illegal for other people to do so.

I think Perens' statement may need to be modified to say "... to implement consumer software." I and my team write software that's never seen outside the headquarters of large national banks -- it's a niche market that we're very good at, and nobody else is likely to want to jump into.

So we're safe... "under the radar", perhaps.

On the other hand, we're tightly bound to Microsoft-based systems... so do we even count when Perens talks about "other people"?

By the way, did anyone else read "Perens on Patents" and visualize: ( Patents )

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.

This won't spell the end to software development by GreenCrackBaby · 2004-01-23 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Software development will not be limited to "the big boys" by patents. It will be limited to "the big boys" in countries that respect patents. This is just history repeating itself. The US went through this cycle with British patents already (where they were completely ignored and innovation blossomed), and other countries will do the same now to US and similar international patents.

--

"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan

treat code like a book by swoebser · 2004-01-23 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why can't we just treat code like the text of a book? It's illegal to copy text from a book and present it as your own. It is not illegal, however, to create a similar work of your own accord.

Re:treat code like a book by daeley · 2004-01-23 06:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think that was the point, making code copyrightable, not patentable.

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.

Idiocy by mikelu · 2004-01-23 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Patenting of software strikes me as rather nonsensical.

Do we let writers patent plot contrivances and literary structure? Do we let poets patent new rhyming schemes?

Copyright should suffice to protect proprietary code.

On a side note, this is the kind of crap we get in this country when companies can buy whatever legislation they want from corrupt politicians.

Depressing by Space+cowboy · 2004-01-23 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

*A* problem is that he's right. *The* problem is that stopping this from becoming a reality (it's sort of already one, but unofficially) in the EU is going to be a long hard slog against the entrenched companies that will benefit from it.

The European patent office has been dishing out software patents like there's no tomorrow simply because it thinks the US model will eventually win out. The "harmonisation" directive raconteur (I think that's her title) was pissed off because people took the time to contact her and give her their view (!) - which was contrary to what she wanted.

Politicians are bemoaning the lack of political interest in the populace. Here's a clue: we get disillusioned really quickly when you simply pay court every N years, then do whatever you want in-between election years. Perhaps if (as originally planned) you were the voice of the people, it might be a bit different.

Sorry. A bit rambling. It's because I'm simultaneously angry and depressed at "the system" :-(

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Patents can destroy innovation by abertoll · 2004-01-23 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

I really don't understand the move to make software copyrights or patents by the goverment longer lasting. It would seem to me that software actually has a shorter valuable life than other things, and therefore should be put into "public domain" sooner than other things. One of the points that SCO tried to make against Linux is that copyrights are supposed to be "for profit" so that they will encourage innovation... I think in software, innovation will best be served with shorter copyright durations and ... well, I think patents in software are almost all but pointless.

--
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."

Re:Not Quite by Planesdragon · 2004-01-23 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you're registering patents just to show off, you're abusing the system.

Or, you're firmly establishing prior art and ensuring that you have sufficient leverage to use someone else's patents.

Indirect or nonfiscal profit is hardly abuse of the system.

Re:This won't spell the end to software developmen by Mr+Smidge · 2004-01-23 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

limited to "the big boys" in countries that respect patents.

It is a bad idea to have laws that nobody can/will respect. This may encourage other easily-impressioned people to break the law in other areas. The laws are meant to be there to guide us into being good citizens, but when the legal way of doing things becomes ridiculous (prices of CDs, for instance), people don't seem too hesitant to look at and utilise illegal options.

Software patents should be abolished because of their dire consequences for innovation. They should not be kept and ignored, because eventually some greedy company might come along and try to boost its bottom line by litigating using software patents as its weapon of choice.

Re:Not Quite by kfg · 2004-01-23 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Patents are supposed to be about the enforcement of patent protections. . .

The fact that I own property does not require me to throw razor wire around its perimeter.

Property, real or intellectual, is supposed to be about the rights of the owner to do with it as he wishes.

KFG

This problem will diminish over time by Schlemphfer · 2004-01-23 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the interview:

We're looking at a future where only the very largest companies will be able to implement software, and it will technically be illegal for other people to do so.

He's probably right on this point, but there's one big qualifier to introduce: The future he's talking about is only the near-future. Unlike copyrights, where post-1930 work is gradually being extended to last forever, patents have a limited length. Right now they last twenty years.

And despite the BS that Amazon has been part of, with their one-click patent nonsense, it looks like people in the industry are growing increasingly uncomfortable with lenghty patents. Even Jeff Bezos, the prime beneficiary of one-click, is pushing to have software patents reduced to five years.

The emergence of the World Wide Web has led to the creation of a whole lot of super obvious ideas that should never have been patented, but were. Right now, software patents are extremely relevant to anyone developing sites or software for the internet. But in a comparatively short time, these patents will expire. And in a few decades, regardless of patent reform, prior art will smother just about any software patent claim that is not truly novel.

So yeah, Perens is right that patents are an enormous threat to developers right now. But the threat is certain to diminish greatly with time.

--
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?

Eternal vigilance the cost of freedom... by gillbates · 2004-01-23 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

I know its a cliche, but its true.

Yes, patents create a chilling atmosphere for developers in a way much worse than copyright. But the SCO case has shown that the real problem is not patents per se, but greed.

It is an unfortunate reality that we live in a world where someone with sufficient financial means (read: big corporation) can kill an OS project simply by claiming patent or copyright infringement and tying the matter up in the courts for a few years. Even should the defendant be cleared, the intervening years provide Big Corporation(tm) time to either market their own version, or destroy the market completely, as in what Microsoft did with Netscape.

When it comes down to it, most OS developers don't have the financial means to fight a patent or copyright fight with a large corporation. Even should they have the resolve to do so, the Big Corporation can effectively deny the distribution of said software with an injunction until the case is resolved, by which time the software has become obsolete.

Which leads to the problem we face today. Yes, we would like all software to be OS, but the realities of the legal climate and need to feed ourselves means that proprietary software is often the only effective model. Even if we were completely altruistic, any developer capable of developing something new and revolutionary would have to charge for the software, simply to build a war chest for the inevitable IP lawsuits which would follow. The reason why Linux has been so successful is because it hasn't taken revenue away from Microsoft. If Microsoft lost 50% of their desktop market to Linux, you can bet Microsoft would claim copyright or patent infringement. The actual substance of the claim doesn't matter; an injunction against distributing Linux which held for even a year could destroy its adoption by vendors and end users.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

CS is math by MarkusQ · 2004-01-23 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the biggest problem with some of the patents we're seeing these days is that the issue of prior art isn't being taken into account.

No, the biggest problem is that software (or any mathematics for that matter) should not be patentable. Society's first big loss was when the fast talking SOBs slipped the false notion that if you could describe a mathematical algorithm in words that made it sound like an invention then it magically was an invention into the cultural norms and started patenting software in the first place.

(Our second big loss has been the "IP" fudge, which is blurring the distinctions between patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, competative advantages, wishful thinking, bullshit, and marketing babble into one vague pile of lawyer poo).

Affording patent protection to discoveries in mathematics, biology, etc. or copyright protection to numbers, animals, etc. is against the interest of a free society as surely as allowing thought control, albeit the death of freedom comes somewhat more slowly.

-- MarkusQ

Re:CS is math by yerM)M · 2004-01-23 06:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's these cases where philosophy can bear fruit or really confuse the issue.
On one side if the coin there are the "platonists" who consider math as the uncovering of ideal, eternally existing, abstract objects. On the other there are the "formalists" who consider mathematics as more of a game where theorems are developed logically from axioms chosen arbitrarily.
Then there is Rueben Hersh's connotation that mathematics is what mathematicians do. In lay-man's terms, without mathematicians there would be no math. He further implies that the math we know is decided by the mathematicians. Consider fluxions versus calculus, two different solutions to the same problem and one was superior. They came about in two different ways because the principle mathematicians were different people.
If we follow the platonists approach then math should not be patentable because it just is. A platonist would consider patenting math like patenting a mountain.
Hersh would contend that math is the creation of the mathematician and hence, as a product of personal endeavor, should be patentable.
In terms of the courts view on software, we are stuck in a Hershian situation, so what is the solution? If we had known that this would be the case, the EFF (electronic frontier foundation) or the GNU project could have started patenting software twenty or thirty years ago, thereby capturing the axioms on which software was founded. THIS is what should piss people off. It pisses me off in computer science and biology. Companies are standing on the shoulders of giants who didn't have the opportunities available to them, especially when most of the underlying infrastructure was built with public funds.
Patents are expensive, but there goal is to offer short-term incentives for development in order to release knowledge into the public domain. Sometimes we forget that patents are designed to release knowledge. However, I would favor a progressive patent law where software patents last only five years and drugs targeted at monogenic diseases that don't affect many patients (like huntington's disease and spinal muscular atrophy) last for forty.
That's just me though.
Re:CS is math by MarkusQ · 2004-01-23 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

We don't need to go all the way to phylosophy. The Patent Act (which (IIRC) provides the basis for all patents in the US) says, for example "excluded from such patent protection are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." This does not depend on the dichotomy between invention and discovery. Up until the mid-1970s by the CCPA (Court of Customs & Patent Appeals) no one thought you could or should be able to patent mathematics.
It isn't a matter of discovery vs. invention; it's the fact that patents are a restriction on the freedom of the people given in exchange for certain disclosure. The exchange is offered by the people when it is to their advantage to do so, or at least that is the constitutional intent. The present system has been usrped by the patentors and is being run to their advantage, contrary to the public good and unsuported by the legal basis on which it stands.
Patents were never intended to cover mathematics, be it discovered, invented, e-mailed by the gods or handed down by little green men on 3x5 cards. Math is not patentable.
-- MarkusQ

Re:What we are doing wrong.... by multipartmixed · 2004-01-23 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

> I'm tired of seeing whining and helplessness on Slashdot when all you need to do
> is get up and proactively use the system in your favor.

I'll make you a deal.

Find 10 open source things worth patenting. PAY FOR THE PATENT.

Once you have arrange for 10 patent grants, I'll chip in one of my own.

I sure hope you make about $100,000/yr, you're gonna need most of it.

--

Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?

more dangerous than people think by pizza_milkshake · 2004-01-23 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

IBM is pretty benevolent with their patents, and they're much better than small companies with the goal of "get a vague, broad patent on something that already exists and then make our money suing people". but the point is that there is a direct correlation between for vague, overbroad, frivolous patents and vague, overbroad, frivolous lawsuits.

the patent office needs a specialized branch for comp.sci-related patents

It's all about prior art. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-23 05:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think the biggest problem with some of the patents we're seeing these days is that the issue of prior art isn't being taken into account. There are not many things that are totally new in the software industry - just things that are improvements upon something that someone else has already done. We see a lot of patents where companies try to patent the entire idea, when they are responsible only for a certain improvement upon the original idea.

Re:Defensive patents by mike77 · 2004-01-23 05:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

...Mutually Assured Destruction. Microsoft isn't going to try to bludgeon IBM with a patent suit, because they know IBM has just as many silly patents to bludgeon them back with.

That's true for the big boys, but it still leaves the problem, that a smaller/newer company which doesn't have the patent portfolio will get sued out of existence if they try to do something using some frivolous patent one of the big boys have.

Say for instance using XML as the basis for your word processor?

--

--Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

If you keep the penny, by BillsPetMonkey · 2004-01-23 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

.. you can't have the currant bun.

This is what companies have to realise about software patents.

Check an EULA or a shrink-wrap license and the gist of it is that you have no recourse to anyone if the software fails or deletes all your data. You buy the software "as is". But if you want people to pay for software, there has to be some sort of recourse - you can't just expect people to pay money and get shoddy software and just move along quietly (and not derive their own solution to the problem), while the company gets to ringfence it's IP (which was probably derived from a cross-patent anyway). It's just not on.

And yet that's exactly what we've been getting. By just building a GUI widget on many platforms you are already liable to historic patents. And more importantly - you are not allowed to claim it "unfit for purpose" or even fix it!!!

I really think the message should be clear to software companies that want to enforce patents on software (sorry for the caps) -

IF YOU WANT TO PATENT YOUR STUFF, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT FIRST!

Grrr. I think I need a nice cuppa tea to calm me down.

--
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax

Re:Not Quite by Short+Circuit · 2004-01-23 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

How much of your "no-duh" is "I've thought of that before," and how much of it is 20-20 hindsight?

I suspect that a lot of uproar about patents is hindsight rather than prior-art.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Re:Defensive patents by bfields · 2004-01-23 06:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lots of software companies have lots of patents. Sometimes they're silly, but it sets up sort of a Mutually Assured Destruction. Microsoft isn't going to try to bludgeon IBM with a patent suit, because they know IBM has just as many silly patents to bludgeon them back with.

And that's exactly why Perens says "We're looking at a future where only the very largest companies will be able to implement software", and not "we're looking at a future where noone will be able to implement software."

If only companies large enough to posess huge patent portfolios could safely release software, then something like the Linux kernel never would have gotten off the ground.

--Bruce Fields

Re:sigh by Halo1 · 2004-01-23 06:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem here is that patents are increasingly and increasingly not about ways to solve a problem and about problems

This is indeed a very important point that's often overlooked. Take for example the claims of this European (granted) patent from Siemens. It's a patent on guessing the word you are trying to type on a mobile phone (e.g., if you type 843, it will show "the" instead of "tgd"). They developed one algorithm to do this, but most of the patent claims are about the problem, not the solution (even the more specific claims).

If you make a processing device coupled to a memory, input device and screen guess the word you want to type, you violate that patent. The more specific claims simply add different kinds of keyboards you can use, that you can also use the frequency of chosen words to guide suggestions, allowing people to turn on/off this guiding algorithm, showing a list of possible words if there's ambiguity and let the user choose from those etc... Not really things that narrow the scope of the claims very much.

--
Donate free food here

Not ready for prime time by Carch · 2004-01-23 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

BP: We have all of the Linux-based software we need for 80% of the people in the world. The other 20% may use specialised applications that are not yet available in open source. And when I say 80%, that's all free software. Far more than 20% of the people in the world play games on their computers. No linux desktop I've tried is ready for prime time when it comes to gaming. Emulation is a non-starter. It's hard enough to get many modern PC games running in the first place, let alone running under emulation or in an otherwise foreign operating environment. It's a mistake to ignore this market segment. Games are a huge technology driver. Without native mainstream gaming support, 2004 will not be the year of linux on the desktop.

--
_/\ - Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crud.

Patents can definitly be a problem. by rumblin'rabbit · 2004-01-23 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

First, anytime you have to go to court over a patent, you're talking big bucks and serious distractions. This gives a big advantage to big companies - many small companies can't afford to defend or challenge a patent.

Second, patents are assumed valid by the courts until shown invalid. This means it is not cheap or easy overturning a patent. Just because you found one case where this was so, doesn't mean they all are.

Third, most patents in the U.S. last 20 years from the date of first filing, not 17 years from the awarding of patent. That was the old system.

I still think patents have a place, but what's needed are better quality patents (clear, original, and not overly broad), and cheaper, faster ways to challenge the more dubious patents (I heard they were working on this).

Re:Loophole never tried? by Halo1 · 2004-01-23 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

In case of "methods of technology that use these algorithms", you do not get a patent on the algorithm that is implemented in the technical apparatus, but on the way you implemented it technically. In software, you get copyright protection for the way you implement an algorithm (because it's more like writing a story based on an idea, than on constructing a valve based on some physical properties of the materials it's made of).

Software patents however, give you patent protection for an algorithm, which is a mixture (from hell) of both principles. As such, they lead to enormously broad (you get exclusive usage of some principle) and conflicting (copyright grants me the right to publish my program, but a patent owner forbids it because it uses a patented technique) protections.

--
Donate free food here

Bzzt. Wrong. by Wylfing · 2004-01-23 08:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

We're looking at a future where only the very largest companies will be able to implement software, and it will technically be illegal for other people to do so.

Wrong, thanks for playing. No matter how many times it gets said, few people seem to understand -- even people who should understand, like our Mr. Perens.

Patent infringement, like copyright infringement, is actionable NOT illegal. The police will NOT come and arrest you because you inadvertently developed a homebrew memory allocation routine that is patented by ACME. What MAY happen is that ACME uses its patent portfolio to keep you from effectively bringing your software to market, provided ACME sees any benefit in doing so. So while in the future (now) there may be (are) high barriers to entry in the software marketplace, writing your own well-meaning code will not be (is not) illegal.

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.

Re:Patents Are Not a Problem... by Halo1 · 2004-01-23 11:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

My point was that that patents are allowed in almost all technical areas so why not for software?

Because software is different. Software is just a bunch of logical/mathematical constructs in a language a computer can understand. It's maths. As an example of how this is different from traditional technological fields, let's take a very simple physical universe: that of Lego bricks.

If you place one Lego brick on the ground, it will just sit there. Put one or two on top, and you'll still have no problem. If you put 100 Lego bricks right on top of each other, you get a very unstable structure. So even in this very simple physical environment, things that behave one way in the small, may behave quite differently when used in a more complex whole.

With software, this is not the case. One small, sound logical reasoning remains just as valid in a larger whole. Software development by its very nature consists entirely of combining all kinds of small logical constructs into a, non-obvious or not, bigger whole. And software is being innovated every day, because if you don't innovate, your competition will and you will lose whatever edge you had.

Please read this study, carried out by the Max Planck Institute and the Fraunhofer institute (by no means anti-swpat establishments) for more on why software is different and how software development works differently. For a more philosophical approach, in case you want to understand why those empirical results are what they are, see this page.

Broadness of initial patents is just a passing phase and open-source fanatics are damaging the overall purpose of software patents which is to develop a repository of knowledge

But software patents don't work that way, as shown by the recent FTC study (link is to a summary of all swpat related stuff, link to the full study is available at the top for you to verify, should you think that the person who created that page misrepresented the facts).

Some quotes:

One panelist stated that "the [patent] system discourages you from looking very hard [at patent disclosures] because ... simply by virtue of poking around to find out what patents exist you expose yourself to willfulness claims which can triple the amount of damages and exposure to attorney's fees."
The panelist summed up the problem with the statement "there's too much information and it is no longer meaningful."

Computer scientists do not go to patent databases to look up information on how to do something.

which would otherwise be locked up in the vaults of giant corporations.

I guess that's why these same giant corporations are arguing that they need software patents, because it's supposedly so easy to reverse engineer and reimplement their precious techniques. They just want it all: very strong protection for abstract things which do not require such guarantees in order for them to be made public.

How come? Because you publish software, you don't manufacture it (just like you don't publish an industrial valve or a chemical reaction, you manufacture or conduct those). Publishing by definition is "making public". It's the same with business methods: either you use a business method and it automatically becomes public, or you don't use it.

Software patents are a giant corporation's wet dream, because they pretty much only benefit the patent holders.

--
Donate free food here

Re:Nice words, but they can't wash . . . by Alsee · 2004-01-23 13:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let me guess, you aren't a programmer. It's not

Experience through 200 years of industry demonstrates that patents aren't a problem to innovation merely because they create exclusive rights in some types of software development

What an absurd statment. For 205 years such patents were illegal in the US. There was an explicit rule stating that laws of nature, calculations, algorithms, etc. were not patentable. It was only in 1981 that the US changed the rules to permit software patents at all. The Supreme Court screwed up and ruled to uphold a patent on a method to calculate a number (Diamond v. Diehr). They patented a math function to calculate how long to bake rubber to reach the proper hardness.

Most of the rest of the world still forbids software patents. The European Union explicitly forbids patents on software. There has was a recent attempt to reverse it, but the existing ban against patenting software and math and algorithms won.

As far as I know it's only the US and Japan that are STUPID enough to permit patents on math and calculations and algorithms, and recently did they remove the rules against them.

It's not about overbroad software patents or obvious software patents, the problem is permitting ANY patents of software at all. YOU CANNOT PATENT MATH.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:Patents Are Not a Problem... by Alsee · 2004-01-23 13:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

technical areas so why not for software?

You must not be a programmer.

Multiplication, division, geometry, and calculus are technical areas. Do you think we should permit patents on math? Because that really is what you are advocating. A program REALLY IS math, nothing but math.

A computer is a patentable machine. A program is copyrightable peice of writing. You can print any peice of software as a book. Are you suggesting the words in a book should be patentable?

A musical instument is a patentable object. A peice of sheet music with a sequence of notes is the "software" for that instrument. Are you suggesting a song should be patentable? Software is nothing more than a "song" you can play on a computer.

I also wrote another post.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

38 of 366 comments (clear)