Slashdot Mirror
City of Munich Freezes Its Linux Migration
Jan0815 writes "Yesterday I received disturbing news from the CTO of Munich, Wilhelm Hoegner. As previously mentioned, there is a rising concern that software patents could stifle development of open source worldwide. FFII has complete coverage of what is going on in Europe." (FFII stands for Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure.) Reader jmt(tm) writes "The call for bids was supposed to be published in late July, but the Munich Green Party had pointed out about 50 possible patent conflicts which the city wants to evaluate before moving on."
I thought we did not have patents as of yet in the EU....
How come?
If any kind fellow who speaks German translates the PDF file for us poor Americans, it would be greatly appreciated, but hey, if ya' don't, thats okay too . . .
-Brandon
Would this to be anything to do with all the SCO crap from recent months? The effect of which is being seen here?
How can facing the saem problems with patents as closed source stop the installation..
Sounds like FUD to me..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Ask yourself: Why would the FFII do this research if it hinders the proces of linux in Munich? Altough their document has the following statement: In May the EU Council and Commission have reached "political agreement" to legalise software patents and reject all limits of patentability for which the European Parliament had voted in September 2003., software patents aren't already decided, the newly elected european parliament have to have their say and I think this is an effort to keep everybody focused. I'm thinking this focused maily on the ministers of the member states,last meeting they had this was past silently, but lateron the Dutch minister got some noise from the Dutch parliament. Now seeing Munich has much the same coalition as the German government, this might be directed to the German minister who's in that meeting.
Oh, common, did anyone else read "Munich freezes linux" and for about 10 seconds I'm like WHOAH It really IS cold over there....
It just goes to show that business is more powerful than Government - but hey we all knew that anyway.
----
I can only urge you to read the study that lists the potentially infringed patents./ swpatmuc.p df
http://www.ffii.org/~blasum/basisclient
Even though it is german there are a lot of patents listed in english and you will be able to see how incredibly absurd this whole thing is.
For example there are patents for:
- Tabbed Browsing
- Multitasking
- Using your browser to browse online forums
- Creating documents through macros
to just name a few.
The decision to freeze the project is more of a political statement to force the federal government to take a clear stand on the EU patent directive.
The green party wants to point out what harm a law that allows software patents can have for small and mid sized companies.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
That's crazy. After OSRM making a bad (public relation) move, this thing!
Some one please enlighten us. HOW CAN A OPEN SOURCE USER BE MORE LIABLE THAN A CLOSED SOURCE USER?
What I don't understand is why was the Green Party the one which raised those issues. I assumed they were a leftwing party, therefore less prone to accept doubtful patent claims.
Europeans readers, can you clarify this?
The good news about Linux is that as a distributed, non-owned asset, its difficult for owners of 'intellectual property' to pursue lawsuits that would prevent further kernel development. Who do you sue? Linus? If so, someone else will take over stewardship. If its problematic in the US and Germany, move repositories and organisations to Canada or Italy or Thailand...who cares?
The next generation of spurious lawsuits will be targeted at users of the technology. Without a blanket organisation to indemnify (sp?) the users, I suspect widespread adoption will slow very quickly. I was hoping IBM or a big player would step into this space (as per the one-off SCO lawsuit situation re: HP) but right now the scope of lawsuits is so vast that it would be suicide to do so in a blanket fashion.
When I buy and deploy MS, at least I know that EOLAS won't/can't come after me. Linux however faces increasing paralysis as this 'death by a thousand cuts' discourages widespread adoption.
Can anyone comment on the largest linux deployment in the world? How many large scale deployments exist? I'll ask people to ignore academic installations, as they are rarely relevant to corporate/government environments which drives the IT industry.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
the green party just brought up the software patent issue to get some attention to an existing problem - software patents.
:)
They are pro Linux (at least for Munich), and against (pure) software patents.
Just to prevent misunderstandings...
That could be fun.. "We're sueing you for using Linux"
"Try it... you can come to OUR courts and do it"
"..er..erm..but we can't use our money to win there"
"...hmmmm.. indeed"
I hope they do move over to it and then if Microsoft try anything they'd have to win with evidence and not with money.
I like muppets.
because problem is became so obious. It's not about will you or not use open source if software patents will be granted in US. You simply won't. Imagine all the good things what open source brings - Apache, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc. INCLUDING BSD operational systems, will be hard to use in the work and in enivorements you would like to. Even I guess Mozilla Firefox and OpenOffice.org could be in harm. It's time to stop program patents, NOW. There's no discussion about half-backed solutions. It must be stopped.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
...the Munich Green Party had pointed out about 50 possible patent conflicts which the city wants to evaluate before moving on.
Gee, I wonder where they got such a coMprehen$ive list from?
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I just wasted someone's bandwith downloading a pdf in a language I do not speak or read. A simple change in the story headlines labeling it as german would have prevented this. Hint.
Anyway, I wonder why people are surprised. Too much under the table cash available to not have software patents become "the law" everywhere, no nation or group of nations is immune to corruption in government. In fact, I'd go so far as to state as it's more fact than not that all governments are by default corrupt. Anytime you have individuals in charge of making a decision, and there are billions of *monetary units* in the mix, some of those units will change hands to get reality morphed. "Government" is just as much a for-sale business as any other human endeavor. Altruism basically only exists in the dictionary, it doesn't exist in the global marketplace, especially in the markets known as "governments". Patents, DRM other sorts of schemes will continue to increase in scope, all over. In fact, I'd say things like the SCO deal going on right now are just the first of many that will make it harder and harder to have free and open source software of any quality, it's only a matter of time before the developers start finding themselves in court. Big international software business is not going to remain passive, even with a few large companies giving the illusion of support for FOSS right now. That is temporary, and the proof is that you see zero efforts by those billion buck companies to lobby for any change in the laws. If they were serious, you'd see them sponsoring and lobbying for a change to the IP patent laws, and they aren't.
So ? Maul zu, untermensch !
If software patents are adopted in a country (or co-op like EU), it is more likely governments will shy away from OSS.
Although most patents filed seem to be common practice/prior art, the legal fees associated with fighting these 'illegal' patents seems to be the prohibitive factor.
It's the old 'I know I am right but it would cost more to fight so I am giving in'.
Who's side thay are? With US or with them.
For the FSF and Open Source Software organizations to begin filing patents for any applicable technology. You can't fight this by not holding any.
mbbac
Yep, this is pretty bad, as you can register a patent pretty much for anything, there is not much supervision/oversight.
But once registered it can be a powerful force for fear without every actually being tested.
If you wanted to design something to create the most FUD for the least action, you couldnt do much better than this.
Bill financed Darl's little fishing expedition.
This whole thing is Microsoft FUD.
The FFI press release says "Software patents are considered the greatest danger to the usage and development of Linux and other Free Software."
However, it is MUCH worse than that. Software patents are a danger to ALL software development, particularly software done by small firms or in-house, which is where most of the software development is done. If software is patentable, and if all those obvious patents are granted and upheld. No-one will be able to develop any software for fear of being sued.
I hope the software patents issue is not seen to be only an issue for Open Source and Linux. It's not. It's a danger to all of us. Even if companies will still create new software, it will be much more expensive due to research and defense of possible patent infringement, patent fees, and additional coding to work around expensive patents.
Dear City of Munich,
Did you know Linux may be infringing on 50 patents from other operating systems? I was concerned for your well being and thought you should know.
Sincerly, Bill
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
And this is different from proprietary software, how? Sounds like BS to me.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
This whole story is mainly an attention whoring attempt of the Green party to fill in the summer gap. Traditionally 2nd rate MPs spew out pretty stupid proposals during the summer holidays for journalist who don't know what to write as nothing happens in politics.
It's very that any of these announcements has consequences. But I think we can assume that the responsibles for the Linux migration project are on holidays, too, and some 2nd level guy overstepped his competences.
.. FUD! Not only are patents not currently legal, but there aren't even any patents! These people are afraid to deploy something that might possibly conflict with a patent application. This is just plain silly. Why is it that the only time politics has to be involved with the choice of a software product is when the software product isn't one sold by Microsoft?
Steal This Sig
FFII has complete coverage of what is going on in Europe
Who else read that as Final Fantasy 2 has complete coverage of what is going on in Europe
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Looks like SCO has managed to create enough of a fuss to get things like this looked at. IMO software patents are the devil and here is one result of them.
Lets consider tabbed browsing, and 169 degre opening doors on these new Nissan Titans.
My company spends millions building this door, the hinge is a peice of work requireing many hours of effort and testing. We pantent it all of course and are awarded it and people buy our trucks for it's superior way of opening vs say a ford with the same feature.
Tabbed browsing should be considered in this same light. Everyone should be able to implement tabbed browsing. Company X could code it one way and Company Y would code it another way. Both have tabbed browsing, one's method is superior, provides more features, and the code size and memory footprint per tab is lower than the competitor.
Just blindly posting patents for the idea is wrong. Software patents should be more specific and not on the general idea. Yes you can have a patent on a tabbed browser but not on the tab metod itself just your way of coding it.
I was wondering why the Greens and co would come out with this paper. Especially since the CSU loves patents! Hey I voted for them once and will regret it for the rest of my life!
I truly hope that software patents are not allowed in Europe. Patents are bad! Copyrights are fine, but patents give monopolies on ideas which multiple people can think of.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
But BSA can and will. It's just a different kind of liability.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
One would hope that the patent review will also ensure an in-depth audit of any alternative operating systems and applications software for issues present there. And if that can't be done, then a clear statement that it is not possible to establish the patent risk of using the alternatives.
I can only urge you to read the study that lists the potentially infringed patents. http://www.ffii.org/~blasum/basisclient/swpatmuc.p df
Even though it is german there are a lot of patents listed in english and you will be able to see how incredibly absurd this whole thing is.
For example there are patents for:
- Tabbed Browsing
- Multitasking
- Using your browser to browse online forums
- Creating documents through macros
to just name a few.
And here's the link for us lazy folk.
If my theory is correct, it is an incredibly dangerous game they are playing. However, if it helps stop software patents in Europe it is worth it, even if it means losing Munich to Microsoft. It would be losing a battle to win the war.
In principle, this sounds like good business practice to me. If choosing a particular product seems to expose you to nasty legal action against you, you naturally want to assess the risk and consequences before making your decision.
Products from Microsoft or Sun are just as likely to contain infringing code as Linux, but if such code is found, it's likely that the producer of the software finds itself at the wrong end of a lawsuit, not the users. The scary bit about the problems with Linux and purported IP infringement, is that the people laying claim to parts of Linux go after the users, since there is no real producing company to sue.
So it is accurate to state that software patents stifle free, open software development specifically. To use software patents against an incorporated competitor isn't very practical. You'll have to actually fight your claim in court, since your competitor's product is their bread and butter, and it'll be worth it to them to defend it. But to fight an OSS competitor, it is enough to threaten potential customers with a lawsuit... to them, the risk of a lawsuit isn't worth it, and they are likely to choose a non-OSS solution (unless they think the claimant has no case whatsoever).
You can be sure that Gates & Balmer are dancing a little jig after hearing this news... I'm not against patent law per se, but lately we see too many examples of corporations threatening to sue over the most outrageous claims on IP, and getting their way by scare tactics, not having to prove their claims or even spending one penny in court. I fail to see how this practice is in the 'publics best interest', as the proponents of software patents claim it is.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Could this be a cunning plan to show the Germans and the rest of Europe exactly how patents on software would screw everyone over.
I mean the no i'm sorry governement X you can't do that as MS owns your software and their licene says the souls of all the inhabitants of your city. So stop using that linuxy stuff now or pay us $$$$ stupid price so we don't sue you then move to windows this very second.
All operating systems run the risk of infringing upon patents. How can anyone choose one system over another based on the same type of risk?
Since Windows is much bigger (code-wise) than *BSD/Linux/Amiga/etc., would that not mean that it has a higher chance of running into patent issues?
Would the users be immune to the issue since they did not infringe (the software developer(s) did)? Eolas did not go after the users but Microsoft.
It seems this event is showing the world how dangerous software patents are. It's better to put a project at risk and rise awareness about this issue, than go on doing business as usual and wait until MS decides to shut OS/FS down using an unjust patent system.
Es ist alle Kuhscheiss.
OK - I admit I can't read much German but there isn't much Linux involved here.
It all seems to be userspace. Even CIFs is still a SAMBA issue rather than Linux.
I thought that big linux companies like Novell and Sun announced that they would indemnify their customers a long time ago. Why shouldn't it be safe for Munich to go on with the bidding process as long as they ensure that the bidder must indemnify them from patent claims on linux source code.
They should NOT be painting this as just a Linux problem.
They need to immediately do an excruciatingly thorough search for software patents that Microsoft software may be infringing. Be sure to include ALL of the software in the Microsoft package - from Windows to Office to Media Player to Outlook and Exchange to Microsoft IIS webserver to PowerPoint to Internet Explorer, everything.
Presuming they find a few, then obviously the EU needs to "freeze" any Microsoft purchases as well.
Oh, and while they are at it, IBM has a couple of active software patent infringments against SCO in court right now. So if by some odd chance some EU government office is dealing with SCO software, well I guess they'll just have to "freeze" that too. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Want to see a legal version of windows? I can make a copy of mine, so you can see what it looks like.
Are the greens complete idiots? They aim to abuse and destroy the most famous success story of Open Source Software just for the sake of software patents. They have created more harm to OSS than Microsoft managed to create in München with all their money and dirty tactics.
The guy who made the inquiry to the München administration claimed to be a "supporter of OSS". Uhh. All the Microsoft's FUD pales in comparison with this "self-FUD". Oh how they must be laughing right now.
While I entirely support most of the environmental and economical issues of the greens, and have voted for them occasionally, they have proven amazingly irrationally stubborn in their opposition to nuclear power and certain other issues. Politicians are not guaranteed to be from the brightest class of humanity, and this case very much proves that.
The problem, of course, is that most of the others are even worse choises than greens.
Ok, so I can't mod this discussion anymore, but it has to be said ...
Seeing all the stunts that have been pulled by the big lobbyists in the last year or so, in order to pass the software-patent litigati^W legislation (I live in Europe, and followed the debate, more or less), it is not at all unlikely that the Green Party of Munich uses a different tactic now to get a broader audience's attention. Remmeber, the upcoming law might be ratified by the Europeean Parliament in no more than 6 weeks!
The decision to freeze the project is more of a political statement to force the federal government to take a clear stand on the EU patent directive.
While some are saying that this is indeed a political strategy that could backfire, it's worth noting that even if it achieved the exact opposite of its intended purpose, this could be beneficial.
First of all, it raises the profile of the patent disaster greatly, and if software patents go ahead and block the takeup of open software then everyone will be pointing huge fingers at the pro-patent supporting politicians and blaming them for increased taxation and wasting public money as a result of not being able to use our lower-cost systems in government. It'll provide a very useful mallet for knocking sense into politicians (pure reason doesn't work too well).
Secondly, if government isn't able to use open software then it will necessarily have to use inferior proprietary systems and hence it will be less effective. A weaker government is a very good thing, at least from the point of view of the libertarian community. Opinions differ on this a lot of course, and certainly the fervent socialists would not see a less effective goverment as a good thing. However, even they would probably agree that a 1984-style scenario would be slightly less bad if a totally intrusive government chose to use inferior tools.
So, not all is lost, even if the greens have misjudged the outcome of this completely.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The only protection any software needs is a copyright. A copyright protects the owner's right to the expression (code). You can't copyright an idea (As shown in that texas case posted earlier, having thoughts of a program grants no rights, only writing the code implies copyright. This may have been part of the grounds for the ruling.)
When you really think about it, that is what software is, it's the expression of whatever you're coding (a tab, a purchase order, an email sorter).
So what needs to be decided is this: Is software an artistic expression of a concept (copyright) or is software an invention (patent)?
I tend to think of my software as an art form, expression of a concept (copyright). No one can copy my code, but anyone can see a program and say "hey that's a good idea, let's do something like that". This is how ideas evolve, ultimately benefitting society.
Imagine if some music artist patented the C chord, how much would music suffer if no other artist could use that sound? However, the sequence of sounds (like software code) is rightfully protected by copyright.
[I couldn't find his email at a cursory glance - maybe someone can 1) email him and 2) post a reply saying they did so he doesn't get 20000 emails]
1. Please be aware that there are a great many people who are invested in helping you be able to roll out linux in Munich.
2. Assuming that EU patent law bears some similarity to US law and that the body of software patents bears some similarity, the key to destroying poorly issued software patents is prior art.
3. A call from you for us to help you find prior art would meet with tremendous response. Even moreso if you could arrange to translate the list of probable patent violations into English.
thank you.
[Really, anyone with appropriate linguistic capabilities could put up a webboard for discussion and translate the patent pdf]
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Any program of any size will infringe on dozens to many thousands of them. I don't think you can even write hello world in any language without infringing on at least a few patents. Stuff like java,python,perl,php, slashdot, mozilla, opera, kde, windows, probably violate thousands of patents and realistically you can be sued at any time for any of those since neither open or closed stuff gives you any kind of warranty from that kind of stuff and realistically they can't.
Software patents are a mine field. Anyone using//developing software is in a huge minefield and no matter where you step there is a landmine. The odds are when you put your foot down the mine will not explode but it is still a minefield. Once you are in the middle of the minefield it is too late to worry about violating software patents. Overall the only real option is just to ignore software patents and never look them up or learn much about them. At least then you can not be found to violate the patent on purpose which lessens the penalty and it makes it easier to disprove the patent.
Work needs to be done to throw out software patents but until then ignoring them seems to be best.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
You where alseep in US DOJ vs Microsoft right ?
...
The Country won , Microsoft punishment whas a laughing mather , its like giving a drug dealer the punishment of giving away free some drug for a certain amount
Actually I am not anonymous coward /
The only significant difference between DOS and Unix is in the following:
Root at Unix
Root at DOS \
And nobody still could find similarities after 20 years? Are we all mad? Advice for Linux community:
Rise a case against illegal use Unix in Windows.
Than, user should have the same difficult choice between Windows and Linux.
A patent isn't for an idea, it is for an method to implement a feature.
You own your hinge, if someone else wants a wide opening door they would have to develop a new method not to infringe.
If tabbed browsing was patented, and someone wanted to group multiple web pages under one logical window, they would have to create their own new method.
It is the specific solution that is patented, be it a fancy hinge or tabs to show the web pages.
Think wide opening doors and grouping web pages as the goal. Fancy hinge and tabs as the method to accomplish it.
The only way to slow down the proliferation of LINUX is to tie it up in litigation. Even if there is no basis, the software can be tied up in court so long that no-one can use it. At that point developers tend to go away and we are left with nothing to work towards. The problem isn't software patents, the problem is trivial software patents. This lets big companies such as MS and others eliminate other products by owning so many software patents that new-comers cannot get a foot in the door. MS has a push for 3000 patents next year I hear. Even if a programmer comes up with the same idea, chances that there will already be something so similar that the big company can make the introduction of the competition too costly and time consuming, and the new-comer will go away.
Why does it matter if Linux itself is violating any software patents? Shouldn't the companies that distribute Linux be worried about the patents, NOT the users of the distributions? If I were Munich, I'd go right ahead with the deployment and let IBM, SuSE, Novell, Red Hat, etc. deal with the software patent issues because THEY are the ones distributing the software.
http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/bb_dir/presse/2004/ 08/99502/limux_softwarepatent.html
Here's a translation:
The [Bavarian] state capital Munich certainly holds on to the Linux project that was decided on by its city council, and upholds its strategic decision in favor of an open source project. [reference to dpa report, a German news agency]
"It was just yesterday that the IT experts of the city explained the strategic benefits of its Linux project to the city administrations of Augsburg and Nuremberg [two other Bavarian cities, Nuremberg is the 2nd largest one]. We were pleased to see that those cities, like Vienna (Austria), are interested in Munich's open source solution." All that is correct to say is that the bidding process for the base client has been temporarily put on hold because the legal and financial risks due to a draft directive proposed by the EU Competitiveness Council (which would allow for the very broad patentability of software) need to be checked into.
In the opinion of the mayor, it is now the highest priority that all European municipalities and enterprises that have a vested interest in open source take influence on the EU institutions and the national governments of the EU member states. The goal must be that the envisioned directive does not take effect as a European law. In that regard, Munich concurs with a decision by the European Parliament, "which once again is attempted to be turned around and into the opposite, by small EU committees that pander to the interests of large corporations".
They might as well give up and go back to using pen and paper if they are worried about software patents because using microsoft products or any other proprietary products will not protect them.
That's actually entirely wrong. You've got mixed up with copyrights, which do indeed apply to end users.
Patents apply to the manufacturers of items that infringe on patents, not to their end users. Judges would almost certainly consider the incorporated distro companies to be the "manufacturers" in this case since at the very least they manufacture their distro packs and market them as products. No half-sane judge would point at the open-source developers as the "manufacturers", simply because that can of worms would be immense, and the distro companies are an easy target.
It's because of this that buying proprietary software does indeed protect end users against claims for patent royalties, since their supplier picks up the tab. In contrast, the instant that a Linux distro company receives a patent claim, they suddenly cease to be able to distribute any GPL'd code (that's in black and white in the license), so as a user you end up without supplier support and without supplier continuity. (We might not care about that, but a government would.)
Extrapolate this to all commercial distros, and clearly the open-source scene would have to change a lot if patent claims get legal backing.
Should legislate a 7 years limit on software patents please. Thanks.
When FUD works so well.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Is this the first of many wins for Microsoft in the legal area?
Just a thought... I have read the other posts suggesting that it's a protest / symbolic action, but still...
MOD PARENT UP!
I think this is exactly what the greens are up to. The greens were against the EU patents. They are the small partner of the SPD in Munich and in the administration of Germany. The SPD is more or less silently tolerating the EU patent legislation. This stunt should force them to take a clear position.
I thought the Green Party usually contains a bunch of technology hating hippie Luddites? Who the Hell is trusting them you understand software, let alone software patents?
# US5819281: Notification of aspect value change in object-oriented programming (owned by EDS)
# US5983227: Dynamic page generator (Yahoo)
# US6025810: Hyper-Light-Speed antenna (also accelerates plant growth)
# US05443036: Exercising a cat with a laser pointer (note that it took two people to think of this )
So, it doesn't even have to be cool, it seems....
Inane PatentsThe wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
The above seems rather insightful.
Easy fix. OS developers grant control of their patents to a central repository like the EFF, Then we use the bank of patents to threaten countersuits.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
this is why we decided to freeze this huge project, that the SPD, the major partner in the german administration and our political partner in this project, just cant allow to fail. The had too much trouble with toll-collect, a recent huge waste of tax money. That way the SPD just cant continue to silently support software patents in the EU. Without a EU software patent law, we happyly invite you to OUR courts to discuss this in full detail.
Yours sincerly, the greens of germany
P.S.: Did you manage to unbundle your software from your OS in the meantime, or do we need to call the EU to fine you again?
The real issue is the totally stupid "software" patents issued by ignorant offices.
I.e. the "one click buy" patent, the tabbed browsing and even methods for embedding "something" in a browser are examples of ignorance and stupidity.
There are 1000 ways to code "one click buy" commerce functionality - but only ONE patent for it. That's what's wrong. It should be the code and the algorithms there where the target for patents NOT the method. As an example I could file for a method for making a car move. That would be the engine, and that would be ridiculous in the eyes of engineers. Such a patent would never make it trough the patent offices. Of course there would be prior act, but in many situations prior act is forgotten or the little man are afraid of the battle with the "mastodont" - an whole other issue.
Therefore I must conclude that the people patenting software methods and functionality are somehow not fit for the job.
It is then up to us citizen of the world, to raise a flag saying that the entire world will be in state of limbo if the current insane software patent wave continues.
Next time I file a patent it should be for bad endings in novels!
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
This news just makes me so happy, long live Software Patents, Long live SCO, Long live proprietary software.
If this is sufficient to get the EU to dump their proposed software patent laws then the "reality" will have been changed.
In which case, the "idealism" you mentioned will become the "reality".
So let's just drop those terms. Rather, this is an example of the negative effect software patents have on writing software.
They should charge a nominal fee ($100) for each software patent application, but fine the applicant with $100k if the patent is rejected, the examiner gets a 10% comission for all revenues generated (fees & fines).
Although the original auther didn't bother, here is a basic list of what some of the patents are:
Tabbed browsing...
Reading fees for web based applications...
Web shopping basket....
60 Firewall patents....
Jpeg compression...
Windowing systems...
Document creation via macros...
Multitasking...
SMB/CIFS...
Web based deployment...
These patents are literally criminal. Why bother to use a computer at all. Why bother to even consider working in IT since, due to patents, you're fucked the moment you write your first line of code. Christ alfuckingmighty, Microsoft and these fucking patents make one feel like being back in the fucking dark ages when you were forced by law to pay taxes to the fucking church just because they were there.
I'm going to work in a fucking restaurant as a waiter. At least there I know why the customers and the boss treat me like shit.
mod parent up, please
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
If you are a member of the WTO trading community, you will end up having to honor other countries patents eventually..
Regardless if it violates your laws or not.. So there is 'free and equal trade'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Of course we ought to be opposing software patents, but this is a total gift to the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt merchants. The Munich project has been a flagship for Open Source rollouts world-wide. That is one hell of a hole the German Greens have blown in the feet of the open source movement, all for the sake of cheap political posturing. Microsoft will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I think I understand what you are saying.
The key point with a patent is that it is the method to achieve a particular solution.
They patented a 'fancy hinge', but tabbed browsing would be a 'fancy browser organization system'.
You can use any organization system, but not their fancy tabbed one.
The goal of a patent is to spread it as wide as possible.
OS developers grant control of their patents to a central repository like the EFF, Then we [...] threaten countersuits
The problem is that it costs (a lot of ?) money to file a patent.
So perhaps they shouldn't just install a zillion copies of Debian; perhaps they should cut a deal with SUSE or another distributor that indemnifies them against claims, provides support and still saves bajillions of dollars over working with Microsoft. Would that be so horrible?
I'm against Stupid Patents too and want to see a world where a large organization can safely run Debian without worrying about them, but there's definitely a middle ground between "radically free" and "100% Microsoft."
Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/
Sue 'em...
...I was going to install linux... but I was afraid that MSFT might sue me for using a 3 buttoned mouse with an integrated horizonal scroll wheel...
Looks like marketing and law (patent system), is now the ultimate form of FUD...
This is very similar to the GPL, which uses copyright law to enforce derivitave works also be GPL'd.
Sounds good. FSF, are you listening? Get your lawyers to work on the legal licensing terms and let's get pantenting!
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Thank you for saving us all from being forced to use a kind of communist OS that wont allow us to run Outlook and MSN Messenger, the applications we actually use the most to get through the day, while we man the Municher municipal offices. Thank you so much. Regards, the Municher municipal workers.
If Munich investigates there will be a lot of benefit to everyone, because:
1. It is a governmental body and nominally objective
2. All the outcomes, including all the argumentation leading to the outcomes will be published in the public domain. This would not occur in a private enterprise
3.a) if it does still go ahead, it will open the foodgates to others accepting the argumentation in 2.
b) if it fails, then all the failing points will be clearly marked as points to work on, approximating the size of the task and cutting down the issues to the core points. Advocates will have to spend less time with Lawyers to sift to the same result.
Thanks Munich, thanks Munich taxpayers!
Patents may suck, but there are ways to address problems, not just bemoan that they exist.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
I'll put on my tinfoil hat play the Devil's Advocate here and give you a highly unlikely but still possible senario here. What if the City of Munichare using this as a dog and pony show to get the deal of the life time from MS? For example...
City of Munich: MS, unless you give use the deal of the life time, we are going to use Linux.
MS: Go ahead, I'm calling your bluff.
City of Munich: Hello world! We are switching to Linux and here's our plan.
MS: Ok, ok, we will give you a kick ass deal but I want to you make the switch without everyone finding out about the deep discount.
City of Munich: We are halting the plans of deploying Linux due to the patent issue.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
... because the Bureaucrats are now being stung by it.
It's a strange idea, but I've been thinking that we need for government to think about implementing a "defensive patent" registry where ideas can be registered for defensive purposes only. The barriers for a defensive patent examination might be much lower and have no "expiration." They could not be used as a basis for regular patents, but could be used to establish a standard for what "practicing experts" in a field are capable of for review of unique patents.
I suppose the difference is that Microsoft has a lot of cash in a single basket, which makes it a target for lawsuits and whatnot, whereas there is no central money basket to go after for "linux" -- lawyers would go after wealthy because that's where the money is; legally, though, would there be anything to keep them from going after Windows users with a claim to the effect that those users are knowingly collaborating in patent infringement (or are using a system they aren't sure doesn't infringe upon others' patents)?
...then only outlaws will use Linux! Seriously this could be one of the outcomes if the craziness of software patents continues to spread. Because let's face it, many if not most of us using Linux are going to keep using it regardless of the outcome of current litigation. And in many companies Linux came in through the backdoor anyway.
So what does that leave us with? I don't expect to patent holders to come sniffing around every single company that may be using Linux somewhere, especially since no one will be widely advertising its use in a hostile patent environment. And of course continued development of Linux will work around the patent problem and continue as before.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
This is from U.S. Patent Office:
Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent
It seems to me that many of the patent applications are obvious to those in the informed community. Perhaps something is gained in the public eye in merely applying for the patents? As I recall, IBM used to publish statistics on how many patents they created each year as a sign to how progressive they were.
I would like to see a GNU or EFF project aimed at documenting prior art of 'obvious' inventions to aid the USPTO in expelling such claims. Perhaps a web crawler or blog format that gives a voice to the EFF community to prevent these outrageous claims.
Suncoast Linux - Sarasota, FL
Face it, unless there are some drastic changes in how we are governed GNU/Linux will be basicly dead in five or ten years.
Do not forget this: It is the goal of the richest people of this world to retain and increase their wealth by whatever means they can. They hire "digital sharecroppers" to create ideas that are kept in peonage. They get laws passed that will keep others from competing with their unjustly gained bounty. Those individuals that create the works with the greatest monetary value rarely share in the wealth that is gained from them. Bill Gates is the richest man around but how much of his code is still in use today?
IMO we need to end software and business model patents and let people create in freedom.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
hmm... ya` know - i've run into a number of nifty ideas that seem so obvious, in retrospect, that i think (at the time) that i should'a come up with that idea, years ago.
case in point: measuring/mapping a 3D surface via optical interferometry. after those double-slit experiments in high-school physics, the rest follows... split the beam, reflect 1/2 off from a [nearly] perfectly flat surface, and the other 1/2 from the surface of your sample. merge the two beams and look for interference patterns. if you know the wavelength of light you were using, you can infer the dimensions of the sample surface, based on these interference patterns.
simple.
but...
i didn't come up with that idea, back in high-school physics, when all of the necessary information was made available to me. neither did a lot of other people.
no matter how obvious something might be, in retrospect, that's no reflection on how important the original idea was.
...i think i just heard ballmer come in his pants all the way over here on the east coast.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
"Presuming they find a few, then obviously the EU needs to "freeze" any Microsoft purchases as well."
Hmm...how much money does microsoft have, exactly? And a patent on what? Double-clicking? Surely not....well, I suppose no-one attempting to sure them will end up reaching an unfavourable settlement because they found themselves faced with more 'violation of patent' lawsuits than they filed against Microsoft in the first place, then.
Not that I think this scenario is in any way fair, it is what's going to happen. Business as usual for the biggest fish.
Write your software. Period.
If it is infringing on anybody's patents, you will show diligence and stop infringing.
If it is an innovative product, you are creating prior art thus blocking any idiots trying to patent your idea. Of course there is always somebody trying to pull a SCO in legal systems that are utterly broken, but you can't do much about that, can you?
Write code, learn, enjoy it and face the situation if it arises. There is nothing the common person can do about this, the most softwar is produced the more difficult it becomes for any stupid dishonest company or person to appropriate ideas they did not create.
And of course do all what you can to abolish software patents. They are an aberration and a danger to knowledge advancement in societies that uphold them.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If we could get the person(s) who invented text based computing to patent it and charge $1 million per user/license we could hold the world economy hostage.
The choice would be clear - either shut down every computer on the planet and go back to the stone age or revamp patent law to be useful and relevant to society.
It may sound harsh - "reform or die" - but it's really not any different from the slow death we're suffering now as we passively let the rich, greedy fingers clamp around our necks.
Perhaps the example I mentioned is too old to be patentable but we have to be able to come up with something.
You know the party calls itself the greens, and you obviously have some idea of their policies, so why exactly would they only be from the 'brightest class of humanity' if they supported nuclear power, in spite of the enviromental concerns?
It's every development shop, every coder, and IT oriented project for every OS on the planet being hindered.
Too lazy to create a sig...
software patents in closed source software are just wrong. with the software being closed source, nobody gets to see the algorithms anyway. infact patenting something could be interpritted as a way of saying "here's how we do it, you cant do it this way".
The risk of a patent invalidating you city's 5,000 installed linux desktops is todays issue.
An open source license violation lawsuit in your critical application will be tomorrow's issue.
Does everyone realize that MS Windows has hundreds of Patent violations,
Fact is, there are so many patents out there right now that you can't do anything without breaking at least a few of them.
Companies maintain defensive patents, sort of a "mutual destruction" scenerio. Just need to create a patent pool for the OSS people so we can be in the same boat as everyone else, unwilling to use, and too expensive to use against.
This sig is the express property of someone.
If software patents are passed, that means that it becomes VERY DIFFICULT for new software companies to start up.
Microsoft is filing for 2,000 patents this year and says they'll file for 3,000 next year.
So, if software patents pass in the EU, the EU will not have a software industry and will continue to have to pay Microsoft. This is NOT in the best interest of the EU.
"I think this gets back to the Open Source/Free Software divide in the community -- is Linux a superior platform because of its Openness, or is just part of a whole ideological ball of wax that wants to overthrow the Intellectual Property system?"
The GPL is based upon "the Intellectual Property system".
You are confusing technical advancement with legal concepts. They are NOT the same.
The advantages of peer review has been shown again and again in all other sciences.
"Apparently they failed to understand that hardly anyone sees Linux on the Desktop as logical and as inevitable as they do, so people were paying close attention to their progress. From an advocacy standpoint, it was critical that Munich would be a "Success Story" and not a "Martyr"."
That depends upon your goals. Suppose Munich goes ahead with Linux on the desktop AND the EU passes the software patent laws?
Then Munich gets sued and everyone sees that Linux on the desktop is a failure.
Rather, Munich starts to move to Linux on the desktop, certain groups try to get the EU to adopt software patent law and Munich stops their deployment to show how stupid those laws are.
It all depends upon your goal.
Evil Bill: I did it with McBrides penis
A year ago the very suggestion that fear over IP could have stalled a major Linux migration would have been a laugher. Now, it's deadly serious.
Score: Microsoft 1, World 0
One Open Source software business model simply accepts that the software has no sale value and no incremental cost. (A CD has an incremental cost, but that isn't latered by changing the pattern of dots on it).
So if the software lies around like leaves on the forest floor and the saleable thing is advice on which ones to pick up and how to use them...
whatever percentage of the sale value a patent-asserter demands is of little relevance, and it is unclear to me that they have any right to prevent the use of the software.
Sale of new software written for money, yes.
Not having software patents over here, yet, I may be misunderstanding something about them?
Everyone gnu the penguin was not up to the test.
How about that! After 14 years of professional software development, the number of programmers I've encountered who searched the patent literature for something useful has gone from zero to one. Maybe things are changing. Whether you found something useful or not is a matter of debate. Regardless, algorithms are not statutory material for a patent.
Software patents are there, anywhere. This is
... Wouldn't it be a good idea for
...
the ugly reality. But the patent itself is not good
or wrong - so it can be used as weapon for both sides in the current system.
It will only see that something is wrong if there
is a big hit
the EFF or FSF to 'call for patents'? Perhaps they
get some hundreds, hopefully in these hundreds there is one really 'nasty simple but
enforceable' patent. And then they may go on to war - not for compensation, but for
cease-and-desist, or 'under GPL only',
as they may like.
Patent gives you not only right to license, it gives you the right not-to-license at all too.
I think, this would be interesting
In doing this Munich have now invited litigation and possibly increased damages should they proceed with their Linux move.
Well we had a good run didn't we? It was fun while it lasted.
What is the patent situation for the BSD kernels?
-1: Talking out of hole at wrong end.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
http://www.webpatent.com/knowbase/evaluate/law/law 11380.htm
Yet we still see patents for "one click" and "double click" being awarded.
The insightfulness of your comment is interesting to me. What market is being stifled here? Linux and open-source software are free. There is no "market" in free.
The US constitution, legislation, and Supreme Court are all consistent with what you said. It's the USPTO and certail lower courts that have allowed software patents, contradicting higher precedent.
As if closed source isn't going to violate the bazillions of retarded patents aswell. I mean they'll just be doing it more descreetly.
I'm all for strict retarded copyright laws, they match nicely with the total lack of civil liberty that's developing. Eventually people will catch on is strong enough numbers to revert.
Cost:
-people can't use an idea for a certain amount of time without paying the inventor (this time is incredibly long in any high tech field, including software)
- forces programmers to review their software for use of patents.
- Introduces costs for patent searches.
Benefit:
- it encourages spending on research and technology (the software patents we hear about didn't require much of this other than writing the code - the "invention" was just a natural result of the design of the product)
- it encourages inventors to disclose their inventions (while this may be useful for things like manufacturing processes that would otherwise be trade secrets, software almost inherently discloses the invention when the software is released)
Basically the only reason to introduce softwarepatents is if you want to kickstart the economy, it's like hiring a man to dig a hole, and hiring another to fill it... Just for lawyers!!!
Has anyone bothered to point out the possible patent conflicts in Microsoft Windows to the City of Munchen?
There has to be at least one or two...!
How could we have known patents would be so bad? If only somebody had warned us. If only one of those open source websites could have put up some information on their homepage directing us to the possible problems these patents could cause governments in the EU. Hrmmm. I really wish someone had done this. Don't you?
The German Green party is spoiling a real linux win for the higher cause of software patents?
Looks like they share a viewpoint with Nader. Throw the baby out with the bathwater to teach the water company a lesson.
Sigh. Here is a better link.
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
I thought the Green Party was liberal? WTF are they doing?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Thank God no one has patented the selection sort algorithm that we all wrote in Intro. to Computer Science, we'd all be sued!
So, how would software patents come into play, should such an event become more likely? Would it matter? Could an AI be patented, or violate patents simply by existing? If so, what would be the remedy?
We are thinking in the here-and-now, not bothering to realize that next year may be vastly different from this year, because we are thinking of change as a linear progression, rather than exponential. How many advances in technology and other fields have happenned, just this year, that would have seemed like science fiction only a few years ago? What will next year bring? How about the next 10 years? If the theory of singularity is true, the next 20 years are going to be an insane and very bumpy ride. The next 10 years after that may open the door to possible immortality, if we transition from meatspace to "virtual" space.
Something that people seem to forget is that hardware and software are exactly the same! Any emulator can show you that. In theory, hardware is not needed (and according to ANKOS, for all of its insights and flaws, this seems to be one of the conclusions of Wolfram). Furthermore, our bodies, our cells, our DNA - is a vast, distributed, emergent computational system - we seem to think we are special, when it seems that in reality, we are nothing more than patterns of energy which have gained consciousness and bodies.
If the theory of singularity is true, patents on software will do nothing but attempt to hold back and stifle the inevitable. I don't know about you, but I would like to be alive if (when?) the singularity arrives...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
... the patent systems are broken, even those who deny it but use its brokeness to their advantage.
BUT.... nobody knows how to fix it!!!
The problems lies in the "Right to Exclude"...
I know how to fix it but I've applied for a patent on it and when its granted to me I will use it to exclude any solution like it from being applied.
Wonder if the software discount they offered previously is still in effect?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
What about closed source patents.
Yeah, dismiss me as a "Windows troll" because you disagree with me. I imagine you probably abbreviate Microsoft as "M$," don't you?
This is a requote of the news, originally taken from Wininformant:
Fun Fact About Those Linux PCs in Munich
And speaking about Linux stories you don't hear much from the Linux-loving mainstream press, consider the following. Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers? One aspect of this story that most people don't know about is that up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare, a virtual machine emulator, under which they will run Windows and Windows applications. That's right, folks: The majority of those "Linux desktops" will be used to run Windows. I'm not a big fan of Gartner, but they've issued a report, correctly titled, "Munich's Choice Doesn't Prove Linux OK for General Desktop Use," that raises some interesting issues. First, many of the Windows desktops they're migrated are very old Windows versions like Windows 3.1, making the switch to Linux less painful (it would be equally painful to switch to XP). Gartner says the cost of switching to Linux will cost 30 million Euros, or 3 million Euros more than it would cost to switch to XP, not including any steep discounts Microsoft would have no doubt provided. And finally, because most of the Linux machines will use VMWare to run Windows anyway, Linux is really being used as a hosting environment, and not as a replacement. In other words, this isn't exactly a good business case on which other companies can base a decision to migrate to Windows desktops. And, not coincidentally, that's why we're not reading about a lot of other high-profile Linux switchers.
Do you plan to apologize to me now or later? It was even mentioned on Slashdot!
Everyone should watch the documentary "The Corporation".
Of course most of us have seen the trend with Patents and intellectual property.
Corporations, from pressure to profit at any cost, would like to own (and rent to you) every piece of information possible: algorithms, art, science, biology. People don't own any information. Instead, unaccountable, immortal corporate entities do.
Time-Warner owns the song "Happy birthday to you". If you sing it please pay the royalty.
It's almost time to throw the tea in the harbor again.
I've studied the history of the Green's in Germany as well as the rest of Europe.
Their views on a variety of issues are pretty darned predictable. To this conservative they are almost always goofy, but predictably goofy.
This time their objections are totally out of character. I don't know if Germany has the transparency of political donations that exists in the US.
I want to know if donations from Redmond can be the reason for the Green's sudden interest in possible patent violations. Didn't Steve Ballmer go ballistic when they lost in Munich?
The Green's are believers in the old axim, "the ends justify the means". I have no problem believing they could justify taking Microsoft's money and putting it to "good use" for their cause.
What I want to know is their any way this can be checked?
Man Holmes
Munich (and everybody else who uses Linusx) should approach the patent holders to find out what their intentions are. I realize that doesn't necessarily help mcuh because they can change their minds later on. However if you started getting the ball rolling by getting some patent holders to commit their patents into the public domain, then the whole thing might build up some steam and more may join in. Many businesses and people benefit from Linux and I know that a lot of people are capable of seeing the other side of the story. Many might be willing to support the cause.
Do software patents simply cover a software concept and not how it is implemented, or is it more of an "I patented this method of sorting a linked list" kind of thing? I think this is important because if software related patents lie more in the implementation than the perceived result, I would be willing to bet that proprietary/closed source software companies violate patents constantly and cannot really be caught doing it, at least not easily. Either way, I think this whole issue is tricky but shouldn't be. "Intellectual property" is one of the most annoying things I can think of. Yes, people do need to make money off of creativity, but the current laws are pretty much just in place to secure the profits of large corporations, not the little guy.
I am feeling fat and sassy
Patenting ideas, software and algorithms in my opinion is just as bad a patenting mathematics.... What would the world be like if we patented math??
I see this a political manuvere by the City of Munich to put software patents firmly in the public eye. Actively demostrating the damage done by bogus software patents and how US companies with the support of the US government are abusing software patents to control choices made by other countries (some sort of misguided attempt by the Republicans to establish a US global technology tax). Reality is sometimes not what it seems.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
the mayor of munic (Christian Ude) said that munic will use linux and this was just a short interruption.
-> http://www.golem.de/0408/32802.html
I've understood, patents can get disqualified, if it can be proven that concerned invention has already been published somewhere else (before filing patent).
How about setting up a "open anti-patent database", which contains invention reports just like patent databases have. This database should have even the most dumbest and principal ideas, just like some patents, filed, just to gain strategic advance against real patents.
If someone then would file a patent for a similar invention, the patent could be disqualified if it could be proven that similar invention one has already been made and published.
Patents are not about price, but a time-limited (for now) monopoly on technology. The patent-holders dictates all the terms, and may refuse anyone they don't want to give access to the technology without even an official excuse.
So it's all about use of new technology. It used to only be about implementations, but since software is just like a recipe or mathematical formula, it is now extended to the realm of ideas.
Welcome to the dark ages. To use certain ideas, you pay a tax at the nearest tollboth. There are gazillions of patents, so if you don't have a few relevant ones yourself to barter with, you're pretty much fucked over as much as the patent-holder wants.
Welcome to "civilization".
I don't know if I was the one you conversed with on this before. I hope not, because I would hate to leave your question unanswered.
It may in fact be a bizzarre thing to say (using "claim" here confuses things), but it's how the majority opinion characterized the claims of the patent. It's the second paragraph in my abridged version:
You may be right that this is not what the patent is claiming; after all, the dissent agrees with you.
You see, the dissent hinges on what is claimed in this specific patent, not on whether software is patentable. Though the dissent also took this as an opportunity for a long rant against software patents, that was not where their disagreement with the majority lay.
Does this answer your question?
What were those articles supposed to prove? They didn't change the fact that I was told I was wrong when I pointed out that Munich was running VMWare on their Linux machines in order to run Windows.
I proved that it was. Your two puff pieces just restate what I already linked to. I'm waiting for my apology.
I'm not sure what it is you think is naive - to me it seems naive and dangerous to confuse abstract ideas expressed as works of software with useful material inventions, just as it is naive to confuse the designs of physical inventions with the inventions themselves. It is that distinction that motivates the entirely separate intentions of copyrights and patents (not just their respective areas of application) and although it is fair enough for you to have used the word 'intent' to refer to the general case of 'intellectual property' it is an obfuscatory generalisation in the current context.
"Basically, if I solve a problem and I can do it through software..."
Again - You can only solve abstract problems directly through software, not real world problems and it is precisely because of that distinction that the abstract solution in software is inherently broad and not appropriately patentable, any more than works in any other language in which abstract ideas are expressed. Some time ago, a similar argument was made by someone who suggested that the Viterbi algorithm was a valid patentable invention because it had been invented for the express purpose of solving a problem in digital communications. Perhaps it was, but it has since been found to apply in other fields like molecular biology and speech recognition. It is not an artificial invention at all, it is a mathematical discovery.
"...if I'm interested in making money on it (which is the purpose of patents)..."
It may be your purpose, but it is not the purpose (or intention) of the law, to hold the narrow interests of commerce above all else. As you may have read from Halo1's comments and links, software patents do not succeed in that respect anyway. I'm sure the large publishing companies could make a great case for literary idea patents but I doubt whether individual authors would fail to see the folly and obscenity of such a measure and it strikes me as extraordinary that anyone can fail to see the folly of software idea patents. If you had been programming professionally in the three or four decades before there even were any software patents you would perhaps have considered it as absurd and harmful as successful entrepreneurs like Salin and Walker did. The assertion that software patents are necessary to promote innovation in software development is ridiculous - the truth is that it is an ex post facto justification that has merit only for the holders of large portfolios of such patents.
Anyway - if software ideas are made patentable in Europe, or rather not made unpatentable, I hope the manufacturers of electronic computers do the honourable thing and relabel their products as 'Multi-function electronic appliances' and drop the misleading description 'Personal Computer' .
What we learned from SCO is
IBM will stand by Linux's IP
HP will stand by Linux's IP
Despite Linux being a "unix clone", even the owners of Unix can't find infringing IP.
I'd love to hear of Microsoft's source code surviving such an audit to insure it doesn't infringe.
What I find naive is the idea that instructions in software is not an "implementation". If I have a box that does someting, say given some input it produces some output, then it doesn't really matter to the end user whether it's done mechanically, electronically, or through some software code. Yes, the box isn't itself patentable, the "how" it works is what is patentable, but it doesn't change the fact of what patents are for. They are incentives, in the form of a limited monopoly, to invest in and produce new ways of doing things. The tradeoff is that in exchange for this limited time monopoly, you must publish the details of how this new thing works so that others can use it or build from it once your patent has expired.
This incentive is true whether the new thing is mechanical, electrical, or some algorithm or method for doing something. As a concrete example, I'm one of the primary developers of an algorithm for automatic target recognition. Our company invested much time and money into the development. If we couldn't patent it, our competition could implement the exact same thing and we'd be screwed. Since they have more money and resources, they could develop it a lot faster than we could and they are already in the right circles to keep us out of the industry. In the fields of defense, security, and aerospace, the reputation, history, and contacts of your company are quite important and there are others who are much deeper in than us.
If we couldn't patent the algorithms, what's our incentive for developing them or investing in developing them? On of our competitors could just steal it and use it instead. (If they write the algorithm in their own code from scratch, it doesn't violate copyright.) Our only other alternative would be to try to keep it as secret as possible, which means never publishing how it is done, and gambling on nobody ever reverse engineering it. In either case, either not developing it or keeping it a secret, the public in general would never benefit from knowledge of how it worked. In other words, the benefit side of a patent, progress, would never happen.
The general point I'm trying to make is that the development of complex (non-obvious) algorithms has the exact same justification for patents as any other type of solution such as mechanical or electrical.
What people have been complaining about is simple or general "software" patents (e.g., one-click shopping). The problem with these is that they are too obvious, have prior art, or are too general. (For example, we couldn't patent "automatic object recognition" since it isn't a method, but we could patent one method for doing it.) Patenting mathematical solutions also doesn't fall into this category. There are an infinite number of ways to do automatic target recogntion, some good and some bad. Mathematical solutions are like physical laws, they are unique solutions.
It [making money] may be your purpose, but it is not the purpose (or intention) of the law
Yes, in fact it is, at least indirectly. Referring again to the U.S. Constistution description of patents, it is for the purpose of promoting progress. As I mentioned above, the way it does this is by providing a limited monopoly in exchange for publishing how it works. The point of the limited monopoly is to allow you to make back your investment and some profit before it is released. It is true that this monopoly doesn't have to be used for profit, just the monopoly control itself is the incentive. But generally, the point is to make back your investment plus a little more.
Again, discussing semantics and wording of specific laws is generally irrelevant. The real argument to me is how does the develop of algorithms, as in my personal example above, fit in with the intent of patents for other items, that is, the tradeoff of a limited monopoly as an incentive for publishing the work. It's not only an ideological question to me, I'm living it. Without the ability to patent, my company never would have invested in the work we've done and developed these things. That's real, and a real result of what you are arguing.
"What I find naive is the idea that instructions in software is not an "implementation". If I have a box that does someting, say given some input it produces some output, then it doesn't really matter to the end user whether it's done mechanically, electronically, or through some software code."
I do not consider it naive to properly distinguish between instruction and implementation. Failure to do so would render the designs of material inventions patentable. Software is itself a written form of expression, a language in which to express abstract ideas. Just because a machine has been invented which can read those instructions in certain forms and implement them does not make the instructions themselves identical with their implementation. Such a notion is as absurd as instructing someone to do something and then claiming you did it yourself.
"If we couldn't patent the algorithms,..."
You should indeed not be able to patent the algorithms. If you choose to keep them secret, then so be it - it is far better that society maybe loses the benefits of disclosure in a few narrow fields than suffers the widespread damaging effects of general software idea patentability.
"What people have been complaining about is simple or general "software" patents (e.g., one-click shopping). The problem with these is that they are too obvious, have prior art, or are too general. (For example, we couldn't patent "automatic object recognition" since it isn't a method, but we could patent one method for doing it.) Patenting mathematical solutions also doesn't fall into this category. There are an infinite number of ways to do automatic target recogntion, some good and some bad. Mathematical solutions are like physical laws, they are unique solutions."
I don't see what you're trying to say here. It is not true that I and others are complaining only about simple or general software patents. We are disputing the validity of software patentability, period. You seem now to be trying to justify patentability of mathematics and physical laws (which are not unique solutions anyway). To me that is utterly repellent and there can be no justification for it, least of all the desires, wishes or needs of some few businesses.
" It [making money] may be your purpose, but it is not the purpose (or intention) of the law
Yes, in fact it is, at least indirectly. Referring again to the U.S. Constistution description of patents, it is for the purpose of promoting progress. As I mentioned above, the way it does this is by providing a limited monopoly in exchange for publishing how it works."
You contradict me then immediately contradict yourself. The granting of monopoly rights is the means by which the purpose is fulfilled, not the purpose itself.
"Again, discussing semantics and wording of specific laws is generally irrelevant."
That is an appalling stance. What you are saying is the semantics - the meaning - of laws (and the constitution) is irrelevant to _you_. If you perceive that the meaning of some law obstructs your personal commercial interests then it must have really meant something else. If the purpose of granting monopoly rights as set forth in the constitution reads "to promote progress..." what it really means is "to enable patentees to make profits". If the distinction between the words 'instruction' and 'implementation' is inconvenient, let us ignore it. I detect a pattern here.
"Without the ability to patent, my company never would have invested in the work we've done and developed these things. That's real, and a real result of what you are arguing."
It isn't 'real', it's a hypothesis - a 'what if' which neglects the possibility of secrecy you yourself suggested. You seem interested only in your own and your company's particular circumstances, which is understandable - but the software idea patentability which you insist is necessary for your economic survival is simply too damaging to the rest of society to be acceptable. Your own NRC and even the FTC have finally woken up to the fact that there is a problem but whether they do anything about it or not is not really my concern - Europe and the U.K is.
It's naive because to the end user there is no difference between a box that performs a function completely electronically versus one that does the exact same thing through instructions running on a computer. It is figuring out how to do it that is the hard part. Soldering a circuit board isn't much harder than writing it in code. The intent of patents, to motivate innovation and progress by exchanging a limited monopoly for forced publication of the details, applies to algorithms as much as anything else. They take just as much time, effort, money, imagination, etc., to develop as a mechanical device. In terms of innovation and progress, the "what it does" is important to the user. The "how it works" is what is patentable.
it is far better that society maybe loses the benefits of disclosure in a few narrow fields than suffers the widespread damaging effects of general software idea patentability
See, here's where you, and a lot of people, fail in your argument. You make the assumption that allowing patents in any algorithm means all "general software ideas" are patentable. Why not change "software" in your sentence to "mechanical" or "electrical" to see how ridiculous that is.
I have yet to see anyone make a complaint about algorithms in object recognition, tracking and measuring the pose of an object, reconstructing surfaces from images, etc., etc. These things take years of research and development and require as much expertise, ingenuity, expense, creativity, and time as any other type of invention. They are not obvious or trivial, and in no sense could patenting them ever cause any of the problems people are complaining about. Nobody could ever "accidently" code them and later find out they were patented. Nobody could see them performing their functions and then run off and do the same thing, not realizing they're patented. (This would make them "obvious" by definition.) The only way to duplicate these types of algorithms is by finding a publication on how they work. I have yet to hear any sort of explanation of how these types of patents would hurt anyone. The only people that it would stop are those who are intentionally trying to copy the work. That's the same thing that "normal" patents stop, regardless of the medium the patent is in. There is no difference in reasoning between "algorithms" and other types of patents for this type of development.
A patent on a method for object recognition does not mean all object recognition is patented. The "what it does" is not the same thing as "how it works". All the complaints are about plug-ins, one-click shopping, and so on. These are not "how it works" and shouldn't be patentable. In fact, most people point out the obviousness and prior art violations of most of these patents. Then there's the "obvious" ones, such as the famous XOR patent.
It is not true that I and others are complaining only about simple or general software patents.
Yes. You are arguing about "the validity of software patentability", but you are complaining about simple and general software solutions. All of the examples I've seen so far fall into this category. The problem is, the "solution" people are suggesting doesn't fit the problem. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
But feel free to change this record. Please explain to me how a patent on a very specify object recognition algorithm is harmful to software development or innovation. Keep in mind that your argument can't apply to other types of patents (mechanical, electronic, etc.) otherwise you are arguing against the whole concept of patents, not just "algorithm" patents.
The granting of monopoly rights is the means by which the purpose is fulfilled, not the purpose itself.
Which exactly fits what I sa
Well the failure of the end user to perceive a difference or ascribe to it any importance cannot logically imply that there is no difference or any importance to any difference, but never mind - in view of later parts of your post, what you are saying deserves consideration anyway. You are clearly advocating the patentability of a certain class of abstract algorithm (you say it doesn't matter whether it runs on a general purpose computer or a circuit board specially constructed for the task) You are talking about the patentability of ideas, which is an extreme position, but you at least appear to want to introduce strict criteria for patentability. You then say (of these very particular algorithms): "They take just as much time, effort, money, imagination, etc., to develop as a mechanical device." and later: "These things take years of research and development and require as much expertise, ingenuity, expense, creativity, and time as any other type of invention. They are not obvious or trivial, and in no sense could patenting them ever cause any of the problems people are complaining about. Nobody could ever "accidently" code them and later find out they were patented. Nobody could see them performing their functions and then run off and do the same thing, not realizing they're patented." Now this is very interesting and to me at least it seems like a strong argument and I'll consider it your central point and return to it later.
"You make the assumption that allowing patents in any algorithm means all "general software ideas" are patentable."
Yes, because that is the way it has happened in the U.S. and it is the reason there are > 30,000 such patents already on the books at the E.P.O, and as Herr Bolkestein has said: "The question of how to define the patentability of computer-implemented inventions is thus becoming steadily more important especially as such inventions are estimated to cover 15% of new patent applications." The motivation for the proposed directive and even it's initial draft have originated not with companies like your own, for which I have, as you will see later, a measure of respect, but from bodies like the B.S.A, representing some of the most prolific recipients of the kind of software patent we both (I think) despise, and from the patent establishment (including the remarkably autonomous patent departments of some large companies), representing their own narrow interests. The sorry tale of deliberate obfuscation, bullying of Parliament, wilful disregard for and misrepresentation of the views of respondents to consultation, clear attempts to sneak universal patentability loopholes into the directive while claiming the opposite..., reveals the true intention of the European bureaucrats, which is to inflict on European citizens and businesses the exact same conditions of untrammelled patentabilty that obtain in the U.S.
"Then there's the "obvious" ones, such as the famous XOR patent."..."All of the examples I've seen so far fall into this category."
Here we have a major problem; you and I consider them obvious and unpatentable but others, especially patent examiners, may not. There are patents such as RSA, DHT and LZW which are the natural algorithmic forms of simple mathematical and logical ideas, appearing in elementary textbooks. There are more complex examples of course, such as the kind of stuff (wavelet and filter bank methods?) being patented by the BBC in their Dirac technology and Barnsley's fractal compression algorithms. What is concerning is that in all these areas, fundamental algorithms and methods are being patented - the consequent algorithmic expressions of elementary results in particular fields. To me that is entirely unacceptabl
Well, thank you for recognizing that there are valid arguments why not all algorithm patents are harmful. And yes, it is core to my opinions on this, but I have other core points that I think are strong arguments.
Right, but we seem to disagree on what the root problem and solution are. The cause for the >30,000 "bad" software patents isn't because algorithms are patentable, it's because the criteria for allowing them has either been insufficiently applied (e.g., prior art, obviousness) or insufficiently defined. My solution is to fix the criteria and process by which the patents are approved. Your solution (and you are certainly not alone) is to ditch the entire concept of patenting algorithms. As I hope I've pointed out, that's throwing out the good with the bad and there are better alternatives.
The gist of your arguments seem to be based on the quotes below:
What is concerning is that in all these areas, fundamental algorithms and methods are being patented - the consequent algorithmic expressions of elementary results in particular fields. To me that is entirely unacceptable.
What I may consider to be purely mathematical, non-novel, overly broad or obvious and therefore unpatentable seems never to have stopped the average patent examiner from granting it a patent.
But again, that's a problem with the process of awarding patents, not with the concept of patenting algorithms. The exact same thing is true with any form of patent. My favorite example is "Method of exercising a cat" (playing with a cat using a laser pointer). How a patent agent missed the obviousness I'll never know. The complaint you make about "general software" and "obvious" patents for algorithms applies to general patents. It isn't specific to algorithms. Getting rid of algorithm patents will not get rid of the problem in general. It's basically saying the system is broken so lets get rid of the system as it pertains to my field, but leave everyone else screwed with a still broken system. (And in the process screw over some people in my field who have "legitimately" patentable algorithms.) I think it's a lousy and inappropriate solution.
As for patenting fundamental mathematical "truths", that is analagous to patenting physical laws. They are "discoveries" not inventions. Yes, for the layperson the difference can be difficult to see, but that's true whether it's math or physics. For example, many people (including me) object to the idea of patenting genes. Again, this is an issue with respect to the criteria for awarding patents, not the whole filed (e.g., algorithms).
There are several problems with this argument; you state t
Wait a minute! - You call them bad software patents, I just call them software patents. As the FFII says on it's front page: "For the last few years the European Patent Office (EPO) has, contrary to the letter and spirit of the existing law, granted more than 30000 patents on rules of organisation and calculation claimed in terms of general-purpose computing equipment, called "programs for computers" in the law of 1973 and "computer-implemented inventions" in EPO Newspeak since 2000.". It's not a matter of criteria being insufficiently applied but a simple fact that the E.P.O. have granted patents on inventions they should not have because they are specifically excluded by Article 52.
"But again, that's a problem with the process of awarding patents, not with the concept of patenting algorithms. The exact same thing is true with any form of patent."
Those comments of mine you quoted should be taken as merely additional justification for the premise that patentability of abstract ideas is inherently bad. I did not mean to convey the impression that my opposition is based solely on the ineffectiveness of the current patent infrastructure.
"It isn't specific to algorithms. Getting rid of algorithm patents will not get rid of the problem in general. It's basically saying the system is broken so lets get rid of the system as it pertains to my field, but leave everyone else screwed with a still broken system. (And in the process screw over some people in my field who have "legitimately" patentable algorithms.) I think it's a lousy and inappropriate solution."
Your position is understandable but it is narrowly drawn. What might suit your industry will damage or destroy others, damage individual civil liberties, damage free software, damage freedom of communication of ideas, promote monopolisation by enabling denial of interoperability etc. etc. You seem to think that pure software idea patents are valid now but they are not - only in one or two European countries would they stand up in court, hence the directive. We are not trying to throw anything out but prevent the imposition of some crass new legislation and return to the clear doctrines of the EPC. It is from that starting point that I and perhaps others would be willing to consider amendments for special and exceptional cases such as yours. General patentability of abstract software ideas - programme claims - is utterly unacceptable.
"There are several problems with this argument; you state that you can meet the "second condition", but you never supplied the first..."
Perhaps "meet the condition" was misleading, what I meant to imply was that the condition you imposed on arguments against patentability of abstract algorithms is wholly unreasonable and rather absurd. You insist that any argument against patentability of abstract algorithms must not also apply to physical devices. But by definition it would not: Since no abstract algorithm is identical with any physical device there is nothing to do in order to meet your condition. Your first sentence was a challenge to argue against the patentability of a special class of abstract algorithms, not abstract algorithms in general and I declined to do so because it seemed at least possible that they might prove to be extraordinary exceptions that might merit special consideration.
"I asked how the argument about how such patents (in the specific examples I gave) are harmful differs from the same arguement applied to physical devices."
It is very simple: The argument differs (at least) in it's subject. It's inapplicability to some other subject cannot therefore invalidate it - that would be absurd. Indeed much of the argument against software patentability depends
I apologize for the misunderstanding, I did not realize you were referring to specific "software" patents that violate European rules. I understood you to be referring to 30,000 harmful "software" patents. What I said is appropriate for that context. There seems to be this ongoing problem that I'm arguing about what should and shouldn't be patentable, and you keep throwing in references to specific European rules. It seems to me that existing rules are irrelevant to what should and shouldn't be patentable so I'm not sure why you keep throwing these things in.
What might suit your industry will damage or destroy others, damage individual civil liberties, damage free software, damage freedom of communication of ideas, promote monopolisation by enabling denial of interoperability etc. etc.
But again, as I've pointed out over and over and you've even recognized is a valid point, patenting algorithms is not inherently bad. The criteria I've suggested for patentable algorithms, which is basically the same rules for physcial objects (obviousness, prior art, physical laws, etc.) weed out all of the examples of any harmful ones you (or anyone else) have provided. In my solution, everybody wins. In your solution, a lot of people lose.
You seem to think that pure software idea patents are valid now but they are not
Actually, in North America they are, and as you point out they are also in some European countries. I'm not sure about the rest of the world. However, I will again point out that I am discussing what should and shouldn't be patentable. Existing rules are not relevent to that discussion.
It is from that starting point that I and perhaps others would be willing to consider amendments for special and exceptional cases such as yours.
See, here's the problem. You see them as special cases. I see them as the norm for what an algorithm is. The ones you are talking about, the ones harmful to open source and such, are the exception and shouldn't even be awarded by simple criteria that already exists for patents in general. And as I've already pointed out, algorithms are not the same thing as software. Any patent that says "Method" is by nature an algorithm.
You insist that any argument against patentability of abstract algorithms must not also apply to physical devices. But by definition it would not:
Um, no. The reason I insist that is becuase if the arguument also applies to devices, it's not an argument against software patents, it's an argument against all patents. But you say (in the above quote) that by definition any argument against algorithm patents would not apply to devices. That's easy to disprove by making one myself. A problem with algorithm patents is that a lot of "obvious" ones have been awarded. That argument also applies to devices, since it is true. There, I broke your "by definition" rule.
Again, I asked specifically to show how such algorithms (as my example) are harmful. You haven't demonstrated it and apparently you can't. Therefore any argument that algorithms are inherently harmful as patents is false. You have to give a specific reason why all algorithm patents are harmful in order to be convincing that algorithms in general should not be patentable.
Indeed much of the argument against software patentability depends on the difference between abstract entities and physical entities.
Which is exactly why you fail to have a convincing argument. I have given concrete examples of where algorithm patents are not harmful. If it is a property of algorithm patents that they are inherently harmful, I should not be able to do that. It is your contention that all are bad that is a logical falsehood. It is not supportable.
"However, it is not the physical device that is patented. It is the design, or rather the abstract conce
There is no problem; I'm well aware of what you're arguing for - unlimited patentability of abstract algorithms, methods and processes, commonly referred to in the literature as programme claims. Existing rules are relevant because they have not appeared out of nowhere and for no reason. Just like everything else that you wish to dismiss as irrelevant (economic reality, ethics, practical patent administration realities, the history and background of patents and software patents in particular, the difference between the abstract and the physical,...). If you think that what should and should not be patented can reasonably be decided on the basis of your frankly irrational and mistaken beliefs about patents and your unfounded and risible dream of some uniquely efficient patent administration, then you are deluded.
"But again, as I've pointed out over and over and you've even recognized is a valid point, patenting algorithms is not inherently bad."
What nonsense is this? - recognized as a valid point indeed! - you have even quoted me before your last paragraph as describing algorithm patents as appalling! All patents are inherently bad, as Jefferson recognized two centuries ago, and that is why they are properly treated with extreme caution and allowed only where their benefits can be shown to outweigh their evils.
"The criteria I've suggested...weed out all of the examples of any harmful ones you (or anyone else) have provided. In my solution, everybody wins. In your solution, a lot of people lose."
Pure fantasy! and not unexpected given that your 'solution' is contingent on an imaginary and idealised patent regime. You have asserted that there are such criteria but not stated a single one of them and surely you cannot really mean that they consist only of "basically the same rules for physcial objects (obviousness, prior art, physical laws, etc.)" because those are exactly the criteria used to grant patents on algorithms you claim to wish to exclude.
"See, here's the problem. You see them as special cases. I see them as the norm for what an algorithm is. The ones you are talking about, the ones harmful to open source a
Please look up the meaning of strawman argument. I believe this is about the third time you have claimed this and yet I repeatedly correct you on this. I have never argued for unlimited anything. In fact, my argument is based on limits. Yours, on the other hand, is limiting everything. You are taking an extreme and seem to believe I'm taking the opposite extreme. I am not, I am taking middle ground where everybody wins.
Existing rules are relevant because they have not appeared out of nowhere and for no reason.
It is clear you have no idea how to have a debate. This is called "appeal to authority" and is a logical falsehood. Existing rules are irrelevant to what the rules should be. I am coming from the point of view if no rules or laws exist, how would we design patent laws to work. The process would follow something along the lines of:
Do we need patents? Yes, they promote innovation and progress by allow people to exploit their ideas alone for a time and in turn forcing sharing of the idea.
What types of ideas deserve patenting? Ones that: (1) are not inevitable, such as physical laws or obvious ones, (2) would never be created without the incentive of monopolistic exploitation, and (3) are useful for progress of society. Some, but not all, devices fall in this category, as to some, but not all, algorithms.
All patents are inherently bad
If you believe that, why aren't arguing against patents in general instead of algorithms specifically? Patents are a tradeoff and a balance. The bad: they limit freedom for a limited time. The good: everyone gets to see how the idea works, and without the patent the idea might never be created. They are no more inherently bad than any other tradeoff. When you purchase something you lose money (bad) but gain the thing you purchased (good).
Pure fantasy! and not unexpected given that your 'solution' is contingent on an imaginary and idealised patent regime.
See, now you are switching arguments again. This is not an argument against my point, but against the way the patent system currently works. Again, if you missed it the umpteen times I've said it, I completely agree that system of awarding of patents is broken and in fact this is the problem. But you make the assumption that it can never be fixed or work properly. Making a system that works is not pure fantasy.
Aren't you at all uncomfortable with proving yourself wrong in the same sentence. How can you say not have stated a single criterion and then list several I did state?
You make no sense here either. How can rules against obvious patents be used to grand obvious patents? These rules have been improperly applied or often not at all. That is part of the broken system.
Has it never occurred to you that even invalid patents can cause harm, as can spurious accusations of infringement?
Yes, that has been my point all along. How is it that you can't understand what I am arguing when I repeat it so many times. Invalid patents are the major problem. They are the ones causing the most harm. And they are invalid, by definition. The system of awarding them is broken, and that is the problem. The rules (in North America) allowing algorithm patents is not the problem, it is the system of awarding them.
It is not up to me to demonstrate harm but for you to demonstrate the necessity of extending patentability to programme claims.
(1) I have already done so with yo