An Insider's View of Software Patents

Poster has the wrong idea by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-01 11:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

...and bring our intellectual property laws in line with Micros^D^D^D^D^D^D^D America's

No. NO. Don't you EVEN fucking blame Microsoft for this mess. Blame the WIPO for having the idea, and Bill Clinton for whoring the United States into compliance.

Re:Poster has the wrong idea by Bruce+Perens · 2004-08-01 12:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Software patenting has been driven by court cases in the U.S. brought by a number of companies that wanted to be able to patent software and business methods. Do a web search for State Street Decision.
WIPO has been driven by the U.S. (reacting to its corporations) to get the same bad software patent system going elsewhere.
If you want to blame Clinton for some intellectual property matter connected to WIPO, digital rights management and associated treaties requiring anti-circumvention law would be more accurate.
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Poster has the wrong idea by js3 · 2004-08-01 13:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think it is weird that microsoft gets the brunt of frustrations about software patents. Who got sued half a billion dollars for violating a patent? microsoft. What is wrong with the patent system is small fry getting these broad ridicilous patents that cover almost every variation of the patent and chasing big companies for payout.

The effect is big companies patenting everything in sight they can possibly imagine just to prevent leeches like that from benefiting from patents they never implemented. EOLAS didn't go after everyone, they specifically went after microsoft.

Anyways how do you solve this? make patents more specific not broad. Patent officers should really reject patents are worded in a way that applies to anything in that field. The law should be changed so that if a company hasn't created anything useful for the patent in 5 or so years then they can't go around sueing everyone who implements it.

--
did you forget to take your meds?
Re:Poster has the wrong idea by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · 2004-08-02 00:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

And when that happened, did they start a campaign to end software patents, or did they start gathering a huge pile of their own patents--which would be utterly useless defesively, because the companies suing microsoft don't actually make any products, so defensive patents don't stop them.
Microsoft may not have created this system and may be paying now, but they're definitely the ones with the most to gain from software patents should they decide to use them to further their monopoly--and they've done nothing to suggest that their intentions are otherwise. The submitter was right--when you think of software patents, you should think of Microsoft owning everything.

Monopolies are the only way to way money... by Sasha+Slutsker · 2004-08-01 12:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree with the writer of the article, software patents do do a lot of harm to programmers. Saying that monopolies are the only way to make money and should be encouraged is just crazy...

I'll say it again.... by Sebby · 2004-08-01 12:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Until we see the Patent Office being sued by someone/company that suffered financially or otherwise because of a bogus patent that the PTO granted, we won't see any significant changes to the way things work now. After a lawsuit or two they might finally get the hint to stop granting such bogus patents and maybe even (gasp!) start reviewing past ones once they realize those might become a liability.

And for those that say such lawsuits would be a burden on the taxpayers, well, I'd say these bogus patent infrigment cases are taking away needed resources to convict criminals.

And besides, the taxpayers might finally take action once they see the PTO's bogus-patent-granting actions is raising their taxes, instead of only bitching and whining all the time.

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null

Re:I'll say it again.... by NightWulf · 2004-08-01 12:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortuneatly what will happen is after said lawsuits, the Patent Office will just raise the fees to file a patent. They won't actually change anything, just keep raising prices. It will be even harder for regular people to file for patents, while the corporations still can afford it.
Re:I'll say it again.... by Sebby · 2004-08-01 12:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Then we also need to have the PTO and IP laws changed: file all the patents you want, even the kitchen sink; when an infringment suit comes along, the patent is re-examined before any lawsuits are allowed to go forth. Then when there truely is patent infrigment and the patent holds up, let the lawsuit go forth.

This would avoid the common scenario where the defendant is sued out of existance even though the case has no merit!

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null
Re:I'll say it again.... by AuMatar · 2004-08-01 12:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Its expensive enough already. I looked into the possibility of applying for a patent with the intention of freely licensing it to any GPLed product. A defensive patent really. But the patent, even without a lawyer, is expensive enough to put it out of my range unless I'm sure I can make money on it.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:I'll say it again.... by Bull999999 · 2004-08-01 12:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I didn't think you could sue the Federal Government or something like that. (since they are a part of the Feds anyways)

The funny thing is that you can sue the federal government but the government must give you permission first. While there are cases where the government has given permission to sue, I'd imagine that suing the patent office may be more diffcult than suing a business.

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Re:I'll say it again.... by Sebby · 2004-08-01 12:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then the system is broken.

So much for freedom to innovate
So much for justice
So much for the "free world"

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null
Re:I'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-01 13:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
Then what is Einstein?
- you can't sue if you get sued wrongfully.
- you can't get a wrongful lawsuit dropped before it happens
- you can't possibly hope to even last a week if you do get sued.
It's now clear: the US is a hell hole of monopolies and bought politicians that have no regard for anything but themselves.
Re:I'll say it again.... by debrain · 2004-08-01 13:42 · Score: 5, Informative

The funny thing is that you can sue the federal government but the government must give you permission first. While there are cases where the government has given permission to sue, I'd imagine that suing the patent office may be more diffcult than suing a business.

It's not necessarily that simple. State immunity comes about in many forms, from what I gather. In the USA, it is likely that there are several ways to sue the government, or its agents.

1. Sue the agency itself, for harm arising from its negligence. As part of the Feds, it might be immune to civil lawsuits through Federal legislation.

2. Appeal to a tribunal, such as human rights tribunals (if the USA has those), or justice tribunals, or what have you. They sometimes pointedly get around state immunity legislation.

3. Sue the Patent Agent as part of the Agency; his negligent acts mean the Patent Agency is vicariously liable for damages. This may be different from suing the Agency itself, depending on the immunity legislation. If the Agent acted 'negligently' in their role, they may make the Agency liable.

4. Sue the Patent Agent as acting outside their duties. If they were so irresponsible as to have acted outside the boundaries of their job, they may be personally liable for your losses. Shallow pockets; sets a nasty precedent,though.

Mind you, you probably want to find a lawyer if it gets to that. Lobbying your senator or congressman, or whomever your elected representatives are, is probably the best option.
Re:I'll say it again.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-01 13:47 · Score: 2, Informative

The question is where do you publish it so it becomes prior art that the USPTO will consider when examining a patent.

No it isn't. The question is where to publish so the particularly the date of such publication becomes an indubitable matter of public record in a form admissible to a court as evidence.

Whether the USPTO is aware of this publication (and whether any patent is subsequently granted) would seem to be largely irrelevant.
Re:I'll say it again.... by dewatf · 2004-08-01 14:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Gittins is writing about the extension of the US IP regimes to Australia. Truth be told it doesn't make much difference. The entertainment and software industries are global and dominated by the US and Europe. Even if you write software in Australia you are going to want to sell it in the US or markets where US companies have interests they will defend.

These days the commercial software market is dominated by off-the-shelf applications, which tend to be be either propriotary systems written in India or Open Source. So there is either a lot of IP costs already or none, it won't make much difference.

The solution to the problem is for the US Congress to fix the US IP system, and the rest of the world will follow. That however is unlikely to happen. The corporations who benefit get large sums of money while the consumers lose only a few cents at a time and don't notice, so they are unlikely to ever get mad enough to exert pressure on Congress for change.
Re:I'll say it again.... by killjoe · 2004-08-01 14:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

"It will be even harder for regular people to file for patents, while the corporations still can afford it."

you realize that it already takes about 20K to get a patent don't you. It's already out of the regular peoples reach. I get a patentable idea every day. If it was cheap and easy every single one of those ideas would be a patent by now.

--
evil is as evil does

^H^H by hey · 2004-08-01 12:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Er, it's control-H (^M) not control-D (^D) that erases. Control-D is eof. Get outa your GUI!

Re:^H^H by manabadman · 2004-08-01 12:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Though control-H acts like backspace, and control-D is eof, in most Unix shells (and cisco's IOS) control-D will delete the character directly under (to the right of?) the cursor.

So ^B^B^B^B^B^B^D^D^D^D^D^D would work (^B moves the cursor on character to the left). If you really want to nitpick though, he deleted 7 characters even though 'Micros' is only 6 characters.

PS Only heterosexual gay chimpanzees support software patents.
Re:^H^H by Xzzy · 2004-08-01 12:22 · Score: 2, Funny

I hit ctl-s the other day, does it stand for "slow" or something? :( Been waiting 48 hours for a ps -eaf to finish.
Re:^H^H by hey · 2004-08-01 12:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Stands for Stop. Hit control-Q to resume.
Re:^H^H by kraada · 2004-08-01 17:24 · Score: 2, Funny

See, he knew ^D is EOF. However, he was trying to exit the Microsoft (or just corporate) controlled America, and can anybody entirely blame him for wanting out of (at least) that part of it?

As bad as software patents are... by Sheetrock · 2004-08-01 12:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

It does make sense to standardize on one set of intellectual property laws internationally.

It gets really confusing to try to figure out the different times at which copyright expires across different countries, or to know where your intellectual property is already protected and where you have to jump through additional hoops.

Settling on an international standard that is mutually agreed upon strengthens the companies within those nations because they don't have to cope with several sets of rules. Like the standardization on the Euro, it reduces complexity and ultimately is a good thing.

--

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.

Re:As bad as software patents are... by gid13 · 2004-08-01 12:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Uh... Would you standardize on one horrible dictator for the sake of strengthening the collective?

I mean, really. You're right that it strengthens the companies, but does the economic good of certain companies really balance out the evil of stupid patent law? Remember that when a company makes money, they make it from other people.
Re:As bad as software patents are... by lpontiac · 2004-08-01 12:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

It does make sense to standardize on one set of intellectual property laws internationally. It gets really confusing to try to figure out the different times at which copyright expires across different countries, or to know where your intellectual property is already protected and where you have to jump through additional hoops.

Here's the thing. I place more importance on having the laws of my country reflect the wishes of myself and my fellow citizens, than I do on making it easy for you to come over here and engage in commerce.
Re:As bad as software patents are... by JInterest · 2004-08-01 14:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Settling on an international standard that is mutually agreed upon strengthens the companies within those nations because they don't have to cope with several sets of rules. Like the standardization on the Euro, it reduces complexity and ultimately is a good thing.

Sure, it helps the rich and powerful stay that way, keeps the small and weak from upsetting the apple cart, and assures that the status quo ante favors those already on the top of the heap.

Grrrrreat.

For my part, I think that a little anarchy is a good thing, for those who love freedom. It was the early "standardization" of the Chinese nation, united under the uniform rule of one Emperor, united under one authority, that caused the eventual stagnation of their culture. Similarly, the more "uniform" power and authority became in the Roman Empire, the more oppressive and rotten it became.

Voluntary standards, i.e., those that can be disregarded, are good. Involuntary standards, i.e. those that are backed up with bayonets, prisons, and all the powers of the modern State, are less good, particularly when their effect is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few.

Sorry, this isn't a good thing from my point of view.

Okay, but what's the alternative? by oostevo · 2004-08-01 12:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Since this is a bit of a viscious cycle (the more patents that the Patent Office gets the more it says "Sounds good"), there obviously needs to be a change, but I've yet to see a truly plausible example of what would be a successful change to our patent system.

Patents, at times, actually are good things, so entirely doing away with the patent system wouldn't be a good idea, nor would adding more money to the patent office budget (the same problems we have now, just more of them), and making the patents harder to apply for would just benefit the offensive-patenting corporations with the money to hire expensive lawyers.

So what do we do about it?

--
In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
Oh wait...

Re:Okay, but what's the alternative? by AnotherBlackHat · 2004-08-01 14:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Patents, at times, actually are good things, so entirely doing away with the patent system wouldn't be a good idea, nor would adding more money to the patent office budget (the same problems we have now, just more of them), and making the patents harder to apply for would just benefit the offensive-patenting corporations with the money to hire expensive lawyers.

So what do we do about it?

Well, the question isn't "is doing away with the patent system a good idea?",
it's "is doing away with the patent better than any other alternative that's available?"
I've seen very little evidence that patents are good, and a lot of evidence that they are bad.
Doing away with them might be better than living with them.

However, taking it as a given that eliminating the patent office is not an option, what then would be better?

IMO the real problem with the current system is one of risk.
It's almost impossible to do real work without facing the possibility of being sued (successfully) for patent infringement and losing 100% of your efforts.
I.e. you're constantly at risk of total ruin.
And there doesn't seem to be any way to protect against this catastrophic failure.

One solution might be a compulsory licensing fee.
If any patent filed could be released to the public domain by paying the holder
100 times the filing fee, then we could at least make a reasonable risk estimate,
and patent insurance would be a realistic possibility.

Another possibility is a set of guidelines which if followed guarantee that you will not be infringing on a patent.
For example, declare that software which runs on an unmodified computer built before a patent was filed does not infringe that patent.

-- less is better.

One quick way to improve the situation by theluckyleper · 2004-08-01 12:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

IANAL, but one way to improve the patent situation (and the IP situation too, for that matter), which I didn't see mentioned in the article, would be to impose a statute of limitation on infringement suits. This is how they do things in China.

China?! Yes, that's right. Some of their laws are better than ours...

This would prevent asshats like Unisys (and, if applied to IP, asshats like SCO) from suing for infringement WELL after they became aware of the issue. A statute of limitaion would ensure that underhanded tactics such as allowing the public to become addicted to GIFs, and then suing years and years later, would no longer be effective.

This wouldn't solve all of the problems with software patents, but I think it's a step in the right direction!

--
Visit the Game Programming Wiki!

Re:One quick way to improve the situation by Unordained · 2004-08-01 12:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

... how 'bout we require patent holders to very obviously be seeking to do something useful with their patents, immediately? you don't get to sit on it, you don't get to hold it and wait for someone else to get the idea ... and you absolutely don't get to claim patent rights if someone else invents the same thing without your help (though it'd be hard to prove they didn't see your patent application, even if you don't document elsewhere.) regardless, patent holders should be required to obviously be trying to find buyers from day 1, or be building their own solution (not vaporware) based on the patent. the whole point is to give you a little extra time (advantage) to get your shit together before the competition comes in, -not- to give you a nice legal monopoly to sit on. besides, if companies are already innovating ... do we need patents? the point was incentives -- if they're going to create new algorithms and machines because there's a market for them (if there's no market within a few years of an invention, the patent is just an expense to you) ... then we don't need patents at all. (reminder: incentives of this sort are created out of the clear blue sky, and should be just as easy to repeal.)
Re:One quick way to improve the situation by janbjurstrom · 2004-08-01 12:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Or, they could make good on their implied threats (Mutual Assured Damage/Destruction).

I just hope that one of the big'uns start a fight! And we'll get to watch all the Microsofts and the IBMs and the Novells and all the rest of the patent pimps Mutually destroy each other. Oh, man, it would be so great:
"Feel the pain of our 'one-click-purchase'!!"

"You call that pain?! Taste our 'listing-photos-BY-DATE'!! *ka-boom*

"Ouch, DAMN YOU! Attack!! 'hold-down-mouse-button-to-make-something-happen'! !!!!!

"GAaaaaaaahhh, it burrnnnsss!!"

"Yes, the smell of burning IP in the morning!! Load another round of 'incentives-to-watch-ads'! Fire!!"

"AAAAAaaaaaaa...aa.. we can't feel our legal department... it's getting dark ... the stock is dropping ... *NO CARRIER*
Barring that, your thing might have some merit :)

--
668.5
Re:One quick way to improve the situation by styxlord · 2004-08-01 13:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Couldn't agree more. Companies that have nothing but a patent portfolio and use it to extort money from others are amongst the lowest forms of life.
The big fish don't need to have patents (other than to protect themselves from leeches who do), they can compete head to head. May the best product, or marketing campaign, win. If its something really new, the competition will lag by however long it takes them to reverse engineer your invention and develop their own, once it hits the market. The little fish either need to get some investors to see them through to market or just sell out to a big fish. I must be missing something here, what's the point of patents again? To fund research with no intention of production?

Follow the lead of the anonymous author! by YankeeInExile · 2004-08-01 12:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

This article brings up a point I have been thinking about for a long time: The OSS/FS community is losing sight of the trees for the forest with regard to software patentability.

We need to fight the patent war on two fronts - the first front: Lobby to make software patents more difficult to obtain.

And the second front, equally important: Until the rules change in our favor, we need to build up a portfolio of patents, to share and trade with our friends (which anyone in business will tell you is the true purpose of a patent).

Instead of screeching to the heavans, Software Patents Are EEEEEEEEEVIL, the movement would be better served by gaming the system. If a portfolio of patents is what is needed to keep Free Software Free, then so be it - put our minds to making the application and examination system as easy as possible, and assign patents to some organization (a role that would be well served by FSF if they could stop their jihad.

For the record, I do not think that software patents are intrinsically evil. I believe in my heart-of-hearts that algorithms are just as much an invention as a better mousetrap, and I disagree with the article author's assertion that the copyright protection granted to an implementation is sufficient protection for this inventive process.

Plus, you forget that one of the Principles of Free Software, transparency, is fundament in the patent process. The wisdom of the patent system is, In exchange for exclusive right-to-use on your invention, for a limited time, you must fully disclose that same invention.

I am seriously concerned that the patent process may suffer the same slow creep in the meaning of limited time that has happened surrounding copyright, but that is a separate problem for another posting.

--
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?

Re:Follow the lead of the anonymous author! by Bruce+Perens · 2004-08-01 12:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

You may need to think this through a lot more.
First, going for our own patents in the Free Software community doesn't really help unless we have a huge legal fund behind us to 1) prosecute others and 2) defend ourselves from their patents.
Second, you should think through whether or not algorithms are mathematical in nature, and whether mathematics is discovered or invented.
Thanks
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Follow the lead of the anonymous author! by YankeeInExile · 2004-08-01 13:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

You do bring up an excellent point that a patent without the backing to fight for it is worthless, and I am sorry to say I have no answer for that. Perhaps finding some white knight (IBM) to help underwrite that would be worthwhile.

As to the second point -- I think there is a continuum - some algorithms are clearly mathematical in nature, others are much more procedural.

I am reminded of an era when to patent an algorithm, it was necessary to show that it could be implemented in hardware, patent that hardware, and then make an additional claim of "any process that simulates the physical artifact."

--
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Re:Follow the lead of the anonymous author! by Flower · 2004-08-01 13:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

You'd effectively kill off FOSS. As Bruce mentioned we would need a warchest to effectively wield the proposed portfolio but we'd also need a warchest just to build the portfolio. Software patents require lawyers to go over the claims and work on making them as broad as possible.

So you not only have to pay patent fees but you also have to retain a lawyer and pay legal fees over a couple of years to get the patent pushed through. How many FOSS developers are going to pony up that cash? How many FOSS developers want to hit IRC and spend a night debating which ideas are going to be good ones to patent? Who will track those patents and who is going to make the decision on whether a patent is to be used in litigation? So now we're not just talking about money to create patents or even use patents but now we need money to maintain our patents. Oh and we all have to agree on how we're going to do that.

And who wants to cross-license patents with a GPL project? It seems you'd have to virtually give up your patent to avoid litigation since the GPL requirements are going to force you to free up your "IP." Under the circumstances,it might be worth the risk to blow the $2million and litigate. So unlike what currently happens in the industry the FOSS patent industry would probably always be in litigation instead of cross-licensing. At least that's what I see happening worst-case.

--
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie

Money talks by usefool · 2004-08-01 12:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think the core of the article implies that the company with most 'spendable' money will win by default in any case.

Patent Office will grant any plausible applications because "The feeling is that anything contentious can be sorted out in the courts."

And what happens in the courts? Small guys are burdened with legal fees, which is related to the time spent on preparation, which big guys can just throw a lot to you. If you don't hire enough lawyers to read each and every line properly, you might get caught even if you are the rightful owner of a patent.

So with or without a patent, big company will eventually monopolize the market by (1) holding a patent and scare everybody off or, (2) taking the patent-holding company to court or, (3) buy out small guys.

--
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged

Does anyone else find it strange.. by ReidMaynard · 2004-08-01 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

It seems (on a very high level) the Lawyer has just found a new market. Look at the small effort he puts forth and all the income it generates for his firm. And he admits, the patents can be fought over later in the courts...more legal fees for him!! If I were your CEO I would feel a lot like the "SUCKER" in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons. I'm sure there is *some* truth to his position, but I find it bad business to go for the "monopoly" brass ring. Its sad when our CEOs go for these get rich quick schemes. just shows you Lawyers and CEOs are greedy SOBs.

--
-- www.globaltics.net

Political discussion for a new world

Patents are for the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-01 12:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

The current patent system is borked. Its for big companies to squash little guys. This article sums it up.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-08-01 12:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

here ya go... by zogger · 2004-08-01 12:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

...want an alternative? Anything you can physically hold in your hand or touch = OK to patent. Some theoretical concept, process, algorithym, arrangement, etc commonly referred to as an "intellectual property" = *not* OK to patent, but OK to copyright if the creator chooses to.

simple easy solution

Re:here ya go... by Valar · 2004-08-01 12:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem is that a patent is really better for an algorithm. Why? One way to think about it is that patents cover ideas and designs, whereas copyrights cover expressions of these ideas. The problem isn't that some ideas related to software are being patented, it is that the patent office is granting patents for obvious or trivial algorithms and ideas, as well as ones with substantial prior art. Without a significant overhaul of the way copyright works, however, patents are still the most appropriate ip protection for a lot of software related stuff. copyright protection for a concept, process or algorithm would easily be avoided by simply "rewriting" it differently (rearranging some code, or adding some minor steps to the process). and if you think patenting a process is crazy, think about chemical companies and manufacturers that have been patenting important innovations to their production processes for years.

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games
Re:here ya go... by Wolfbone · 2004-08-01 13:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Good grief! you're arguing for the exact reverse of that which is right, just and equitable. Algorithms are mental processes, mathematical ideas which when enacted in software cost next to nothing to manufacture and distribute. To use the patent system to exclude others from even using them is an assault on the very foundations of natural justice, not to mention economically unjustifiable. No-one ever sold a bare algorithm in a shrink-wrapped box - in case you hadn't noticed, each saleable software product is likely to contain many, many algorithms and ideas, and for that reason and others it is appropriately protected by copyright.

I don't think I really care whether the chemical companies consider patents on their expensive to build and operate production processes to be crazy or not - it's up to them. I do however think your idea of allowing ideas in mathematics and computer science to be patentable to be both crazy and evil.

I have never committed a crime on slashdot before, but I shall do so now, by manufacturing and distributing a patented invention:

echo -n $'__________\r'
for ((i=0;i10;i++))
do echo -n "#"
sleep 1
done
echo

The patented progress bar, enacted in the shell in a few lines and all protestations that this one is trivial and should have been excluded by the patent office are meaningless unless you can describe specific criteria that the patent office bureaucrats can follow to allow them to discriminate. The RSA algorithm is just as trivial and yet I have heard many people mistakenly claim that it deserved a patent for it's originality and cleverness - but that cleverness was all in the maths - the idea, not the algorithmic expression of it and so a justification of patentability of software ideas is a justification of patentability of mathematics. An outrageous position.
Re:here ya go... by oogoliegoogolie · 2004-08-01 13:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

copyright protection for a concept, process or algorithm would easily be avoided by simply "rewriting" it differently (rearranging some code, or adding some minor steps to the process)

And that's why copyright works for software, and exactly why software patents should not be allowed. You have a right to protect your work and avoid your work from being copied, but not stifle competition and prevent others from producing similar, yet different, methods.

There are multiple methods of achieving the same results with software, sorting for example, but what is being patented are blanket concepts that are so vague that they cover all possible alternatives, so that anyone attempting to work around them are still in violation of that patent. Instead of patenting specific methods, algorithms, and code, granted patents often resemble something like "a method of sorting data and saving it to semi-permanent storage media", or "a way of storing user information from a website so the user only has to click once to reload his userdata" To me, these broad patens would be like a chemical company patenting "a way of extracting gold from ore", or a manufacturing company patenting "a method of using robotics to fasten screws"

As much as I dislike them, software patents are here to stay, at least in the US. Lawyers make too much money off them to let them go, and what field do most politicians come from?

2 words: Sovereign Immunity by ahbi · 2004-08-01 12:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Until we see the Patent Office being sued

Remember, due to the concept of sovereign immunity you can't sue the government unless they say you can.
(Unless, you sue for injunctive relief claiming that the action is unConsitutional, and, after Eldred, I won't hold your breath there.)

Re:2 words: Sovereign Immunity by mikael · 2004-08-01 12:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Who says it needs to be Americans or an American company doing it? I would love to see the EU or a group of UK companies sue the ass off the PTO

This would be very unlikely, since we have companies like BTG Plc which license patents worldwide. Plus European contractors for government DBMS are extremely keen to maintain their monopoly. To quote David Blunkett on ID Cards "we have to keep the terms of the contract strictly confidential and away from the public in order to guarantee value for money".

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads

Tending the coals by acidrain · 2004-08-01 12:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

This article doesn't say anything we don't already know. Yes the American software patent system is fucked, and they are in the process of exporting it.

It is all very absurd, small companies won't be able to write code, hobbyist coders will need legal insurance.

What do we do? I am frothing at the mouth after reading the article (yayyyy slashdot) but really, is it worth thinking about without a realistic response? ... sigh ...

Personally as a Canadian working for a Canadian software company that is being sued with a FUCKING STUPID US software patent, I would be happy to invade the USA and blow up the patent office.

Would any of you Americans mind? Could someone provide GPS coordinates and photos with targets circled in red? Call it "compassionate terrorism."

--
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys

Re:Tending the coals by PepsiProgrammer · 2004-08-01 12:38 · Score: 2, Funny

If we start putting sane restrictions on patents.... The terrorists have already won.

--
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
Re:Tending the coals by Fortress · 2004-08-01 14:51 · Score: 2, Funny

As a fellow Canadian, I would like to point out that the views expressed in the parent post are those of acidrain and do not in any way constitute those of the benevolent, democratic government of Canada or its peaceful people.

We Canadians love our friendly, heavily-armed neighbors to the south and wish them well in their just war against the evil warfare technique, terrorism. We gape in awed silence at the graceful architecture of your Patent Office and other government buildings, and would try to stop someone who wanted to destroy them from entering through Canada.

We have no need to see overhead photos of your buildings, and the only thing we use your ever-so-useful GPS system for is for guiding our fishing boats and helping hikers in our vast wilderness, which you are free to visit anytime as long as you don't bring your gun.

We have oil, but we sell it to you cheaply.

Regards,

The Canadian People

Utah, maybe? by theluckyleper · 2004-08-01 12:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Go to Lindon, Utah, find Darl McBride, and get him to sit on your head. Instant asshat.

I bet that all you'd have to offer him is some evidence that Linux is infringing on SCO's IP...

Easy!

--
Visit the Game Programming Wiki!

Contradiction by j.+andrew+rogers · 2004-08-01 12:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

People need to either accept the idea of all patents or no patents. You can't legitimately have it both ways and be consistent.

1.) The argument that software patents are bad because most software patents are frivolous is a strawman. Most non-software patents are also frivolous. This is not unique to software, people here only notice software patents because they work in software. If you don't like the frivolousness of patents granted then deal with the general frivolousness of the patent system, because "software" patents and "frivolous" patents only intersect and neither contains the other in its entirety.

2.) Software is hardware is software. If you can't patent software, then you shouldn't be able patent hardware either. This was settled the better part of a century ago, in case anyone was paying attention. Pretending that software is a special case that is different from hardware creates a distinction where none exists.

3.) A minority of software patents, just like a minority of normal hardware patents, cover inventions that took substantial research and development effort that no one could reasonable claim to be "obvious". This would seem to be precisely what is supposed to be protected by patents under ideal circumstances and I can't see a reasonable argument that says these inventions should be treated differently than all other patents. Otherwise we would be in the position of allowing frivolous non-software patents and disallowing heavy-duty substantive "software" patents.

That said, it seems to me that the biggest reason a lot of geeks don't like software patents is that it is inconvenient for them. Every rationalization that disallows "software" patents but allows other types of patents has been uniformly weak and inconsistent. If you think patents are bad, then ALL patents are bad, not just the ones you wish you didn't have to abide by.

Re:Contradiction by Bruce+Perens · 2004-08-01 12:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Inconvenient is an understatement. We are moving toward a point beyond which only the largest companies will be able to engage in software development. Forget about individuals doing it when the cost of defending a single patent suit is about $3 Million (American IP Law Association estimate).
So, I'd suggest that "discriminatory" is a lot more accurate than "inconvenient".
And yes, hardware is software these days. Which means that all would better be protected with copyright. Applying both patent and copyright to the same material is too much.
Thanks
Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:Hmm... by Bruce+Perens · 2004-08-01 12:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think the point about software being "mercurial" is vague, but what he was probably thinking about it that it's a medium better protected by copyright. Now having both patent and copyright apply to it is indeed strange.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Moral dilemma by r.jimenezz · 2004-08-01 12:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the article:

Since we receive a bonus of $8000 per patent, if all goes well we'll share well over $150,000. And there seems no reason we can't keep this game up indefinitely. We should be able to manage around 50 a year, and this nice little earner will see the mortgage paid off in no time.

Now I think that's interesting... This comes from a software engineer, not from the lawyer. Most developers (and presumably the one from the article too) despise this whole mess, yet this guy is being "gently persuaded" by his employer to play the game.

I'd rather not find myself in such a situation, for it's easy to say what I am going to say without having to actually face it. But I'd like to believe that I can be part of the solution and not of the problem; that I can be brave enough to stand by my beliefs and refuse to be part of something like this and still manage to pay my bills.

--
The revolution will not be televised.

Re:Hmm... by LordLucless · 2004-08-01 12:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

The real difference between software and hardware patents is the time taken to bring it to market. If you invent a mechanical device, if you want to market it, you need to find some way to mass produce it. Unless you are independantly wealthy, that means finding someone who owns a manufactuting plant or two, and getting them to make the device for you. This means that you have to let somebody into your confidence. After you've gone around having meetings with ten or twenty manufacturers, there's ten or twenty people who know a good deal about your invention. You need a patent to ensure that they can't just start ripping off your invention without cutting you in.

Software, on the other hand, as intangible data, is dead easy to replicate and distribute. Put up a website, buy a bit of bandwidth - and nowadays, setup a torrent, and bingo - the equivelant of mechanical "manufacture and distribution". You don't need a patent to protect you while you struggle to manufacture your software and bring it to market.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face

Patents are worthless... by neil.orourke · 2004-08-01 12:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

... until they are tested in court. So says the lawer at the company I work for, and who is involved in patent (not software) battles on our behalf in a few countries.

Essentially, he says, the granting of a patent means that you were able to convince some guy in an office that your idea was new, un-obvious etc. etc. So the patent is granted.

The fun starts when your product hits the market and someone else tries to do the same thing. Then it goes to court, and only then is the validity of your patent tested.

What this is really about... by Goonie · 2004-08-01 12:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Gittins is writing from an Australian perspective, where the debate whether the minority party should ally with minor parties in the Senate and block the FTA is getting particularly heated.

From an American perspective, however, what you should be concerned about is the kind of things that this FTA, and subsequent ones, are going to do to lock in the current, ridiculous intellectual property regime. This applies not only to software patents, but restrictions on generic drugs, copyright terms, and so on. In the next decade or so, it's highly likely that there will be serious attempts in Congress to fix some of these issues. What will likely happen, though, is that the executive will come back with the argument "You can't do that! We'll be violating the terms of the free trade agreements we signed with Australia, Albania, and Andorra" (to pick three countries of similar importance to the United States) and the bills will quietly die.

The EFF and other groups in the "less overbroad IP protection" crowd might do well to pay more attention to international treaties, IMO.

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)

Why not criminal law by Bruce+Perens · 2004-08-01 12:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lying on your patent application is perjury. It's a federal crime, and you can do serious jail time. But nobody does. It might be possible to show a federal prosecutor that some of the more blatant patents were filed even though the filer knew they were not inventions, and that the filer should be prosecuted.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:Why not criminal law by jkabbe · 2004-08-01 13:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Acutally I wouldn't mind seeing the individual examiner sued when it's determined a patent is invalid...

The problem with slashdot is that lots of people suggest things that get applause but don't stand a chance of working. Do people really not think before they make suggestions?

The biggest cost to the USPTO is labor. It costs money to pay examiners to do their job. Examiners can't currently do their jobs because they are overworked. And even under good circumstances an examiner won't have access to all the information possible. So patents will always be overturned.

If examiners could be sued they would need incentive to be examiners (otherwise they would do something else). This would probably increase the cost of getting a patent 5- or 10-fold. Just the thing to help the small inventor, right?

Patents are inherently bad for software industy by NZheretic · 2004-08-01 12:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Business methord and software patents are detrimental to the software industry as a whole, but it is also one of the major driving forces to an interesting trend amongst most of the major IT vendors.

Applying game theory to long term software industry market, for both open and proprietary vendors, based on software patents...

1) Small software developers are unlikely to benefit from the overall balance of payments from licensing of their own and other vendors software patent portfolios, since other software vendors are just as likely to hold other software patents that the developer uses in his own products.

2) Larger software vendors are unlikely to benefit from payments from licensing of their software patent portfolio, as per above small sofware developers plus the software vendor is likely to hold the lion's share of the sofware target market, profit from software patent licensing will be much smaller in proportion to the overall sales of the vendors own products.

3) Third party intellectual property "holding companies", that do not actively participate in selling actual software, are the only class of organization that can benefit from licensing of their software patent portfolios. In most cases these entities have a very tenuous relationship to the ongoing development of the software methords patented

See Patents bad but also pushing interesting trend

Second Half Of the Article Published Today by femto · 2004-08-01 13:09 · Score: 4, Informative

A second half to Gittins' article was also published a few hours ago:

Trade deal a free kick for US software racketeers

You're all blaming the wrong person by microbox · 2004-08-01 13:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't blame M$, Bill Clinton or anybody else... the real problem is deeply routed in the definition of a corporation.

You see, some coporate lawyers in the late 19thC realized that they could make a lot more money if a corporation had the rights of a person, and the supreme court agreed they were, with all the rights and privileges there-of.

Now a coporation is a 'legal' person whose sole purpose is to make money for the shareholders. The CEO and board are legally bound to do so. Unfortunately, since corporations aren't real people, they don't have real morals... other than what will make $$$ for shareholders. Because shareholders aren't liable for the actions of corportions, they don't CARE how the corporation makes money on their investment.

That's the root of the problem.

Every corporation is in a free-fall race to the bottom to out-compete it's rivals and make 7% growth in profits. While that level of competition has many obvious good points, it has also created some terrible problems.

Once one corporation 'buys' a law (such as software patents), then everyone in the industry has to start using them or die. You don't even have to buy a law... if breaking the law and paying the fine (and paying a nice PR firm to make you look shiny) is cost effective, then that's what you HAVE to do if you're going to raise your stock higher than your rivals.

CEOs and lawyers are not all trolls, they are just cogs in a machine. Corporations have bought off politions all over the world, PR firms, marketers... all so that they can bend and create rules to make more $$$. As soon as one nasty little troll does it... they all have to. If they don't, well, only the fittest survive.

The solution?

We have to unravel the legal framework that has come to define what corporations are. Exactly how to do this???? Well, you tell me =)

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right

Re:You're all blaming the wrong person by baxissimo · 2004-08-01 13:38 · Score: 4, Informative

I believe this is the definitive book on the subject of the parent's post. A very interesting idea. I haven't read the book, but the author was interviewd on NPR a while back. If I ever start reading books again that's one I'd be interested in picking up. :-)
Re:You're all blaming the wrong person by TheHonestTruth · 2004-08-01 14:11 · Score: 4, Informative

We have to unravel the legal framework that has come to define what corporations are. Exactly how to do this???? Well, you tell me =)
Sarbanes-Oxley. Here's a blog about it at Gartner. Basically Sarbanes-Oxley makes CEOs liable for the actions of the company. Though this does not redefine the corporation as a citizen, it does hold someone criminally accountable for the actions of the corp. It was in response to Enron at all and severly weaked the coporation as an entity that can act wantonly.
-truth

--
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Re:You're all blaming the wrong person by killjoe · 2004-08-01 14:52 · Score: 5, Funny

If the corporation is the same as a person then doesn't it have second amendment rights? This seems to make sense since it definately has first and fourth amendment rights.

The reason I am asking is that a corporation is a psychotic entity. Just like a mass murderer it can feel no empathy towards anyone and is unable to control it's compultions. Studies have definitively shown that lack of impulse control and inability to feel empathy towards others is a necassary (though not sufficient) attribute of being a mass murderer.

Maybe that's too harsh. Maybe the corporation is not like a person at all. Maybe it's more like a dog. A dog is a living being, it certainly has some rights but not the same as humans. There are laws against cruelty to animals and yet it's legal to put down a dog when it becomes harmful to others.

Corporations should be treated like dogs. The shareholders are the owners and it's up to them to make sure their dog is properly trained, contained and leashed so as not to harm others. Needless to say the shareholders are also responsible for cleaning up after their dog when it shits in the park.

If a dog becomes violent and hurts people then it should be put down. The corporation should be TAKEN AWAY FROM THE SHAREHOLDERS AND KILLED WITH NO COMPENSATION WHATSOEVER TO THE SHAREHOLDERS. Furthermore the shareholders should be tried for the crimes of their corporations just like dog owners are.

This would solve the problem once and for all.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:You're all blaming the wrong person by wrecked · 2004-08-01 15:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Just for the record, the Corporation was also made into a documentary, by the same director of Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (both are National Film Board of Canada projects).
The Corporation has been a relative success here in Canada.
I took a (Canadian) Constitutional Law course with Joel Bakan, the author of the Corporation, at the University of British Columbia. He is one of most interesting professors that I ever had.
Re:You're all blaming the wrong person by jellybear · 2004-08-01 23:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe corporations need to be programmed to obey Asimov's laws.

Economists viewpoint may effect change by L1TH10N · 2004-08-01 13:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Reading about the abuses of patents really makes my blood boil, but at the same time it is comforting to know that economists are starting to react against software patents.

The economic papers (and probably many others) " Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation" and " An Empirical Look at Software Patents" articulate in economic terms why software patents don't work.

I think that most economists believe that monopolies are bad and competition is good. I think that the more the economic viewpoint like those mentioned in the papers above start to have stronger acceptance amongst economists, then these viewpoints will start to hit the main stream press such as the Sydney Morning Herald (as a main stream newspaper in Australia). Hopefully, by this point, these viewpoints would start to influence government policy.

Geeks got on to the problem of software patents early. But the "geeky" point of view is often overlooked by governments. Economists are much more respected in government and probably can articulate an argument against software patents that probably will not be be overlooked. I'm looking from the perspective in Australia, I don't know how politics works in other parts of the world. But I hope that common sense will prevail.

--
Yet another ironic recursive statement.

Re:Economists viewpoint may effect change by AnotherBlackHat · 2004-08-01 15:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

[snip happens]
The economic paper... An Empirical Look at Software Patents" articulate in economic terms why software patents don't work.

I found this particularly choice;

Legal scholars sometimes argue that patent law should treat computer programs no differently than any other invention. This paper does not address arguments about legal consistency, but instead explores the economic effects of granting software patents in the U.S. during the 1990s. Our results are difficult to reconcile with the traditional incentive theory--that granting more patents will increase R&D investments. Rather, if legal changes have encouraged strategic patenting, the result might well be less innovation.

Perhaps software patents are exactly like other patents in this regard.
Maybe it's the traditional incentive theory that's in error.

-- less is better.

Damm pre-registration sites... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-01 13:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stop posting stories from sites requiring registration. If the site has a policy to not allow casual browsing then do as they wish and ignore them. Find an alternative site carrying the same story, for free.

Re:Damm pre-registration sites... by hsoom · 2004-08-01 15:00 · Score: 3, Informative

The Sydney Morning Herald does not require registration to read articles. When you got to the page that says "Soon you will need to register to read this article" did you notice the paragraph underneath that says "We will be asking all readers to register for full access to The Sydney Morning Herald website in the near future (emphasis mine)." So, while your complaint may be merited soon, at the moment you can simply click the link down the bottom of the page that says "Register later and continue to your Article". It takes you straight to the article!

Also I think you'd have a hard time finding an alternative site carrying the same story because Ross Gittins, the author, is an opinion writer for Fairfax, and this article is not news but an opinion piece. I doubt this article would show up anywhere but in Fairfax owned newspapers (i.e. Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, etc.) all of which have the "soon you will need to be registered to read this article."

Re:The alternative is no IP laws, period. by jonabbey · 2004-08-01 13:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I abhor software patents as much as (if not more than) the next Slashdot devotee, but we don't actually work to pay taxes.

We work to obtain scarce goods. And no matter what technology does, there will _always_ be scarce goods. Real estate. Food cooked in a certain style, available in a certain place (real estate, again). Garbage collection. Military defense.

Technology makes it possible to make an indefinite number of copies of any arbitrary pattern of bits at so close to zero marginal cost as makes no difference, but it doesn't have the same effect on other scarce goods. Without artificial scarcity in bit patterns (or in ideas that get turned into bit patterns), those bit patterns cannot be used in trade for the really scarce goods.

That's economics, but if you think that sounds in any way wishy washy, think of it as physics. It's reality that you can't avoid, no matter how hard you try.

Free software and a limitation on software patents makes sense for many reasons, but those have to do with users taking maximum economic efficiency out of that zero marginal cost, rather than pumping up a giant chokepoint on the economy like Microsoft. Bit patterns and ideas of a truly unusual level of originality, unobviousness (even in the face of a transformative technology like the Internet that makes all kinds of things suddenly obvious) and technical complexity generally should be able to be matters of economic commerce, otherwise those people creating ideas and bit patterns will ultimately fail to be able to afford real estate.

--
- jon

Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX

A Question by Nexum · 2004-08-01 13:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ok, now I really have to ask.

At the risk of seeming frightfully out of touch and un-733t over the last few month's I've been seeing more and more of this "One wor^H^H^H^H^H^H Another word I should really have used" kind of stuff.

I know how it's used and roughly what it means and how to read it... but does anyone know it's origins or it's precise meaning?

Thanks for enlightening me... I just finally had to ask.

--

This sig has been deprecated.

Re:A Question by LighthouseJ · 2004-08-01 14:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, back in the days of early terminal programs where, to get good terminal emulation you had to massage the terminal client into emulating as close to how a native terminal would behave and this is what happens when it's not emulated close enough.

A backspace is the equivalent of Control-H. If you look at your ascii tables and skip the first NUL character, begin going down the line and counting off each letter of the alphabet. On H, you will land on BS (backspace). You can look at other codes and their equivalents on your own time.

Well, in Unix, it was written that when a keyboard sent a "^H" (which was recreated by holding down Control and pressing H), that it would backspace. When you are parked in your poorly-emulated remote terminal and press backspace, it sends the ^H over the line but it's not properly formatted and the terminal program thinks ^H is what the person wanted to type as plain text.

So some people are in a hurry, and want to send emails over their poorly-emulated remote terminal. They type, make mistakes, append ^H's that don't correct the typing mistake and then resume the email. It's just another call back to a golden age of computing, like how people still use vi... :)

Really lame ideas. by twitter · 2004-08-01 13:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

The defense given in the article echo's yours in a less rabid manner:

So we got another round of emails encouraging us to file patents, as a way of defensively time-stamping some of our work, and offering attractive bonuses for doing so. My area is particularly "bleeding edge", and my manager pointed out that we'd look pretty stupid if our everyday activities were patented by a rival.

This kind of time stamping and proof of prior work can be had for much less money than a patent. Call a notary, that's one of the things they are for. Make an deal with the local bank. There must be a simpler way to provide a court with definitive proof without validating software patents with mindshare, effort and money.

You also forward the bogus claim:

one of the Principles of Free Software, transparency, is fundamental in the patent process. The wisdom of the patent system is, In exchange for exclusive right-to-use on your invention, for a limited time, you must fully disclose that same invention.

That's the general idea, but you might note that it does not work like that at all. Engineers can not recognize their inventions after the lawyers get thought with them and it's a wonder that a court can enforce them anymore. Patents are being used to claim ideas, not inventions, and that's a perversion. Yes, software patents are the epitome of this abuse of principles.

If you want to share your source code, just publish it GPL in the usual ways. 10 points to the first person who can show me where Savannah or Sourceforge keep tabs on submissions to be able to show the definitive proof that's the reason so many lemmings are wasting so much money on so many lawyers and government processes.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Microsoft is the world's biggest patent loser . . by werdna · 2004-08-01 13:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

This kind of thing is starting to be a hot issue down here with the US-Australia Free Trade deal about to be ratified and bring our intellectual property laws in line with Micros^D^D^D^D^D^D^D America's

Boy, do you have this one all wrong.

Microsoft made one of the worst lists in America to get, the list of the top 100 verdicts for last year, three times, as a losing defendant. Microsoft has been on the business end of more 8 and 9 digit patent infringement verdicts than any other enterprise in recent times.

Patents destroy rights by Tony · 2004-08-01 14:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

None of the pro-patent rhetoric bandied about these days ever addresses the topic of making software patents sensible, either. I can only imagine it's because it's impractical under our current system.

I believe a lot of us wouldn't mind seeing patents for truly brilliant methods, if we could be assured there wouldn't be one million bad patents for every one good one.

But, just to issue *my* anti-patent rhetoric:

Imagine if our criminal system convicted 99 innocent people for every true criminal, and attempts at reform have proven ineffective. Would you continue to pursue reform, when the damage done far outweighs the good?

The same holds for our patent system. If one patent in a hundred is good, and protects the rights granted by US law, those 99 other patents infringe on *my* rights (and the rights of millions of others) to freely use my knowledge.

That is a nontrivial right. In fact, it is fundamental to freedom.

So, our current patent system is indefensible. It destroys more rights than it protects, and should probably be dismantled, since attempts at reform have failed.

Anyway, end of rhetoric, for this post.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Re:Hmm... by LordLucless · 2004-08-01 14:45 · Score: 2, Informative

What you're talking about is "marketing" not "manufacture" or "distribution". If you manage to create a new super-algorithm, how is BigCorp supposed to figure it out just by purchasing a binary copy of your program? If the algorithm is obvious enough that a look at the working program is sufficient to show how it works, then it shouldn't qualify for a patent in the first place. If BigCorp downloads your program, looks at it, and creates their own algorithm that does a similar thing in a different way, then that wouldn't be covered by your patent anyway.

In the mean time, all the BigCorps of the real world have patented obvious algorithms all over the place, so if an inventor comes up with something new, he'll have to cross-license his patent to them anyway to avoid being sued into bankruptcy for violating their "summation of two integral numbers via electronic manipulation logic gates" patents.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face

I have no recollection with that by microbox · 2004-08-01 15:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately you'd have to get rid of the old 'I have no recollection with that' excuse.

For example, a corp will hire someone to find something out, and say they have no knowledge of how that person does business. That person is actually a spy, and everyone knows that he's going to break the law to get that information. But the CEO's aren't responsible unless you can prove that they knew that the spy was going to break the law when they hired them. Convenient that this situation has arisen.

It goes deeper than holding CEOs accountable... if you held shareholders accountable, then things certainly _would_ change, but everyone would cry unfair, and it would defeat the point of a corporation.

Greed is no more basic in shareholders than everyone else, so the definition of a corporation has to change to limit what it _can_ do, because anything it _can_ do it will, including extending the extension of itself, and what it can do.

For example, corporations fought do be able to patent living organizism back in the 80s. People didn't believe that you could own real life. Well a single firm argued in court that they had invented nothing more mundane then a standard chemical when they modified a bacteria.... and the supreme court (curse them!) agreed with the copr!

Now companies are patenting the DNA sequences of all the living creatures on earth. The USPTO said you couldn't patent the human genome (thankfully!), however, corps are patenting discoverings on human DNA - such as what the genes do (?!?)

The limitations I'm thinking of are more along the lines of:
"corporations have a limited lifespan", and
"this corporation is created to refine steel"

This would give a corporation a specific charter that they can't deviate from once it's created.

Obviously I don't believe that these specific examples would be practicle in the current world!

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right

Re:I have no recollection with that by mr_mischief · 2004-08-02 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Make the corporation responsible. With the rights of a person comes the responsibilities of a person.

A corporation, being a legal entity equal to a person, should have the same taxes to pay as a person and get no extra tax breaks. Being a legal entity equal to a person, it should be forced to serve a sentence and pay a fine when breaking the law. Anything less than these things means that something which has been promised the rights of a citizen is being treated preferentially due to its origins of not being a person -- a complete contradiction.

So, if a corporation commits a crime for which the shareholders aren't responsible, make the corporation, as a virtual person, serve a virtual sentence. A crime punishible by five years in prison? Make the corporation pay all profits to the victims and the government for five years, plus restitution. That'd clean up their act considerably.

We call it offensive patenting at our company by loophard · 2004-08-01 16:28 · Score: 5, Informative

I am personally co-author of several patents where we took competitor patents as prior-art and created new patents with claims that anticipate competitor direction. You end up just expanding the independent claims to make them novel (the part you add is the anticipatory part). Of course, you can't use the invention yourself, because you'd be infringing the competitors patent. However, the competitor cannot practice the new patent either, potentially blocking their advance. They may need to licence from you in order to advance their art. Or, trade off licencing with other patents in their portfolio/ That's how it works. It's all legit, and a good way to maintain/gain/protect a competitive advantage. You can slag patents all you want, and yes there are BIG problems in the system, but, you need to play the game to not get squashed.

a hidden assumption by latroM · 2004-08-01 18:48 · Score: 3, Informative

from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty

Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''

The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)

If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.

``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.

Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.

According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US.

As a European... by haeger · 2004-08-01 20:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

...I cannot for the life of me understand why EU would think that SWPAT is a good idea. I still live in this fantasy that the politicians should serve their people and their country, and I don't see that these patents do any good to either. I mean, we're all a bunch of whiny geeks here so they don't listen to us, but surely they must see the bigger perspective. If we allow SWPAT in the EU then we will practically give away the entire IT sector to the US (and subsequently India) since 90% or so of the SWPATs that's out there are owned by large American companies.

Why would the EU want to do that? What's the benefit? I just don't understand. Did someone wake up and think "Well, this IT thingy is too compllicated, let's just focus on agriculture instead. Let's give all IT stuff to USA, and let them figure it out."?

.haeger

--
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison

Re:That isn't practical by danila · 2004-08-01 22:00 · Score: 3, Informative

There is an important distinction between financial liability and legal liability. Shareholders should be able to limit the former, but not the latter. The point of corporations should be to try risky ideas and implement them in business. If the business fails, shareholders don't lose anything other than the money they invested. But legal liability should not be limited. If the business idea involves abusing children in Africa (e.g. diamond mines), the shareholders and managers should be responsible for it from the day one.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

separate patent law for software by yuud · 2004-08-01 22:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't understand why US patents don't work differently for software? I was imagining: a) a much shorter lifespan of any patent (5 years maybe) b) if you don't develop anything to do with the patent after a year, it's considered void I know that b) might be hard to prove, but something along these lines are needed!

A simple solution by Ignatius · 2004-08-01 23:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

The idea of patents is to compensate innovators by temproarily restricting the freedom of all members of the jurististiction to which it applies, to take advantage of a fact (the invention), such that the original finder of that fact can make money, either by exploiting the fact itself or by charging others for the right to do so.

(Useful) facts are very much like real estate: You can only exercise you property right by limiting the rights of others. In any free society, you need a good reason for restricting the rights of the public; in the case of patents, this is done to compensate the inventor (the original finder of the fact) and thereby spur innovation. If patents aren't used to that end (and in the case of software patents, they rarely are), then they are damaging to society.

So what we need is a scheme, that encourages patents only if they are actually used to make money by making the benefits of the invention available to the public. This simplest way to do this is a price-dependent tax on patents.

Whoever wants to file a patent has to put a price tag to it, for which is is willing to sell out his patent to the public domain. He is completly free by selecting this price. However, to uphold his patent, he has to pay an annual fee of, say 1%, of this buy-out price. The price can be adapeted yearly but only in a range of, say, +/- 25%. If, during the runtime of the patent, anyone pays the patent holder the buy-out price, then the patent enters the public domain immediately.

If the patent is any good and actually used to produce goods or give away licences, 1% is a rather small amount. If its only used as a lockaway patent, to hinder innovation, protect an obsolete business model or as a weapon in court, then it is expensive, as it doesn't generate any direct revenue.

PLEASE make patents more expensive! by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · 2004-08-02 00:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am PRAYING that they make these patents much more expensive. The patents system is useless for regular people with non-fraudulent intentions. So it costs a few thousands of dollars. Big whoop. The cost to the industry of a bad patent can extend into hundreds of millions of dollars. (witness recent ridiculous patent decisions against Microsoft.)

At the very LEAST, they should be required to pay the hundreds of thousand dollars or so necessary to pay for REAL experts in the field to sort out crap patents from good patents.

Wrong Figures.... by zungu · 2004-08-02 00:21 · Score: 2, Informative

A patent does not cost $100,000 to file. The maximum a usual patent application will cost is $15,000 for the full process till it is issued. No way is the $1 million in legal fees number is correct. Further, this article seems to think that patents apply only to mechanical inventions. That leaves out half a universe of electrical, electronics and related technology. Not to mention chemical, biotech and pharmaceuticals. I can understand the slashdot crowd jumping with glee at such patent bashing, but the facts ought to be correct.

Slashdot Mirror

An Insider's View of Software Patents

87 of 405 comments (clear)