Slashdot Mirror
RMS On How To Fight Software Patents
rimberg writes "Richard M. Stallman has a article on NewsForge talking about ways to fight software patents. It mentions the Public Patent Foundation (and why it's a good idea), but argues that fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria." (Newsforge, like Slashdot, is part of OSTG.)
Of course you don't live in a democracy. Which is one of the biggest problem when 95% of a countries population does not know the form of government they are living under.
BTW if you live in America you live in a REPUBLIC, if we lived in a democracy we would directly elect the president.
All this talk about software patents made me do a little digging, and I found a (pretty good) site relating to them:
http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/
Gotta get me one of these!
You won't know it when you're cited in an examiner's rejection of a patent, but I promise you that many times an examiner finds a great piece of art on the internet that they would love to use except it isn't dated. There are mountains of people's research papers in PDF form that are on the internet but do not clearly display a date. If it doesn't have a date, it's useless to the examiner.
This is the number one thing that "everybody" can do to help prevent questionable patents and it only takes a tiny bit of time.
Sigh. Moderators, please *read* before modding up. Geez. This is one of the "post the article text but with a few changes" jobs.
Note the "European Transvestite Parliament" bit? That's not usually what we call them, and although what they may do on their own time is their own business, I know most of them were conventional attire for their sex at parliamentary sessions.
And note also that we are European, we're not likely to give a fuck if some guy does happen to wear a dress on a hot summer's day anyway. Americans have such strange hangups. No, mustn't show even a hint of tit on screen, but people's heads getting blown up is A-OK. Nutters.
*Sigh* RMS isn't that undiplomatic. While AFAICT the rest of the article is a verbatim copy, this is a good reminder of why you shouldn't trust these "in case it gets slashdotted" copies.
I really don't know wtf you're trying to say. Because many hundreds of thousands of applications are defeated by the examiners. I don't even know if we're speaking to the same subject...
Judges should not need to know the technical details. They should be able to rely on qualified examiners to do that bit of the work, leaving them to sort out legal arguments between opposing parties.
I'm going to presume from this that you're unfamiliar with how the appeals process works. On one side, you have an examiner who already believes that the application is retarded and is granted less than half a work day to compile a 25-75 page paper explaining so with as much detail as possible. On the other side, you potentially have a team of attorneys who are eager to take advantage of the fact that the judge doesn't know an "addressable register" from an "on-die flip-flop circuit".
If you don't want judges who know the technical details, that's fine with me - just don't complain about silly patents issued after appeals. The fact that it went to appeals means that the examiner does not believe it merits a patent. Unfortunately, more often than not, appeals are used to weasle a patent out of the law, not to prove the invention deserves a patent for being innovative.
Your terminology is wrong or confusing: Actually, a "sealed patent" means the letter granting the monopoly was marked with official stamp [i.e. sealed] as an open [i.e. patent] letter. The final step in getting a patent is often called "sealing" it.
Nonetheless, you are RIGHT, such hidden pseudopatents do exist - words like "secretized" and "classified" and "patent" will throw up many google hits, and many conspiracy theorists and free energy nuts acting very, very paranoid.
Usually the secrecy is imposed when the patent is filed and lasts until the patent is granted. Normal businesses generally want their patent granted as soon as possible after filing - but have a look some time at the defense forces - they sometimes act to extend the period between filing and granting for a _Very_ long time. Note that while the patent is filed but not granted (i.e. "pat. pending.", they can easily obtain an injunction to prevent you making whatever it is you want to make.
This is of course purely for National Security. Ahem.
The moral of the story is: if your invention challenges the hegemony of the powers that be, _don't_ seek a patent for it...
For example, a public foundation dedicated to holding patents in the public interest. Anyone with an idea could submit it to them; they would then obtain a patent on it, and license it freely to the public, with the exception of companies who use their patent portfolios offensively.
That wouldn't work, because you can be forced to license your patents out at a reasonable price in court. I can't see a court allowing you to kill a successful rich commercial field of endeavour with your patents in such a way... they'd require them to take it money for use.
Love to be proven wrong, mind...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
RMS speaks quite carefully with respect to focusing on patents that cover algorithms used in computer software. If you read what RMS says about software patents, you'll see that he recognizes how, for example, automobile patents don't have the same social effect as software patents. Software programmers don't have to deal with all the complexities of physical product designers all the time.
Part of what he says about patents in other fields versus software patents:
He doesn't think the same things about all patents. Read more or hear him talk about patents in other fields and you'll find that he focuses on his expertise.
Digital Citizen
"
That wouldn't work, because you can be forced to license your patents out at a reasonable price in court"
The best the court would do is to invalidate your patent. They can't force you to license it let alone for a reasonable price.
evil is as evil does
It is simply because he doesn't want to be quoted out of context. I recall there being some problems with this in the past.
Donate free food here
I do not believe the parent was modded that high as Insightful. The poster doesn't even comprehend the history of US politics, or Canadian politics for that matter. The current state of the party systems in both countries is relatively recent, and is definitely subject to change, as history shows.
For the interested, here's a little bit of information about the actual political history of the two nations.
In the US:
The Republican party didn't exist before the 1850's, Lincoln was one of it's first major candidates. The party itself began on a platform to free the slaves (remember them), because the major parties (Democrat, Federalist, Whig, and a few others) of the time were all too scared of loosing the southern power base to do anything about the problem. At various times several different parties have had a significant impact on US politics, including the Federalists, the Whigs, and others. The major change in US politics came with the invention of "machine" politics (where the local party bosses run so much of the community, often to the point that you cannot get a job, or even buy food, without their say-so, that everyone agrees to vote for that party just to survive) in New York in the late 1800's by the Democratic party. The techniques were refined in Chicago in the early 1900's (by the same party), and were eventually banned (although a lot of it still goes on in some places). The advent of that type of party power play gave the party leadership enough power to begin forcing smaller parties out (much like a few large corporations force out all competition in an industry). While it did (in the 1950's) produce the current two-party system (and the current financial tools wielded by the party leadership maintain that privileged status), there's no reason to believe the structure cannot change once again (and there are some indications this may well happen).
In Canada:
Through much of their history, while they had multiple parties, the real power lay in whomever had the favor of the British monarch, and the political structure devolved to a one-party system not unlike the system then in force in England (which is only part of Great Britain, which is only part of the United Kingdom). It wasn't until the reforms enacted shortly after WWI that the Canadian parliament could act unilaterally.
If you look at their actions over the past 50 years or so, it's hard to see a significant advantage over the US system. They seem to have the same level of difficulty keeping in step with their constituents, remaining independent of power brokers, and such. In some ways, their system is even worse, since a coalition, while always representative of a broader population, is also plagued by the design-by-committee problem (solutions take forever to happen, and they're never the best solution, only the least objectionable).
While our neighbors to the north may not approve of our politics, I'd challenge them to point to one major event in history where Canada has taken leadership on the world stage. They could have, at several points in their history, but the structure of their government (technically a constitutionally defined, representative, aristocracy) is not conducive to the dramatic actions that produce great events. The United States, however has a governmental structure (technically a representative, constitutional, republic [no, it's not a democracy, the federalist papers make it clear that the framers of the constitution were scared to death of democracies, the US system actually has much more in common with pre-ceasarean Rome than with ancient Athens]) that strikes a careful balance between long-term stability and short-term brilliance. It has it's problems, certainly, but I'll take it over any other system currently in use.
BTW: Canada is in North America, as is Mexico. and a couple dozen other nations are in "America" when you include the southern continent. The whole world, however, generally means the United States of America when America is used without further qualification. It may not be technically correct, but why fight common usage, it's not worth the frustration.
Don't you know what Billy's mommy did for a job? She was a major player in United way in sucking out that 100% donations so your companies CEOs could talk to other CEOs at some expensive party and some charities ended up getting some of the money that comes out of your checkbook.
Gates' parents made millions in the charity racket.
Otherwise, there is Canada's efforts for a peaceful resolution to the Suez Crisis, for which Prime Minister Pearson won a Nobel prize.
Canada has played a role far out of proportion to its population in U.N. peacekeeping operations, and a major role in the International War Crimes Tribunal and Rome Statute, which the U.S. has largely ignored. Canada also provided significant support to the Rwandan and Balkan Genocide tribunals. Other countries' support has dwindled after these events are no longer on the front pages.
Canada was one of few countries in the world willing to accept the Boat People refugees in the 1970s, and campaigns for the rights of refugees to this day.
Canada was one of the first western countries to recognize the People's Republic of China, this under strong U.S. condemnation.
Canada is also the major supporter of the international land mines ban, also against the wishes of its allies, and a decade before Princess Di jumped aboard.