Slashdot Mirror
Is The Lone Coder Dead?
CyNRG writes "The little guy. The one-person software company. Can it still exist today? That's me. I'm once again, after many years, writing my own commercial software to sell. A few things have changed: the patent feeding frenzy. This is my main concern. My perception is that one must verify that you don't infringe on any patents when developing new cool software, and that the explosion of patents granted by the USPTO has reached epic proportions. If this perception is true, then that makes it almost impossible for the Lone Coder to create something new that doesn't infringe on other patents. The amount of money required to perform the due diligence research seems like it would be greater than the amount of money needed to develop the software, or even the total revenues that the software could ever generate. Please someone tell me I'm wrong!" Is he?
Your real goal though is to write something, get it patented and then sell it for millions to the big boys.
Llamasoft is still just one guy in his house. He has a support crew, but he's really only the one guy, and he's putting out a title for GameCube soon.
So... no. That said, I know lots of other people that have two-three person teams that make a nice bit of cash here and there from coding.
As long as your code is good, it doesn't crash, and my grandma can use it without resorting to profanity, you'll make a nice piece of money.
Not alot, but maybe enough if you hire a good enough marketer.
Voodoo Girl is the bomb!
The Economist has a timely opinion piece about the patent problem in their most recent issue.r y_id=3376181"
http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?sto
I think that's exactly his point. You need to conduct due diligence to make sure YOU AREN'T infringing on someone's patent, less you want to get sued for millions if it's found you are infringing.
Remember, ignorence is no excuse in court.
And yet if you invest time and money into producing a product, only to find that it relies on a patented method, you might quickly find your investment going down the drain - or rather, the fruits of your labour going to the patent holder.
Spiderweb software is a 10-year old gaming company that only has one coder (President Jeff Vogel).
See http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/.
Thomas Warfield, author of Pretty Good Solitaire, Pretty Good Majongg, etc., is also a Lone Coder.
See http://www.asharewarelife.com/.
See generally discussion on "micro-isvs" at http://www.microisv.com/.
-Richard
You do not need to do "due diligence" unless you are basing your design on someone else's patented product.
That's kinda the point. With all the ridiculous software patents, it's a minefield in which you could unwittingly step on an existing patent unless you do some research beforehand.
Remember though, you'll get fined TRIPLE the damages if you knowingly violate a patent, versus 1 x damages if you unknowingly violate. Ignorance isn't protection, but it would appear to be a helluva lot less expensive.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
This is why in Europe both, the free software community and the small and middle sized corporations are all fighting hard to prevent software patents: http://kwiki.ffii.org/SwpatcninoEn6 078,00.htm of not researching what patents you might infringe will help you a bit by possibly avoiding punitive damages when/if you get sued, since you can claim not to have infringed willfully on a patent. But it won't decrease your lawyer bills for defending yourself in the slightest and neither will it decrease the future licensing costs. So if you are stepping on any big corporation's toes or are in the same business as another, failing company (*cough*SCO*cough*), it is highly likely you might get sued successfully for infringement
The Linus defense http://uk.builder.com/manage/work/0,39026594,2027
He just has to buy the relevant patents.
You can defy gravity... for a short time
As long as your source is 'closed', you shouldn't have much to worry about. Cause how is anybody supposed to know that you used a patented algorithm in your code unless they reverse engineered it--which is illegal according to the DMCA. Go nuts.
Hmmmmn,
1) Some algorithms are easy to spot - you don't need the code.
2) Some patents cover business methods & possibly looknfeel.
3) The DMCA does not make all reverse engineering illegal.
I think patents are definitely a problem for all small software shops - closed or open.
My pics.
First of all, it's not usually the 'algorithm' that's patented, and that's the problem. Instead it's things like double clicking and other rediculous concepts. If it was an algorithm there wouldn't be a real problem with software patents as it's usually trivial to implement the same thing 1000 different ways.
Second, according to the DMCA reverse engineering is NOT illegal. Breaking copy encryption is.
Stop the FUD, no one's been sued for "listening to bootleg music". Everyone who was sued was found because they were DISTRIBUTING bootleg music. Big difference.
And they didn't sue a 12 year old child, either. The ISP account wasn't in the kid's name, it was in the parent's name. If the parent isn't monitoring the kids, they deserve what they get.
It's actually Team America: World Police. That scene had me splitting my side. ;)
Actually, that's Valve you're thinking of--you know, the company distributing games over Steam.
Blizzard is the one using bittorrent to distribute its patches, and their implementation of it is exceedingly poor.
Schlock Mercenary
and a good article from the economist giving more examples of homebrew coders and how they fit in.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Setting up shop on Sealand can mean a lot of thing - physically, virtually, or legally.
... let me ask the gurus here --- Is there any way for people like us - lone coders - to be offered any protection from the fascist law firms out there ?
Physically, I doubt that Sealand can hold many a lone-coder, for they are just the size of a football field, in the middle of nowhere.
Virtually, maybe I can get my domain / website to be hosted there, and no one has the legal right to confiscate my server. But this still doesn't offer enough protection.
So we go to the third option - Legal
Unless Sealand is a internationally recognized sovereign country, anything registered there, whether be corporate entity or not, will NOT be recognized anywhere else.
The money made by corporation registered on Sealand - if they offer that - will be deemed "black money" in the rest of the world, and legal agencies from the Tax Department to FBI will harrass you whenever you transfer money out of your Sealand account into your local account.
So
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
http://www.hamrick.com/ Ed Hamrick, Author of Vuescan, supports 100+ scanners/cams HIMSELF. I licensed Vuescan while having Canon's own scanning software. It was simply better.
.
http://www.lemkesoft.de/ Adrian Lemke, Author of Graphics Converter.
You meant single coders, those guys are single coding. I know more like 2-3 coder guys/gals , also use/buy their software.
What about RAR "labs"? We know its a single guy coding (Alexander Roshal)
If people buy the stuff they use, there will be many more "lonely coder" guys.
Watch out! I incorporated in Nevada for something like $160, because i was told that was the way to go. Then the Nevada Department of Taxation told me that they charge $250 a year, + $25 per employee, after I had been incorporated for a year (it's paid in arrears so I couldn't back out). Plus they inform you after you're in your second year, so you now owe $500 + $50 per employee. Plus things get a little more complicated than that. Remember to consult a lawyer before doing anything -- particularly something you heard on slashdot!
At any rate, all of *your* code is still BSD, and if someone wanted to create a BSDed fork of your code, they'd only have to remove the GPLed code and either leave the functionality out, or write (or obtain) a BSDed implementation. If you later find some BSDed code that does the same thing the GPLed code does, you can simply swap them, and you suddenly can release the entire package as BSD, not just your portion of it. Note that this does not somehow make the *collective work* "your work", but it does follow the licensing agreement of all the component parts.
I'll easily agree with you that licenses like BSD, MIT, the old X11 license, etc., are more "free" than GPL. Personally, all of the code I release is GPLed (or LGPLed). I'm selfish. Some of us want to maintain a little more control of our code.. Is that so wrong? Is it so wrong that we've put hours of our free time into some of this stuff, not getting paid one whit for it, but still want some amount of control over what people do with it? You apparently don't care what people do with your code, and I applaud you for being so selfless. But some of us do, and as long as we have some form of copyright law, you are bound to respect that.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.