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?
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - The Lone Coder was found dead in front of his home computer this evening. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to programming culture. Truly a geek icon.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
"Cats like plain crisps"
Your real goal though is to write something, get it patented and then sell it for millions to the big boys.
That would be the end of innovation in the U.S. and would cause an even greater shift of technology jobs to oversea markets!
Due diligence?
Patent enforcement is the job of the patent holder. You do not need to do "due diligence" unless you are basing your design on someone else's patented product. Or you are attempting to publish your own patent.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Feel better?
Seriously though, the one good thing I can think of about all this ridiculous IP litigation is that it actually can drive a good 'lone coder' to really innovate as opposed to create the same old mouse trap in a different way.
In either case, good luck to you. Make us proud.
Well, I'm not exactly an expert, but it seems to me that he's just over-reacting. The threat of patent infringement to a one-man development team seems to me like it would be miniscule compared to much larger threats like running out of money or being unable to accomplish your goals.
From what I've seen of the software market today, one-man teams still seem to be a way to make money. You just have to find the right market, and avoid overextending yourself - do a good job on the things you can manage, instead of trying to do everything and doing a crappy job of it. I've seen lots of developers succeed by marketing shareware or selling software over the internet (especially as far as indie games go, for example Starscape).
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Take Bittorrent for example. Does anyone know if he actually lives of it or not?
If that kind of success is not enough, I don't know what is.
Coding software to sell is dead, for all the reasons you mentioned.
What's a coder to do?
Code away on an open source project, gove away all your hard work.
THEN...
Offer your services as an implemetation and customization consultant for said open source software for businesses.
Implementations are not fun, but pound for pound, you get serous cash. Especially if you wrote the software to begin with. You can charge the most.
"Piter, too, is dead."
You are probably safe as long as the money you make from your software is less than the legal costs to go after you. If you start making a lot of money and get a lot of attention then someone is likely to come after you, for a variety of reasons including patent infringement. Tho this is true for anyone that comes into a lot of money.
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
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.
As I understand it, if you run across a 'possible' infringement and decide to go ahead and then some court deems that it is an infringement, then you knowingly have perpetrated the deed, and the penalty is greater than just simply going ahead and writing the code and letting the chips fall where they may. At that point you won't have knowingly infringed.
Oh yes and sell out to the big boys, get that indemnification and let them worry about the suit.
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
But just because software has grown so large (and the computing power needed to run simple applications has increased at the same pace). For most applications, it's simply not possible to have a single person write it from start to finish. If they did, the software would be 5 years out of date when they finished.
It's the same as any other mature industry. A single person can't really build a car from scratch either. At least not one that has any hope of competing with the product of a large design team.
I mean I don't like software patents anymore than most people on Slashdot, but your argument doesn't appeal to me.
-Spyky
Well, I've been working on Dada Mail (formely Mojo) since I started college (graduated last summer)
It's basically fed me for the past three years now; I work on it primarily alone - it's also open source, I make money on a "Pro" distribution, selling an advanced downloadable manual, installation and consultation services.
Very incredibly low overhead for me to run the "shop", and it's still somewhat fun to do.
Oh and I graduated in art - no CS (or math, sans an accounting class) background.
Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?
...when you can write some software to do it automatically?
Beep beep.
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
What about writing open source software on contract? This is how companies like Namesys (ReiserFS) exist. Reiser4 development was paid for by DARPA, SuSE and Lindows.
He just has to buy the relevant patents.
You can defy gravity... for a short time
1. Well, "lone coders" can't afford the legal work of performing patent searches. This is true. But you know what? I think small or even medium-sized corporations probably can't afford it either.
2. Even if you ARE clear of existing patents, what if a big company decides to fight you in court? Again, a small or medium-sized company could never afford to fight this.
3. Then again, it's not always in some big company's interest to shut you down or sue you out of existance. Often they probably just want a chunk of your profits. (and a chunk of zero is still zero, so they don't make money if you fold, either)
What a fucking country.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
What about those of us that wish to retain control over the content we create?
In these days you just have to hope that your product is successful, but not so successful that some big business entity decides to shut you down based on some bogus patent.
I used to work for a company that has a patent on the visual representation of latency between to remote connections. Just think of all of the software that is out there that are "violating" these one patent.
Ugg. Just gets me boiling thinking about it. Most great software started out from small unknown groups or even individuals. 1-2-3 spreadsheat, Mosaic web browser, etc. All big companies have to do today is sit back and wait for someone to create something novel and pounce on them once their idea is proven successful.
It's not easy -- you have to stoop to doing stuff like adding gratuitous links to your Slashdot posts.
This isn't going to be a popular sentiment here, but I'd say that the GPL and P2P generally make it tougher to make a living.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
1. Marketing costs are high and price per unit that users are willing to pay are not high. Unless you've got way into six figures to for advertising and marketing, forget about getting your sales out of two figures.
2. This means that you've got to sell high-priced apps. And the best shot at these would be business-specific custom or semi-custom apps for medium-sized companies (big companies have IT shops to write their own custom apps). I used to do pretty well at that sort of thing. Unfoturnately, medium-sized businesses usually by now have some fool who can do just about as good with Excel or Access as you can do with whatever you lone code with. So why wouldn't they let their in-house code monkey enjoy a little job enrichment by writing the app instead of paying you thousands of dollars to write it?
3. Computers are everywhere now, and everyone knows of their risks. Few companies will trust a lone coder with anything important because of all the computer risks associated with 1-man project.
There are still a few that do it, but most of the ones who I've known to be successful in the past are moved on now.
With lasers on its head!
No, really. If you incorporate (for $800 or so), then the worst that can happen is that your little company is made non-existent.
At least I don't think they'll pierce the corporate veil over a small company. It's simply not worth their time.
Fellowship 9/11
As long as there are freeware compilers and notepads, there will always be the Lone Coder. Despite the patenting and the proliferation of giant projects with thousands of coding slaves behind them, there's always room for individual innovation. Look at all the concepts that people have discovered by themselves... from General Relativity to the modern day convenience of BitTorrent. That will *never* change... at least not until we all become thoughtless automatons.
Obviously the goliaths of the world would never bother to resort to the rediculous slash and burn practices you're talking about...
Why that would be like billion dollars music corporations suing 12 year olds for listening to bootleg music...
What an irrational, ridiculous, and fuitless waste of time and legal process that would be, eh?
-- Genda
A. You should not do patent research (treble damages). Don't feel bad... big companies don't do this research either, for the same reason.
B. As a small operation, you're not the target of infringement lawsuits.
C. If you're doing closed-source software, they probably won't be able to tell you're infringing unless it's some patented video or audio codec implementation.
Keep in mind that you don't go straight from infringement to a lawsuit. The patent holder may well just want you to take a license, which can be negotiated as a royalty paid to them on copies of the software you sell.
If you can't afford a license, or they won't sell you one, you will have to rework your code not to use the patented idea.
The sky isn't falling. There are all manner of different liabilities that can pop up for any business at any time. There is no way to predict it. That's what insurance and indemnification are for.
Blech - the great thing about selling a software package, say targeted for home users/SOHO, is that your income is not limited by the number of hours you put in. You also don't have to go hang out at customer sites, spend you time on the phone trying to close contracts, find yourself changing features so that you can land that "big contract" (which then never shows up).
If you like doing those things, consulting is fine, but it's a really different lifestyle and business than selling a product.
I've been in the same boat. I've had some ideas on software I wanted to write, but have worried about patents. Software should only be protected via copyright in my opinion. Software patents should be banished. They are helping the monopolies more than the little guys.
:)
This has led me to thinking of developing games. I've never once seen a video game patent case. Are games immune from patents? They are software, and really it seems like pretty much the same thing to me. For example, Tetris was really unique for its time, but now there are hundreds of clones. What really is different between an inventive form of gameplay vs. some of the foolish software patents that are out there now? Really, I want to know why this is so different! Please any comments welcome.
This shareware spam filter made Nick Bolton $3.5 million in 2003 and now he employs 28.
really, I was told this by lawyers at a very very very large networking company I once worked for. DO NOT INVESTIGATE if you are using someone else's IP. if you investigate, then you are (ironically) setting yourself up. if, otoh, you blindly develop and then, later on, it comes to your attention that you did something 'wrong', its easier to get out of that than the other way around.
what's the phrase, 'its better to ask forgiveness for an act than to ask permission, beforehand'.
IANAL, but this is almost exactly what the big corp lawyers told us, when we gathered at a group meeting and were asking about how to go about developing code that doesn't infringe.
no, temper this with the fact that they have a team of lawyers which is bigger than your whole company. so I'm not sure their advice still sticks. ymmv..
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
A more likely scenario is you build something that's moderately successful and shiit-for-brains-we-don't-produce-anything-but-lit igation company comes after you, and probably a bunch of bigger fish, for royalties. More likely they'll go after the big fish first, then you smaller players later.
The way to beat these kinds of cases is 30 or 40 of you team up to mount a collective defense. FIghting one little company is easy, fighting the Borg is whole different deal. If it's an abusive patent with prior art worth fighting you stand a good chance.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
that pretty much describes me - in fact i'm going to give this model a try myself.
i have to say though - get back to us after your company has survived a year or two after you've burned through your seed capital.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
... you make a ton of money with your software. So go ahead and write it. Patent defensively, for your own protection and if you can afford it. But nobody in their right business mind is going to sue you unless you have created an untapped $100-million market with your new software. People in business are very greedy, but they are usually not mean just for the sake of being mean (e.g. shutting you down for absolutely no business reason). Why would they waste their energy that way instead of generating wealth? Only the kind of small guy who thinks he invented everything would try to sue you but could he afford it? And if you are infringing on existing patents, when you are making a ton of money, just license those patents and you're fine. Or sell your company. Whatever works best for you. It's like taxes: do not complain if you are paying a lot of taxes; it just means you are making a lot of money.
One of the best flight sims in the world is basicly the work of one guy (OK, he's gotten some help recently). Of course he did accidently upload all of his code to an ftp server by accident one night when he was drunk. And he's a bit, um, unique (comes with the territory I guess). But still, he's made enough money to drive a sweet car and own one of the best private aircraft available today (and own a Segway). So, yeah, it's still possible to live the lone coder dream...
My dad is a one man coder. He sells software used for statistical analysis, at quite a pretty penny, too. As far as he's explained it to me, he's been selling more or less the same software for 15+ years now, but he keeps making new versions because changes in windows will occaionsally make his software stop working, so the people who need it just go buy a new copy.
I don't know how much he makes annually selling the software, but I assume it's probably not enough to support a family with.
My blog
If you write software correctly, it doesn't NEED "services as an implementation and customization consultant for said open source software for business".
Open Source is NOT a viable business model for small business. What business in their right mind would buy a product which ties them for life to a small vendor for support?
In a later news release of the Preliminary Autopsy Results:
1. He had Type II diabetes from the consumption of Mountain Dew/Code Red.
2. He has extremity palsy from the intake of Jolt Cola.
3. He was having Grand Mal epileptic seizures from the MSG in his local Chinese takeout.
4. He had become reclusive with the shock of finding out that real, live women DIDN'T have staples in their navels.
5. He hands had become claws due to the carpal tunnel and tendonitis from his non-ergonomic keyboard.
HOWEVER, the proximate cause of death was...
6. He attempted to read the entire set of Don Knuth's TAOCP (The Art of Computer Programming) AND "Regular Expressions in PERL" in the same evening and HIS HEAD EXPLODED!!!
LATE BREAKING NEWS:
In a joint press announcment, Microsoft, Sun, Apple and SCO announced that they were SURE that the Lone Coder's work infringed on their IP, and they would be seeking redress beyond the grave, from the appropriate authorities, saying "If ANYONE thinks that merely by DYING they can escape the reach of our lawyers enforcing our intellectual property rights, they will find out just how far we will go to make sure that every line of ever written has the protection it deserves!"
He is survived by his parents, who will be paying off his student loans from MIT for the rest of their natural lives, and his high school sweetheart, who, unknown to the Lone Coder, due to lack of consortium, became a lesbian several years ago and moved to North Beach.
Richard Stallman has annouced that he's quite sure the Lone Coder's work was pretty much something that he had written in LISP on a napkin, one lunch 30 years ago at the Lampoon, but he was kinda buzzed and "...wasn't sure what i did with the *&)&*(&)( napkin...!"
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
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.
Not to be the wet blanket of this party, but...
A) Large companies, who hate small developers with an awe-inspiring passion, have patented everything under the sun, so even if your project is successful, you're going to get the shaft sooner or later;
B) If your project IS successful, someone's going to come along and yank it right out from under you. Maybe you'll be sued for patent infringement and sign your stuff over in the settlement, or maybe Microsoft will integrate a competing product with Windows, making you irrelevant, or maybe a college kid just as smart as you will come out with competing freeware -- you'll get hosed one way or the other;
C) Anyone who IS interested in your product is going to download it off a pirate site anyway. Think I'm kidding? I can't tell you how many times I've heard some doofus consultant laugh "But I never pay for software! Windows is free, man." I tell them that I religiously pay for everything, that it's a matter of professional courtesy -- and they almost cough up their livers laughing at me. THIS IS THE MARKET YOU'RE IN. You can't make money in it.
Given these basic facts, what should a programmer do? Here's MY position; I see two possibilities, which you can blend a bit if you like:
Possibility Number 1: You write open-source software, you GPL all your stuff, and you sign over the copyrights to the FSF, who have many, many lawyers. You might not make any money doing this, but you get to use your software without restrictions, forever. Also (tasty) you get to seriously annoy the suits who'd like to make money off your stuff. It's no longer possible for someone to take it from you.
Possibility Number 2: the hacker model: you keep all your cool stuff to yourself, and you trade it with your close friends for their cool stuff. You guys are now the only people with this cool stuff. It's like the force; you are different and have secret abilities that the herd isn't aware of. It's fun and interesting. You meet other groups of people with their own cool stuff and trade; thus you become the Ham Radio operators of the programming world.
The lone developer isn't going anywhere. He's just going back to the garage and hacker groups he came from.
Perhaps -- just perhaps -- this is a Good Thing.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Sheesh, kids these days :-)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I have a software company with two other guys. Each one of us is in a different project. I'm handling a project all by myself, writing custom software for a client, and I get to do some small projects from time to time too.
We use open source where we can and contribute back where we can. I'm starting an open source project, writing (yet another) CMS, this one with technologies I'm familiar and feel comfortable with. We plan to use this on some projects with a small web design company, so they can sell a dynamic web site and later we can get to support it (directly or through them, it's all good).
I like to think that the future of software development will be something like mechanics are now (at least here in Mexico). You can take your new or fancy car to the dealer for small repairs and maintenance, but almost everybody takes their car to some small shop run by a couple of guys who know their stuff. They get their clients mostly by word-of-mouth recommendations. Some mechanics try to rip you off, you don't go back, but if you like their work, you'll recommending them to people you know.
So I think there will always be big software companies, making big projects and writing huge complex applications, like SAP and such. Big corporations can make business with this big developers. But many companies will go to the smaller development companies that use open source and run a small shop, to cut costs without sacrificing quality and having more direct contact with the people who are going to write their software.
So maybe the lone coders will not make big big bucks like before, but we can still make a living and enjoy our work.
Go hug some trees.
The guy works for Valve now, not Blizzard.
You write a custom app. Release it in 1 year. Market it. 6 months. Release v2. Market it more. Release v3. People start talking about it. yadda, yadda, yadda... How do you eat while spending the years it takes to get a good open source project to get even used? How many more years before it develops a cult following, and admins start installign it? Jesus, something like Apache took a fucking decade before it paid to be an Apache consultant. That's a long time being homeless, while hoping that yous stands out among the millions of other programs.
I don't respond to AC's.
A VERY small company I worked for had a product they sold for about $500. Companies would routinely buy it and then ask for several months worth of customization. On average, that little $500 item would generally net about $35-50k. So, you're right, they could just give the thing away and it wouldn't make an ounce of difference, except that they might have more customers.
I hear they're having financial trouble these days. Wouldn't it be ironic if that worked.
Come to Europe! Things aren't that bad overhere. Yet...
The new IP-laws will lake just a little longer to pass, now that 10 new countries joined the EU. They need to negotiate and vote over it again.
Privacy is terrorism.
and a good article from the economist giving more examples of homebrew coders and how they fit in.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
(Just logged in) I'm a lone coder. As I said, I also do the artwork for the game software I'm writing (fortunately, I'm capable of doing a good job). Patents aren't really a concern for me since I'm doing a variation on a wargame theme. If I were doing something very new, innovative, and lucrative, however, I would be more concerned. It's possible to make decent money as a lone coder and still stay off the radar screens of the corporate lawyers.
Someone else mentioned that lone coders don't have enough money to do marketing. I suppose that may be true in many cases, although it is possible to get a publisher and still be considered a "lone coder" (although publishers bring their own source of headaches).
There is also the issue of getting the software to market without it looking dated. I don't think this is a huge problem unless you are trying to create a very cutting-edge game which competes with the likes of Doom3. The longer time-to-market that a lone coder (sometimes) requires is mostly a problem from the perspective of competition getting there first. So, lone coders can benefit a great deal by finding new variations on a theme. If you have an idea that is obvious (like 3d massively-multiplayer games were before the advent of Everquest), then the lone coder is going to get to market too slowly to compete.
To underscore the point that lone coders can bring a good product to market, take a look at my software: http://www.empiresofsteel.com/
If you want to develop software yourself, then by all means go for it. Shareware-type software (without spyware or adware) is common, but some is more successful than others.
Software patents are a concern, but it is better to work at fixing the problem than simply worrying about it. Most patent infringement cases have involved large-ish companies. Though it may sound strange, a good policy is not to look for software patents. Previous postings have already mentioned this, but it is meaningful in terms of avoiding "willful infringement" which is much more serious than innocent infringement. Linus Torvalds has said that "no engineer should ever go looking for a patent" and he mentions liability as one of the reasons. Also see this article from an attorney. The best idea is not to be concerned unless you already know about a software patent i.e. compressed GIF images.
May you have the best of luck with your software development. :)
Just a few days ago Slashdot posted a link to the saga of mp3 player Audion, by a small 2-man development shop. In the end, the program died, but the developers' story is really very inspiring.
Thrill to their tale of almost being bought out by AOL in 1999. Weep at their account of being told offf by Steve jobs at Macworld, as he developed a new program (itunes) that would eventually devour our heroes.
And yet, in the end, the developers' attitude and story inspired the heck out of me. Yes, one guy, working alone, with the right idea, at the right time, can make it big.
Don't blame big government for your fears. Just come up with something brilliant and take the plunge. And see what happens.
Here's the primary goal of open source IMO.
Give a set of tools to engineers. With all that code available, you can skip to the core of what you attempt to build, if what you need is available of course. You can even ask for help (if your goal is non-profit). Linus was a lone coder, and what he did was a big get-togheter with a lot of other lone coders.
It's just a paradigm shift.
We should have been
So much more by now
Too dead inside
To even know the guilt
LoneCoder does indeed appear dead. LongCoder started posting to slashdot in early 2000. His 7 short comments receiving a score of 1 each caused him to take a 4 year break from posting to slashdot.
/. moderators, LoneCoder took his own life.
A carefully worded post praising Suse Linux netted him a score of 4 he briefly basked in his own reflected glory. Unfortunately his very successs was also his downfall. Unable to handle the thought of another 1 point post after gaining acceptance for the first time through
On his computer were found many text files containing various drafts of "In Soviet Russia", "Imagine a Beaowulf", and other unposted commemts along with his predictions on their possible scores.
He leaves behind No Friends, No Foes, No Freaks, and No Fans, and no forwarding email.
Remember his final words: SuSE rules!!
It's even worse: recipes cannot be copyrighted! Instructions are not able to copyrighted, and that includes recipes. If there's extra text around it that is not really the recipe, that descriptive text might be able to be copyrighted. But the instructions to make food a specific way? That cannot be copyrighted.
The same is true of games. You can copyright a certain presentation of, say, Monopoly. But you can't copyright the rules that describe how to play the game Monopoly. (Trademark, of course, may forbid you from using the name 'Monopoly' if you choose to sell your version of the rules. But neither trademark nor copyright can stop you from selling your version of the Monopoly rules under a different name.)
You can read this at the copyright office web site.
So, no, I never did understand how computer code could be copyrighted.
In general, things cannot be copyrighted unless copyright-ability has been specifically extended to that kind of thing. The natural state of things is assumed not to be able to be copyrighted. So, you can't copyright a cheesecake, or a chair, or a scarf, unless Congress specifically says that you can.
I rant further about this at http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9.
Jerry
If you ar a lone coder and you are not worth at least 100 million dollars, no one will sue you. The legal costs of a patent suit would cost more than they could get from you. I am reminded of the old saying: "You can not get blood from a turnip"
Jamey Kirby
If you look for patents you may be violating then ignore it, you'll be charged with willfull infringement and forced to pay 2-3x what it would be otherwise.
So my 'not a lawyer' advise is don't look for patents until someone comes knocking on your door.
--buddy
If hardware was somehow delivered across warez networks, would anyone buy hardware? That's why warez is so destuctive; things stop being created. A world with 6 billion people and there are two browsers. A world with 6 billion people and all the idiots come here.
...and you have some venerable company in Dan Bricklin. ,neither of you are likely to get rock-star rich from your spiffy new idea. As for the idea-sewer that the USPTO has become: take advantage of it. The barriers to filing were lowered and you can stake your claim easily enough...just try to make your money before you get sued. The examiners have been forced to leave the real work up to the courts but by the time the process reaches that stage, you should have sold your company and gone on to the next thing. Dan Bricklin would say to
just forget about patents alltogether
The bad news is
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.
EU is going the same way.
Err, no, with Bush in power, it's probably headed in the other direction, toward direct confrontation.
Hear about the ongoing steel tariffs war?
Microsoft fined for monopolist behaviour?
GM Crops?
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 !
Software is a comodity, rarely a luxury product anymore.
Most programmers do not realize that their role has changed in many instances from IT Designer or Engineer to IT Quick FIx or Janitorial Service.
If you do not understand the nature of software today do not expect to receive sympathy for a vision of the wolrd that is contradicted by day to day reality and facts.
The only thing copyright infringers can't copy is your personaly lended support. The more software you write and release under open licensing schemes, the more software there is out ther to be mantained and customized.
Programmers should not see themselves anymore as designers but mantainers and IT tailors.
Write useful software, release unencumbered of close licenses and make it known you are the final authority regarding the software.
If it is truly useful you will have business expanding its usefulness.
If it is not (yet another window manager for example) then frankly you should not expect much recompense for your efforts, appart from the joy of learning.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And frankly I despair when I see such nonsense rated insightful.
If you are referring to the software you write yourself, nobody is forcing you to license its distribution under the GPL. Of course people writing similar applications and releasing them under the GPL will have a competitive advantage: I as an user want to own my IT infrastructure and am tired of vendor lock in. If you can't deal with that, thoug, but still nobody is forcing you to release the fruits of your labour under the GPL.
If is other people's software you are complaining about then get a grip, the authors can release it under wathever licensing scheme they see fit and is none of your business dictating how they do it.
So exactly what is your point?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So what you are saying is that the GPL is bad because commercial interests can't be arsed to invest in R&D and would prefer to obtain things without any effort?
Well, I welcome that. If well known examples are any indication, companies will run with things, will pretend they are innovating and the most cynical will even start using their "IP portfolio" in creative legal ways.
If the only way to protect the commons is by keeping at bay potential abusers then the GPL is a wonderfool legal tool to achieve just that.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
http://www.openwatcom.org/?
Or something else?
http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
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.
Personally I wouldn't worry about patents. The original intent of patents were to protect IP but now they're primarily used for two other purposes: to stifle innovation and attract investors. The lone coder doesn't really need to feel intimidated by either of these issues. In a worst-case scenario, if you manage to create an app which attracts the attention of an entity which would threaten you, at the same time you'll probably also be approached by entities that are interested in acquiring your technology (and willing to help defend it).
It's a sad commentary on the state of innovation in our society that something like this is even an issue. Imagine if all the great artists throughout history were discouraged by the thought that their work might infringe upon or offend somebody, or whether or not the prospect was profitable.
Then again, if you're getting into coding merely as a means to an end, you can do us all a favor and don't bother. If you haven't identified an area where you think you can contribute, why bother? You're in the biz for the wrong reason and we have enough lame code from un-passionate producers just doing it to make a buck.
Patents in the US govern any manufacture, use or sale of a product within the U.S., but also any importation or offer to import therein. Most nations have similar rules. Ultimately, if you want to play in foreign markets, you are going to expose yourself to liability elsewhere, for which you can ordinarily be served by international treaty.
I don't know if Sealand is signatory to Hague, but even if it isn't you still can't do much harm to others or good for yourself from the bitsy island, unless that is where all your assets are located, and everything you want is there.
Sure, you can go to sealand and infringe away, but don't imagine for an instant you can exploit the invention beyond its borders without risk.
The more you give, the larger a conduit you become, and the more you are able to transit through yourself in the future. It really works and it's not magic.
Example. .
Two creators are sitting on great ideas. Creator A doesn't want to start development until a third party offers pre-payment and guarantees of recognition and general safety. Creator B understands that giving is power and so jumps right in, develops and distributes the idea, making sure in advance only that the system being created is logical and viable enough to pay for itself. The end result, you've all seen. Creator A goes nowhere and does nothing, while Creator B, if the idea is of true benefit and interest to humanity and the execution was not driven by wishful thinking and the wasteful expenditure of energy through poor planning, will be seen and respected and the money will start to flow. --The more integrity, work and faith Creator B puts into the system, the wider the conduit grows.
The "Homestar Runner" guys are worthy examples. --They put up their work with no promises offered to them, and these days they make a living selling thousands of T-Shirts, coffee mugs, CD and DVD collections. They turned down a TV development offer, which could have vaulted them into an even higher power bracket, but they were comfortable and best suited for their conduit width as it stood. But if they continue to give in earnest and if their work continues to be valued, they will have more offers in the future when perhaps they are feeling ready to grow.
I've met a bunch of guys who have perfectly viable ideas, but who won't start development because nobody is offering to pay them for their time and effort up front. They will not go anywhere.
Finally. . , very few people need to get rich. Being super-wealthy naturally attracts IP lawsuits, etc., and that's where the problems start. Being wealthy is a huge responsibility, because it means maintaining and working with a very wide energy conduit which, while it can do a great deal of good, can also be very demanding. Evil empires are easy to spot, because they are naturally attracted to needless collections of enormous and unwisely used power. It's entirely possible to be quick-moving and healthy on a lower level and not have to worry too much about the behemoth control freaks. --And when people do have to worry, (there is the eternal war on between Good and Evil, after all), then the support network is a powerful device which can protect the really pure gems of its own system. The SCO affair is an example of how evil can be very effectively shut down with minimal effort. Like swatting a bug. Without the current network of giving individuals is in place, SCO could actually have become a real problem. As it was they were swatted down like a bug. Evil is inefficient and stupid because they employ wishful thinking; they don't plan realistically. If they did, they would see that selfishness is ultimately self-defeating and they would choose not to be evil.
So long as you remain part of the 'energy' distribution network and stay on the Light Side, you'll be well taken care of. I stopped worrying about these things a long time ago, and just focus on feeding my community as best I am able, while cutting off those who do not give anything in return to the network. When everybody gives, the system grows and those who are part of it are laughing.
Works like a charm.
-FL
Um, you could say the same thing about cash, or stock. If the government crumbles, you're out of luck.
Mod point free since 2001
Small organizations consisting of a no more then a handful of dedicated coders working on projects that they are deeply interested in are bound to be more efficient then the Suns, IBMs and Microsoft's of the the world.
Such small consultancy firms have little to no advertising, marketing and sales overhead. These groups thrive on word of mouth and a more academia like environment.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But I'll post it anyway.
If your software needs "services" and "support" in sufficient quantity to support you, then you are writing impossible-to-maintain junk that is at best customized for each user. At worst, it breaks everytime someone tries to use it and they have become dependent on it so they have to pay you to fix it.
Proper software tools need almost no support, little documentation and works out of the box without a lot of customization that can only be done by the author.
Maybe it is different kinds of software, but mostly I have seen the two kinds mentioned here: junk and quality. I won't even say that "quality" is attained - it is perhaps more of a goal to be sought after. It you really make it there, then you end up losing everything to piracy.
A one person coding company could exist as a sole proprietorship, a nonprofit corporation, a corporation, or a one person LLC.
They could build on open source applications, within their licensing rules.
The one person coding firm could also sell his or her software, and offer limited licensing (one to 5 personal copies per user) to whoever buys/leases the software. I realize it probably wouldn't be a EULA.
The software could be copyrighted to protect against pirates.
Trade Secrets are based on state laws. It protects the Coca Cola formula and other "secret" formula.
So when the one person coding firm wants to protect his/her work, copyright could protect the code, trade secrets could protect the "way" in which the software is produced, maybe even the way the box where the CD Rom is shipped.
The app would sit on the shoulders of Open Source giants, and thus friendly users could distribute 1-5 copies maybe. Friendly customer based pirating? Anything more than 5 copies would be considered piracy.
As far as patent infringements, my guess (only a guess) is that these could be avoided as long as a person is building from or on an open source code. Assuming open source code does not use anything remotely like MS or Amazon patents.
Plus two people might disagree all the time. One person can perfect a cool vision!
Okay fine your wrong. The days of a lone coder writing the latest and greatest Video game are gone, the days of the lone coder writing a Lotus 123 or Wordstar and becoming a huge force in the software industry are gone. The days a a lone programmer making a good living writing embedded code, or vertical market software are still here. There is very good money to be made in "Vertical" markets. Everything from auto shops to storage units use computers now. You may even get small time rich doing it. I am talking a few million here not Hundreds of millions but still not bad. Frankly it has gotten easier for the small guy to do some really good stuff. SQL databases for Linux and Windows are available for free and Postgres frankly is good enough for just about any small business setup you are likely to imagine. Open Source could be a huge help to you take SQL ledger and modify it for some market and add some custom code to maybe run a cash drawer or set up a website for a Pizza place that allows you to order on line and you have a product.
No the lone programmer is not dead he is just making money in the markets that are too small for the big fish to bother with.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
What porn have you been reading that still has staples in the centerfolds? Not only do the good magazines use glue bindings these days, but the stereotypical Coder is more likely to be reading his porn on the net.
This is why it's stupid to try to sell software to the masses when you're a small company. I have no sympathy. Trying to sell boxed software for general consumption is suicide, because 1) you'll face too much competition from traditional large software companies, and 2) people will just pirate your software anyway. Face it, individuals are just too cheap to buy your stuff.
If you want to be a "lone coder", you need to work as a consultant, creating software for larger companies under contract. They supply the specifications, you supply the software. Something like 95% of all software is in-house software, and is not sold as a retail product. Companies need all kinds of custom software to do various specialized tasks for them; this is where your opportunity as a "lone coder" lies.
I several occasions I have written code and posted it opensource, binary, BASIC (way back when) or just used it at an ISP or something, then find someone filed a patent based on seeing my Code!.
,
First Byte inc. Filed a Patent on playing PWM Audio on the PC internal Speaker, I assume after disassembling my binary (written in Assembly) that I had posted on Compuserve(the copy a bug I had in that code into there patent). They then started suing everyone who had also dissembled my code and started using it in there products. Finally I become an expert witness for Activision and had to sign an affidavit stating that I had prior art to help get the First Byte patent overturned! And a few companes liscenced the code official from me. http://www.dnull.com/zebraresearch/ (code is posted)
The same is true for much of the code I have done. Some of the first audio and video(in and out), on Apple II, CoCo , PC , C64, Lisa, Mac.
Multimedia over BBS's , Multi-tone audio out of 1bit output (1983)(AKA, polyphonic ringtones),
LCD oscilloscope (1986),
Streaming audio over IP now called VOIP , portable compressed music player (1987),
TCP/IP over Spread Spectrum RF and Laser(1988),
Streaming Video over IP Lan in (1989),
Streaming video across Sun Microsystem global IP WAN, TCP/IP over Laser (1991),
Internet Banking web site(for Wells Fargo 1992)
Livecam (1994),
Content Distribution Networks , fault tolerant web server, Single threaded web server and web server with compressed log files output(1995)
Error Correction over IP, CCTV DVR, Streaming audio over JAVA(1996),
Parallel processor Video Compression and HDTV streaming over the Internet (1999).
Silent computers and water cooled blades(2000),
There was even a company that threated to sue me after stealing my code outright! They just changed the authorship names. Fortunatly I had left hidden in the code in the server if you gave it the right URL from a browser it reported my name as the author. I never managed to stop them from selling there version of the product though.
Can't talk about the newer stuff since I have started to file patents So I don't get prevented from using my own stuff.
My biggest problem is how do I protect myself.
Seems like whenever I try to publish something, someone else borrows it, (or at least the concept) and puts it out farther and faster then I can and takes the credit for it. I know I just plan suck a PR and getting the word out , but still.
I at least want to be able to prove original authorship and invention for the ideas and concepts. And it seems anything less then filing patents one each one has been ineffective.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
Yes, I want to improve the world. I need to become rich to do it.
I have been writing software for large companies for over a decade. My software is fast and easy to use, which reduces headaches and improves the quality of life for the users. I have been focused on business software for a very long time: I am good at it, and most of my ideas focus on business software. I would like to spend time fixing Mozilla and other OSS, but my other projects seem more important because there is nobody else to develop them; Mozilla has other developers and they may eventually implement my ideas, or at least solve my complaints.
Of my current products:
#1 is for businesses. It should make me money. No apologies.
#2 is for businesses, and it will help consumers. It requires major investment to develop, which is why it is planned second. It may make me more money, but it will improve the lives of almost everybody.
#3 was originally designed for business. It requires major investment to complete. The original core is still aimed at business, but the fully developed version may change how everybody uses computers. The current plan is to release the consumer version for free, while selling some applications built on the platform to businesses.
A person doing your charitable actions does not "improve the world"; they improve a very small piece of it, usually by helping something return to the "normal" state. Women should not be battered; sheltering them is important for removing evil, but it does not stop all women from being battered. If I could develop software to stop women from ever being battered, I would, but I have no ideas on the subject (yet).
If you want to help one battered woman, go do it. If I want to help every battered women, I need more resources. With enough money, I can put a shelter in every city and pay the staff. Which of us helps more?
Getting rich is not evil in itself. Many of the people running the United Way get paid well, but they are doing it because they believe. I want to make enough to be able to give my software away. I expect most new software product companies to be sued into oblivion; the business model cannot compete against lawsuit factories; we will need money just to survive the lawsuits.
Check back in 10 years and decide if I made a positive adjustment to "the world".
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Customers are more willing to pay for something when it is clear to them that it's costing the supplier something to supply it. Downloading software looks "free" because it only happens once, but if it's clear that an ongoing service is required, that's easier to justify paying for.
That said, with today's hosting and communication costs, services can be pretty darn cheap to provide: even factoring in the need for reserve capacity to handle unpredictable demands, the gross profit margin can be huge.
This model fits as well with GPL software as with proprietary, and it scales much better than the "support services" model. To provide support, you have to have actual people doing work, but to expand an automated service, you just need more hardware.
YMMV: This is not a trivial model to set up: it just can't work for many types of applications. If the cost is too high, or if it's not clear why the service is an essential and valuable component of the offering, customers will resent it. If the service is essential, but unreliable or overloaded, customers won't much like that, either. And so forth. From a technical and cost perspective, however, it's highly practical.