Slashdot Mirror
NoSoftwarePatents.com Industry Campaign Launches
Halo1 writes "The NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign has officially launched today. It has industry support from 1&1, Red Hat and MySQL AB. The website is already available in 12 EU languages (more to be added soon), and contains a ton of information about the dangers of software patents, including the myths that surround them. Hopefully, more large companies will join this campaign in the future."
Would be nice if this article can move to the main slashdot page, and does not stays only in the YRO section.
http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html
It has some great information hope you enjoy it and find it to be a help in supporting the need for software patents
Chris Williams clw7500nc@gmail.com
As an occasional troll ( Think of it as a hobby ), I am insulted. >:(
Hate me!
Patent mathematics. .0002$ per use .0002$ per use .001$ per use .009$ per use
+ is
- is
* is
/ is 1.00$ per use
mod() is 10$ per use
sqrt() is
We acknologe that these mathematics are the only ones you can use, and all derivatibe works are subject to this cost times amount of operations done. EG: Limits are infinite +, so you are incessantly in the hole.... (enter lawyer BS)
+ is .0002$ per use .0002$ per use .001$ per use
- is
* is
/ is 1.00$ per use
mod() is 10$ per use
$10 for mod? Bah!
Total cost = 1 division, 1 multiplication, 1 subtraction = $1.0012.
You're very naive if you think all large companies favor software patents. And you're even more naive if you think that per definition means that Europe will legalise software patents.
Donate free food here
The economy is exactly why software patents should exist. Not all large companies may favor software patents (particularly those who have not invested heavily in IP protection); but lots of money has gone into developing software *because* of software patents. It is good for startups too, who can protect an idea and attract capital from investors. Investors like property rights. These facts should not be ignored in any debate over IP rights.
It seems to me that patent rights in software can co-exist with open source. They co-exist now.
I'll be if we required software makers to publish the source code of any project containing patented code, that software patents would die a quick and decisive death.
Donate free food here
All of the anti-patent stuff I'm seeing is from the EU, which is frustating since it does nothing for those of us here in the United States.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
It's not that software patents are, in principle, bad. It's that the idiots in the USPTO are letting trivial ones through the syste. Some software patents are completely legitimate. Take, for example, this patent on the "Marching Cubes" computer graphics algorithm. The paper describing this algorithm made it into SIGGRAPH's Seminal Graphics collection of most important papers in computer graphics. Not all software patents are trivial and obvious.
Respectfully, I am not sure what organizations you are referring to. It sounds strange, since the whole concept of IP is based on economic incentive.
'but lots of money has gone into developing software *because* of software patents. '
Prove it. Almost all studies I've seen claim that the incentives to innovate in software is competition
Actually, I was talking about investment incentive, not incentives to innovate. Competition indeed promotes innovation. But property rights promote investment.
You also say "almost all studies...." I assume this means you have read some studies that support the arguments for patents in software.
Did you know that enforcing a software patent in court in the US costs between US $1,500,000 and $2,000,000 (if you're lucky)? Same for defeating one in court. How many small companies can afford this, do you think? Those patents are worthless if you can't afford to enforce them.
Litigation is not the only way patents are used. There is a large market in licensing, and lots of money changes hands based on patents without ever litigating. Your argument, respectfully, sounds like this: "Civil tort litigation can cost millions. Therefore we should do away with tort claims." While the current administration in DC is pursuing this logic with respect to medical malpractice torts, I disagree with it.
The point remains that lots of capital goes into software based on property rights. Remove those rights and you will weaken the industry by reducing the amount invested in it. I am not saying it would destroy the industry; but I disagree that patents in software "do not help the economy and innovation at all," as you argue. It seems patently obvious. ;)
Hopefully, more large companies will join this campaign in the future.
Since it's precisely large companies that are most benefiting from the abuse of the patent system to obtain frivolous software patents, I doubt this will happen. It won't gain much corporate support outside of open source firms.
I posted links in my original reply to you. For clarity's sake:
That's the theory, yes. In practice, not all types of IP are able to meet that goal. There is no economic law that says "more and stronger exclusion rights per definition result in a healthier economy". And there's also no juridical law that says "lawyers will always defend what's in the best interest of the economy as a whole".
One person's rights are another person's limitation. You always need a proper balance to get good results on the whole. You cannot look at single entities in the market and conclude from that it must be beneficial on the whole (or harmful for that matter).
Case in point: offering one company a monopoly on selling things via the internet, makes investment in all online shopping companies a lot less attractive.
Indeed, there is also one economical study in the entire world (that I know of, I really don't know any others) that claims that software patents are generally beneficial, and that patent thickets are a myth. You can find it here. And here's a rebuttal.
Yes, but that's not productive. In fact, every time such a transfer occurs, you extract money from the software business and invest it in lawyers. Something like that is only defensible if the effects on the whole are positive, e.g. if such transfers are necessary to spread knowledge throughout the industry. That is not the case with the software sector (see the studies I pointed you to).
My argument was simply that small companies do not have the means to enforce software patents, and that therefore arguing that they are beneficial for small companies is at least very doubtful. That's not even specific to software patents, it's a general recognised problem of the patent system.
However, in some sectors this negative effect may be offset by other, positive effects that patents have (e.g., if you need tens of millions of dollars to even start doing your product development, the cost a few patents on top of that can be disregarded).
You keep talking about "property rights" as if software patents are the only form of property rights in the software industry. They're not by a long shot, as you probably know. I'm also not asking for abolishment of copyright or trademarks or anything else.
I fail to see how you can weaken an industry by stopping to invest in something which hampers that same indust
Donate free food here
AIPLA believes that Congress, and not the PTO or the courts, is the proper authority to consider economic theory and competition policy-oriented principles. For the reasons discussed below, the PTO and the courts should not inject these theories and principles into their decision-making.
They are talking about uncertainty in the law, which is a blight. Uncertainty restrains economic behavior by increasing risk. The statement states that allowing the PTO and courts--rather than congress--to inject economic considerations into their decision-making would be bad, because it would not be in actual legislation, but in rules promulgation--making it ad hoc and slightly arbitrary. But their point is definitely not that patents hurt economic activity. Their point is that uncertainty in rule application would hurt economic activity. And I agree with them.
You also cited the IPO statement:
6. IPO does not support the FTC recommendation concerning considering potential harm to competition in deciding upon the scope of patentable subject matter. 10. IPO does not support expanding economic considerations in patent law decision making.
#6 seems to contradict your position, because the IPO is arguing that considering the scope of patents should not take "potential harm to competition" into account. Your position is based on the idea that patents harm competition. So they seem to directly contradicting you there.
#10 reiterates the AIPLA argument made above, which does not apply to this discussion, as I explained.
"There is no economic law that says "more and stronger exclusion rights per definition result in a healthier economy". And there's also no juridical law that says "lawyers will always defend what's in the best interest of the economy as a whole""
I am not arguing that patent protection should be extended to absurd levels; I haven't even argued the current level of protection is best (I don't think it is--patents in software should be harder to get than currently). I did argue against your point that "software patents do not help the economy and innovation at all."
Case in point: offering one company a monopoly on selling things via the internet, makes investment in all online shopping companies a lot less attractive
Your example monopoly is a bit broad, and would indeed stifle the market; however, patents are not nearly as broad. You essentially describe a patent on the entire industry, an absurd example, and the only one in which your point holds. But the fact that monopolies can be obtained at all provides great incentive to invest in those companies which have monopolies.
Yes, but that's not productive. In fact, every time such a transfer occurs, you extract money from the software business and invest it in lawyers. Something like that is only defensible if the effects on the whole are positive, e.g. if such transfers are necessary to spread knowledge throughout the industry. That is not the case with the software sector (see the studies I pointed you to).
You are focusing on the monopoly aspect, and accurately pointing out the downsides; but you're ignoring the upsides to property rights. The software may never have been written to begin with without an investor to pay the programmer.
And your idea that "every time such a transfer occurs, you extract money from the software business and invest it in lawyers," ignores the fact that the licensee gets to sell the product too--which makes money for the industry and employs programmers. Consider Apple's refusal to license their product. You don't see many Macs around today compared to IBM and its clones. That's because IBM licensed their technology out, while MAC refused to. Licen
Will they arrange a $50K-300K low interest loan if I promise not to patent my products?
Anyway, the argument, as presented:
I initially cited them while saying "It [having no software patents]'s only far-fetched for IP-attorneys that don't think that the economy [typepad.com] should be taken into account [typepad.com] when deciding about patent policy." Afterwards, I indeed inferred the above in your reply.
The point the FTC made is that this economic balancing requirement is basically a foundation of the patent system. Patents are monopolies offered by society. They're not a natural right, they are something you can get if society thinks it's in its own advantage to grant you that monopoly. Some filters are subject matter (although there's not much left of that), novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness, and all introduce uncertainty (you can't know all prior art, you don't know what the patent examiner will think is obvious to a skilled person in the art).
I do not think that considering whether or not something in a field where until now no patents have been granted should be patentable or not, introduces that much extra uncertainty. I think you should read the recommendation of the FTC in that light, not that each patent should also be subjected to an "economic impact" assessment. You always have to look at both sides, especially since it were in fact the PTO and the courts that extended the patentable subject matter to software-related innovations (and not Congress, although they also did not forbid it afterwards).
Given Machlup's famous quote "If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible... to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it", erring on the safe side seems the prudent choice here.
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. My basic point was that IP lawyers do necessarily recommend what's best for the economy. And the reason for that is (possibly, in my opinion) that software patents are bad for the economy. Competition is good for the economy. So them arguing against taking into account competition means that they (again) give precedence to the holy principle that everything should be patentable, regardless of economical consequences.
I'm not talking about absurd levels of patents. I'm saying that the (according to you probably completely reasonable) extension of
Donate free food here
FWIW, the first claim of the MP3 patent mentioned on that page is extremely broad as well, and doesn't just cover MP3 compression by a long shot. In fact, I've still to encounter a software patent with narrow claims. And yes, I know the first claim of a patent is always as broad as possible and that the rest refines on this, but you still have to go to court to defeat the broad claim (or take a license, which is often much cheaper and thus the preferred option).
Donate free food here
If they're to protect only an implementation of an idea, as they say they are, then copyright already offers perfectly good protection.
And if they're protecting more than that, then they shouldn't be!
Either way, they're unnecessary. And given the sort of flagrant abuses we're seeing so often, what reason is there for keeping them?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Aside from the fact that patenting calculations is absurd, your entire premise that they have driven investment in software is entirely empty. Prior to the 1980's the US consistantly and properly rejected any and all attempts to patent software. Such patents were only granted in the US in signifigant numbers in the 1990's. Such patents are still virtually never enforced in the US, and most of the world still does not allow or enforce software patents. The EU has been issuing a few software patents, but they are almost never upheld in the few rare cases where someone attepts to use them.
The entire explosion of the computer and software industry and the internet has been entirely free of software patent "protection". Actually it would be more appropriate to say those explosions were free of software patent constraint.
Today patent threats are generally either used to crush small innovators, or traded in entirely unproductive blanket crosslicening deals between entrenched industry players.
If software patents were to actually be enforced to any signifigant extent the US software industry - and all industries that use software, would be crippled or collapse. Software development would flee overseas, and US industries would suffer the handicap of being denied the use of vast quantities of software. For example it is estimated that Linux infringes almost 300 US software patents. The US economy would absolutely collapse if you were to suddenly deny US companies the use of Linux and all of the software running on top of Linux.
I also guarantee you that Windows infringes countless patents. There is no reason such a patent holder would have to settle with Microsoft. The patent holder could not only sue Microsoft for millions, not only could they get an injuction prohibiting the distribution af any new copies of Windows (or machines with Windows), they can go after end users. Software patents are process patents, it is the end user that is carrying out that infringing process. They can not only sue for money, they can get an injuction prohibiting any further use of that software.
But the issue of whether software patents are good or bad is moot. They are invalid. In the 1980's the Supreme Court goofed in a borderline 5-4 decision. Prior to that decision the US patent office consistantly and properly rejected any attempt to patent software on the Mental Steps Doctrine - that mental steps are not an invention and cannot be patented. Any software can (slowly) be carried out mentally. Running software mentally is a normal part of the programming and debugging process. Granting software patents is either granting a patent making certian thoughts against the law, or it is granting a patent on the blood obvious step of using an ordinary computer simply to speed up that calculation.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Correct. But that is today. Software development in twenty years will likely look very different.
Consider: None of these arguments is, well, novel - they have thirty years of dust on them. They were all made regarding biotech, too. Thirty years ago, the instigators of the uproar over biotech patents said that:
- Biotech patents would prevent normal researchers from using basic, ordinary benchtop lab practices.
- Biotech patents would basically centralize all of biotech within two or three massive companies that would no longer need to innovate.
- The USPTO could not even hope to staff its examiners with biotech experts, and therefore could not conduct a valid examination, leading to a torrent of facially invalid biotech patents for all eternity.
- Biotech patents would basically cause the end of biotech innovation. No more medical therapies; no more lab research; no more industrial biochemistry.
Fortunately, those arguments were declined. Obviously, the predicted cataclysm has not materialized. Today, our biotech industry is basically causing a golden age of medicine - we're creating far more disease cures, far faster, than ever before in history.So it's pretty simple:
- Biomedical innovation requires funding.
- Funding of early-stage biomedical innovation comes from investors.
- Investors only invest in companies that have a strong business plan.
- A strong business plan that hinges on conducting expensive research to create a new market must mention a way to gain a return on investment by securing that market for a limited time.
Hence, biotech patents. Hence, biotech innovation.Software is not markedly different. In a nutshell, I will offer the following insights:
- Software technologies and techniques that are routine and ubiquitous today will still be routine and ubiquitous tomorrow - free of patents.
- Bad software patents expire 20 years after their filing date, just as do valuable patents. Thus, even bad patents today - those that cover routine techniques - will expire and become public knowledge in a few years.
- The industry will become more selective about filing software patents. It must, since absurdities like patents on hash tables will never be useful to anyone. Even large companies cannot afford to throw away vast sums of money on patent portfolios that are not enforceable.
- By approximately 2020, we will have an incredibly well-documented record of the state of software development - both in the form of 50 years of programming journals, and in the form of all previously-filed software patent applications. The patent system will improve, as it has before.
- David SteinComputer over. Virus = very yes.
Will it? It doesn't look that different today than it did 20 years ago. There are some new concepts (OOP, AOP, etc), we have RAD's, but in the end it's still programmers and designers thinking of new algorithms, debugging stuff, and integrating everything into a stable and usable whole.
I doubt it. Did anyone ever claim the biotech industry is a "cottage industry"? (see the last paragraph) That you barely need any investments to start a new biotech company? That everything underlying biotech innovations in pure maths? That biotech patents pave the way for patents on business methods? That biotech patents could be used to prevent publications of new biotech techniques and not just their use? (program claims) That biotech is pervasive throughout all economic sectors going from grocery shops to space stations, and as such is an "enabling technology" of which hindrances have very broad reaches?
To be fair, I've never followed the biotech patent situation. So I just searched for "biotech patents" on Google. The fourth link contains several links which seem to show the controversy is still far from settled. So does the sixth and the eighth. There are of course other views as well (such as the tenth link), but claiming everything is happy happy joy joy with no downsides seems just a tad misleading.
There's also a bit about it in the recent FTC report on patents and innovation. They note that the fact that biotech includes quite a bit of consequential innovation (as opposed to traditional pharmaceuticals) causes some problems. You are presumably aware of the fact that software development is almost nothing but consequential innovation (and lots of reuse as well). The solution proposed by the panel members regarding biotech is what is currently already done in the software world: extensive cross licensing. Of course, you need a lot of patents to be able to join that game.
Of course they are useful for those companies! They are strategic assets, used as trading cards or litigation tokens. Enforceability is generally not even a concern, as many small companies can simply not afford the litigation costs (if you have the choice between a $50,000 license or a $2,000,000 lawsuit, what do you pick?)
And there will be tons more of programming legacy which is not documented in this way at all, but just available as source code (which is also a publication, given that source code
Donate free food here