Slashdot Mirror
An Insider's View of Software Patents
An anonymous reader writes "Ross Gittins at the Sydney Morning Herald has published an interesting insider view of software patents. 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."
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
Er, it's control-H (^M) not control-D (^D) that erases. Control-D is eof. Get outa your GUI!
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...
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!
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?
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
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...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
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.)
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.
... sigh ...
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?
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
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.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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
... 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.
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?)
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
Trade deal a free kick for US software racketeers
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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."?
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
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.
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.