Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Rants On Software Patents
LMCBoy writes "Groklaw has the story of Kodak v. Sun (mentioned on Slashdot already), which PJ calls 'Exhibit A' in the case against software patents. Her analysis of Kodak v. Sun, and the larger issue of software patents, is excellent. Bottom line: the software patent 'cold war' provides no benefits to anyone, and will inevitably make the game of software development impossible for anyone to play."
Maybe Sun wanted to lose.
Or perhaps someone who gave them over a billion dollars wanted asked them politely to lose a case like this.
I don't think the issue is as much with software patents in general as the way the system is currently implemented. The Patent Office is so clueless about prior art wrt software that pretty much anyone can patent anything that hasn't already been patented. They can then use that to intimidate or sue other companies even if those companies have been using the same technology for years without obligation to anyone.
Can't Kodak sue SCO now ? I mean, I have a java runtime on my linux box... and who's responsible for linux? eh ?....
I agree with you that rants are for blogs, but I think the blurb does it a disservice by calling it a "rant". It's certainly an impassioned and angry diatribe by someone who feels very strongly on the subject, and maybe that's what rant means to you. But the article is also well layed out, structured, and an interesting read. I don't think we should label every piece of writing which contains a strong opinion as a "rant" - it's good to know that people care about these patent issues.
apterous.org
for the record, I didn't use the word "rant" in the original article submission, and nor does PJ use it in the linked article.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
After all, patents aren't like copyrights, where Congress keeps granting extension after extension to the protection period. They'll eventually expire, though granted the number of frivolous patents will obviously slow innovation down incredibly.
This might be an object lesson in other fields, though. If we want to slow down the pace of genetic engineering, for example, just allow extremely broad and ill-defined patents in the field, and by the time they expire perhaps we'll have time to define a series of ethics and protocols to safeguard us.
/ only slightly facetious
It'll be interesting to see what develops. /ducks
Unknown host pong.
Even if you think patents are a good thing (as I do), there is no room for Software Patents. The only people they benefit are the Lawyer IP-Land-Grabbers. The vast amount of the proffessionals in the industry I know are against them (includiong me).
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
the software patent 'cold war' provides no benefits to anyone, and will inevitably make the game of software development impossible for anyone to play
It would shift the production of software with unhindered innovations from countries that have intellectual property restrictions to countries that completely disregard them. Governments that are allowing these patent controversies to continue are killing the IT segment of their economy, and will eventually be surpassed by the unrestricted countries. It provides benefits to the latter.
Traditionally, the university was used to progress and disseminate knowledge. Now, due to increased administration, budget cuts, etc., all the knowledge is being locked away just in case it might be worth something.
I'm not sure what can be done about it, but it is unfortunate and wrong IMO.
The "software doesn't wear out" argument is BS. When you sell software, you don't sell the software as such, but the right to use it. While the software itself does not wear out, the usefulness does. eg. Anybody still using TurboPascal V1 for MSDOS? Expanding on that, if anything software "wears out" faster than mechanical mechanisms.
When you take out a patent, you're not so much protecting your product but you're protecting your market/customer base. This doesn't change when you're making software or little mechanical gizzmos. All the examples showing that patents kill software innovation could equally be applied to mechanical gizzmos too. eg. "Method to attach spring to washer" is just as much a problem for somebody making gizzmos as "Nesting identification by colorizing". If Ford own a patent for some engine technology, they can prevent Toyota using it. So how is this different from IBM preventing Microsoft doing something?
The "software is different" proponents are just like the people who whine about their tech job going to India while wearing Nikes made in China. Patents of all kinds, including software ones, have common problems.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The other thing that irks me about this is Kodak, is it is yet another company that has been bleeding badly, and thus turns to litigation to survive. Hopefully soon a judge and the judges above them will get a clue and realize software patents are ridiculous, and should not be allowed to survive.
Maybe someday a judge will be appointed that has a computer science background that will be able to see as plain as most programmers how wrong and misguided software patents are. Until then I know I'll never buy another Kodak product. . .
"Kodak praised the verdict and said it was part of an aggressive push to convert innovations ? both homegrown and purchased ? into real money. The company over the past several years has been issuing licenses, filing lawsuits, forming spinoff companies and finding other uses for its technologies."
It seems that today, companies don't produce products, they produce lawsuits, and that's how they get their money. How long can this continue?
Furthermore, since 1.06B is about 1/3 of Sun's cash on hand (here [yahoo.com]), what will that mean for Sun? It's 7% of their total value, so this can't be good for them.
In the end, it's only the lawyers who win.
--
First the Eolas lawsuit, now this. What is going to take for Bill Gates to wake up and say that suing OpenOffice developers isn't worth being able to lose $1.06B to a company that actually has the legal resources to wage a protracted war with Microsoft? If Sun loses this, the Microsoft had better be willing to settle in a very generous was or Kodak will go after them. $1.06B for Sun, since Microsoft has much, much more money it could just as easily be $5B from Microsoft.
This is all starting to become like nuclear weapons in and after the cold war. First it seemed like no big deal, hell it was even a requirement to be a big player to have nukes. Now all these little players are getting them, and Eolas and Kodak IMO are no different or better than the rogue states getting their own arsenals of nukes. Now the big boys are getting attacked so, what do they do? Disarm by pushing for the elimination of all software and business method patents, to keep these guys from having legal nukes to use against them, or do they just pray that not enough ankle biters will get enough patents to bankrupt them in independent and coordinated lawsuits?
--
Although I know its offical /. policy that everyone should run around in circles yelling its the end of the world everytime a software patent is infringed, this particular dispute is far from over and probably faces 5+ years of appeals before any money changes hands or any technology is changed or restricted.
First, after damages are decided, Sun will move with JNOV (asking the judge to set aside the verdict because there was insufficent evidence to support to verdict). There is probably a 10% probability of this happening in any given case, even more when there is alot of money at risk.
Second, Sun will appeal to the Federal Circuit, which usually overturnes 60% of district court decisions because district courts usually dont know anything about technology and know even less about patent law.
So, IMHO, its too early to start running around in circles over this decision, at least until the Federal Circuit affirms.
Please check the other identical story onAs many have mentioned, the idea behind patents is to encourage innovation. So for example, if inventor A decides to create a specific implementation of an idea, then all the effort to create that implementation does not go to waste.
One thing that I never see pointed out as a key difference between software patents and traditional real-world patents is the time it takes to make an implementation.
For example, in the past, it could have taken years and thousands to millions of dollars of development and testing to create a patentable idea. Because of this, you need a way to protect that hard work and investment or, yes, nobody would spend the time to invent things because they could get stolen by big companies (patents were originally designed to protect small inventors ironically). The problem with software patents is that it hardly takes any R&D whatsoever to create most of the patentable ideas. All it takes is an idea, something that patents were originally designed NOT to protect. They were designed to protect the implementation of an idea.
All the BS patents seem to fall into the space of no R&D for implementation, especially the "business processes" patents like 1-click. It's like "Oh, I have an idea," let's patent it. The patent office is making the erroneous assumption that not being able to patent an idea as soon as you thought of it would somehow have discourage you thinking of the idea. If software patents are allowed at all, they need to be tempered by the amount of research it requires to go from idea to implementation.
You should NOT be able to patent a "Hey, I just thought of something idea" that takes 10 minutes to implement. Practically all web-based patents fall into this category. I think there is still room for patents on ideas that take a lot of R&D work, investment and time.
Sunny
Be my Friend
It sounds to me like what the Government needs is a large, influential group that can force them into understanding just what it is we DO. I think that's the big problem: they just don't understand what goes into Software development, and as Groklaw's article mentions, the mathematical nature of it. There is a lot we could do if we were to mobilize.
So if there is a PAC, point me in the direction and I'll join it. If there's not... perhaps we should make something happen.
-Vendal Thornheart
One way to fix the patent system (re: software patents) without going through the arduous process of patent revokations, appeals, re-reviews, peer-reviews, court dates, dumb juries, is to simply limit patent protection to 2 to 3 years.
That way, those who are serious about their idea will be given plenty of time to get a head start and license out to those who can't wait, or don't want to fall that far behind the curve.
Those who make it their business model to sue won't have much time to sue. Most companies may just simply wait it out, or license a non-infringing technology, or simply work out some 2-3 year licensing agreement.
And once the protection time is over, those who waited will have to play catch-up... and it'll be back to the good'ol days where companies actually competed on things like cost and quality.
When I talk about my work at conferences, it occasionally happens (especially when "business people" are in the audience) that someone eagerly asks, whether I have already patented those ideas.
My answer is no. First, patenting is expensive. I don't have the money. Second, I want my ideas to benefit the world (that's what science is about, I think). I do not want to hoard them for myself. Third, if I want to patent my ideas, I have to spend a lot of time on legal stuff. I am a computer scientist, not a lawyer. I rather not do that.
But now there is a problem. If I do not patent my ideas, what withholds someone else from patenting them? It is not a requirement that you are the originator of an idea to patent it!
Prior art? Sure, I can bring that forward. In court. Which is not what I would like to do, because, (1) as I said, I am not a lawyer, and I hate spending time on legal matters, and (2) if I attempt to sue company X which has patented my ideas, for which prior art exists, no doubt that during the case, the expensive lawyers of X (which I can't afford) will have turned the case around and start sueing me for something, anything. Prior art is no defense. Basically, there is no defense if you are not rich enough to be able to afford expensive lawyers.
What I would really like to have, is a possibility to say, without all kinds of legal hassles, "Here are my ideas, they are for the world, anyone can use them, for free, forever." This should protect my ideas from being misused in patent form.
Guess what, that is impossible. I have a choice to either claim sole ownership of my ideas, and become a 50% of a lawyer, or to throw my ideas out to the world, close my eyes, put my fingers in my ears, and hope that the vultures leave something of my ideas for the world, and for me, to use.
If you look at it objectively, that is ridiculous. Patently ridiculous.
I don't see how you think you can discuss patents and intellectual property intelligently when you don't know the difference between a trademark and a patent. You have no duty to "defend" a violated patent. A patent is ONLY the exclusive right to prevent others from practicing the invention or process described in the patent. You also don't "register" a patent -- you have to file for a new patent in every country where you want one (though some countries are combining for this purpose, or are moving towards cross-patenting agreements). If you want to patent something in the U.S., and you only want to use that patent in the U.S. then you don't have to bother with the rest of the world. BTW, the patent application fee for an individual or small company is a whopping $395.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee200
If you think it's so easy to patent something, go to town. If you hire a high-powered law firm to write your patent, research prior art, craft your claims so that they are as broad as reasonable, and prosecute the patent until issue (which would include several rejections for overly broad claims and additional fees for reexamination under narrower claims) then you could spend $10k. If you're doing that, though, you're either planning to license to a company to produce your product (which you presumably have no problem with, provided you are rational) or you are planning to practice or produce it yourself (again, there should be no problems here).
You plainly don't understand the patent system. A patent has to be new, useful, and nonobvious. If, given Company A's patent, Company B's engineers can invent new, useful X, Y, and Z without substantial thought, research, or development then X, Y, and Z are not patentable inventions. If X, Y, and Z are not obvious (Company B had to invest substantial research etc) then they are patentable. Why? Because we want to reward Company B for adding to our global knowledge base. Your problem is that you think, many years after the fact, that X, Y, and Z are obvious, and because they are obvious now that they were obvious at the time they were invented. You can't patent "in every possible direction," (whatever that means) you can only patent related nonobvious inventions.
Your ignorant, paranoid rantings are really quite disturbing to those of use who contribute to society, and to the onward march of technology, and wish for a system that rewards largely based on innovative merit to remain in place. The system does have some problems, and determining obviousness in software patents is one of the harrier issues, but your desire to dismantle a system that has successfully promoted innovation and prevented intellectual quagmire for more than two centuries based on a problem with a 20-30 year-old industry is unfounded.
The only thing that will stop software patents is if big business wises up and realizes that they're bad for business. I.e., with software patents, there will be impossible to innovate without being sued into submission.
Congress and the patent office will NEVER change the rules without pressure from business because the patent offices makes a LOT of money selling patents.
I'm not saying we shouldn't educate people about the issue or that we shouldn't discuss the issue, I'm just saying not to get your hopes up.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Are you a student of Machiavelli, or merely a gifted amateur. [rhetorical question, no need for a question mark]
The scenario you describe is all too likely, the IT/IP mix is like a powderkeg at the moment with software patents. Sounds unethical to me to start such a bloodbath, but one could argue that if it was deliberately started now it would be like "back burning" to prevent bush fires, preventing something even worse later on.
Bitter and proud of it.
Unfortunately, IMO it will take some software companies being litigated out of existance before the patent laws change. Like healthcare in America, changes to law are ALWAYS a reaction to something being really out of whack.
Think about how long it has taken for Americans to get a clue about how bad things like McDonalds food are for your health. Our healthcare system reacts to things, like people having a heart attack, instead of the person taking preventative measures (exercise, diet) before the heart attack happens.
It's going to take several major software companies having legal "heart attacks" because of software patents before the rest of the industry gets a clue and quits dining at the trough of patents and IP.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
I checked for articles on "patents" at Scientific American...they have published over 140 in the last 6 or so years counting columns, articles and letters and virtually every one of them levels scathing criticism at what stupid things we allow to be patented or how patents have retarded progress in some very important technologies [their 2001 article on how many drug companies are suing and counter suing is scary, I wish they'd just spend the money on finding the cures!] The alarm Groklaw sounds about the software industry has already come to pass in parts of the biotech industry and the solution that some of us espouse for permiting the unfettered advance of software, open source, has been embraced by Worldchanging.org and by BIOS an organization that wants, in their words, to "develop and validate a new means for the cooperative invention, improvement and delivery of biological technologies, drawing inspiration from the open source software movement to forge a 'protected commons' of knowledge and technology."
I think the thing that has kept software innovation from stalling out completely in a patent litigation tarpit has been the combination of open source and the fact that you can often bring a software idea to market for vastly less venture money than a new drug takes. Those VC's and big pharma's do all they can to see that such big gambles pay off. But trying to own and "idea" when everybody and his sister are working get an idea that solves the same problem is bound to make for friction, duplication and loose-loose litigation. If you get out there first with something people really need and you don't gouge your customers, just staying one innovation ahead of the competion can keep you in business and maybe even make you some money. One machine vision startup I worked for NEVER patented a really significant advanced technique, preferring to keep it a trade secret because they took out a patent, competitors would find a way around it more easily than they could reverse engineer it. 20 years later, they are still in business. Its much harder to spend nearly a billion dollars on a new drug and still keep it a secret until you are making sales.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
I found this referenced from Groklaw and just thought it would be good for people who didnt read that far down the comments (or don't read at all) to listen. It's a very informative talk about software patents. Ogg format URL: http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-cambri dgeuni-england2002.ogg
..one engineer said 'I can't recognize my own inventions in patentese.' "
My favorite quote: "
Knuth was right!!
Changing the rules in the middle of the game was unfair and should have been blocked in court. All the geeks from "back in the day" should participate in a class action suit against the USPTO to have all software patents overturned.
If we had had the chance to patent software back then, my associates and I might well have patents on certain types of client-server architecture, physical disk mapping, soft failover disk servers, tiled images with prefetch for seamless virtual panning, using neural networks for heuristic evaluation of image convolution patterns, 'tiled' convolution pattern matching, various methods for converting scanned image data into 3D terrain models, etc., etc. If not our group, then certainly others before us. But we did not have the opportunity to do so because at the time (early 1980's) software was not patentable!
Allowing SW patents 10 to 30 years after many of the most significant innovations was violently unfair to the hundreds or thousands of creative people who developed the industry to that point, and produced nearly all the real inventions, under a non-patentable paradigm.
In the early 1980's my teams developed dozens of major innovations that today could be patented, but at that time were restricted to the thin "trade secret" and copyright protections. The entire philosophy of the industry at that time was either keep it secret, or publish. There was no middle ground. We were just a minor group, there were hundreds or thousaands of others doing as well or better. None of those innovations were protected as "Intellectual Property" - we just shared ideas.
Now, after all that work, stuff that we built back in the 1970's and 1980's is being patented right and left - not to mention trivialities like file formats for a disk partition scheme!! What's new in that?
At this point the best action might well be for all of those who were around before the USPTO changed the rules to get together and file a class action suit against the USPTO to have all software patents thrown out and return to the previous presumption that software algorithms were mathematics to be discovered, not invented. I would suggest a legislative process, but I doubt that this would go anywhere in today's environment.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/