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?

Comments

Someone has to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Someone has to do it

[$alex_n42]

'ees not dead, 'ees pinin'

Re:Someone has to do it

[Ryosen]

>>What about the "land of the free", "the land of opportunity", "the american dream" ?

Thank you for inquiring about our line of exciting products, including "Land of the Free", "Land of Opportunity", and our most popular product, "American Dream". As you can well imagine, our products are in very high demand and can often be difficult to obtain. For this reason, we have recently expanded our distribution channels and partnered with some very fine retailers. We hope that this information will be of use to you in your searching.

Since 2000, "Land of the Free" has been distributed by GOP Industries and is now marketed under their brand "Land of the Wealthy". A second, more modest version of this product is also available as "Land of the Drive-Thru-Please".

Long regarded as one of our most cherished offerings, "Land of Opporunity" is now available exclusively thru Wal-Mart. Enrollment in their "Greeter" program is required.

Without question, "American Dream" is our most popular product. Now available exclusively through the USPTO, this exciting product will make a fine family heirloom for generations to come. The MSRP is 3 congressmen and, due to the recent devaluation in Democratic Senators, we can only accept Republicans at this time. If you would like to own a piece of this exquisite product, please have your attorneys or lobbyist contact us directly.

You might also be interested in our latest prodct addition, a beautiful coffee-table book titled "A Guide to Ethics in American Politics". Weighing in at a hefty 2.5 ounces, this is a volume that anyone would be proud to display on their bookshelves.

We look forward to hearing from you soon,

Sincerely,

Karl Rove
US Customer Service Representative
Illuminati Corp.

Of course not

[mordors9]

Your real goal though is to write something, get it patented and then sell it for millions to the big boys.

Re:Of course not

[Flyboy Connor]

Your real goal though is to write something, get it patented and then sell it for millions to the big boys.

Except what will happen is something like:

Microsoft: "You have a patent we need."

Lone Coder: "OK. It'll cost you a million bucks."

Microsoft: "Forget it, we're going to use your stuff without paying."

Lone Coder: "Then I'll sue you."

Microsoft: "But our defense will be that our code is a tiny but significant bit different from yours. So we're not infringing."

Lone Coder: "I'll get a really good lawyer who'll show that you actually ARE infringing."

Microsoft: "That will take years. Lawyers are expensive. In the meantime, we believe that you are infringing on several of our patents. So we're going to unleash our army of lawyers onto you. Can you really afford the legal costs?"

Lone Coder: "You bastards."

Microsoft: "Now now. There's no need for ugly language. We're your buddies. We're here to help you! If you just sign over the rights to your patent to us, we will allow you to continue using it yourself. Of course, when our new blockbuster software comes out, your market is destroyed, but until that time you will be able to make a living."

Lone Coder: "Arghhhhhh!"

Microsoft: "And you pay us a million dollars, just so that we won't have our lawyers start sueing you for infringing our patents, as soon as we have thought up a couple that you probably are infringing."

Lone Coder: *whimper*

I am not a lawyer

[Elwood P Dowd]

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.

Re:I am not a lawyer

[geek42]

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.

Re:I am not a lawyer

[groovemaneuver]

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.

Re:I am not a lawyer

[Anthracene]

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.

That makes sense, doesn't it? Looking up and citing other work in the field is certainly the way that academic publishing works. Unfortunately the unintended consequences of patent law make it such that it doesn't work out that way.

When I was (forced by my boss to be) applying for a software patent, my boss told me to look around for other things that might be similar to what we'd done. And as soon as the patent lawyers heard that he told me that, they went through the roof, and immediately told me to stop. Here's why:

Patent law says that you're legally required to reference any potentially overlapping work that you know about in your application. If someone can show that there was something that you knew about and didn't cite in your application, it's grounds for revoking the patent. It's very hard to write laws that talk about what someone ought to know or be aware of, though, so you only have to include things that you are actually aware of. But the more citations you include in your application, the greater the chance that the examiner will reject the application because of one of those related patents you cited. (You can see where this is going...) So, from a legal standpoint, the best situation is one where you honestly have no knowledge of any other work in the field, so you can submit an application with no citations. So you never do any kind of "due diligence" searching when you submit a patent, because all it can do is decrease the chances that it will get granted.

So you really probably shouldn't ever read patents (see my other post in this article about why it's a bad idea for programmers to look for infringing patents). Which is kind of strange and sad considering that one of the main points of the patent office was supposed to be to provide a legally protected way to publicize information about technology to encourage further growth and development.

IANAL, either. Just a disappointed observer, discouraged at how terribly out of control our patent office and patent law has become.

Re:I am not a lawyer

[jaoswald]

Due diligence is only worthwhile if you want to make a patent of your own. Using it as a guide to "what not to do" is a total waste of time.

Look, all the patent does is allow someone to sue you if they believe they can prove in court your work infringes the patent. This requires several steps to have a real effect on you.

1) They have to notice you
2) They have to care somewhat about what you are doing and analyze it in some detail to determine it is in their patent library
3a) You have to be perceived as a threat to be shut down
3b) alternatively, you could have deep pockets to be emptied.
4) They have to contact you/make the first move
5) They have to decide to sue you
6) They have to be successful enough in court to
7a) bankrupt you
7b) make you empty your deep pockets
7c) make you stop and do something else.

At many points along the way, the process can break down in your favor.

- A lone coder can easily stay under the radar while making a comfortable living for one person.
- Unless they hear about your product, and are able to gather enough information, they won't know it infringes their patents.
- If you are successful enough to have deep enough pockets that a patent-holder notices (and patent holders have to be big enough to spend many thousands of dollars to file a defensible patent, not to mention R&D for real innovation), or to be perceived as a threat, you've made enough money to hire a good lawyer. Or, enough money to give up without a fight and retire on your savings.
- When they contact you, you can counteroffer. Lawsuits are risky. Maybe you can create a win-win situation which they would prefer to a possible lose-win situation favoring you. You probably have some code they would like, or skills they would find useful. Offer to come work for them, or license the code to them, or some other kind of collaboration.
- If they decide to crush you instead of accepting the offer, you can just walk away. Agree to cease & desist, and move on. If you don't have enough money to walk away, they what the hell are they suing you for?

Patent holders are either

1) huge companies that don't care about the little ants scurrying around beneath them unless the ant looks like its going to grow into something big. Then, they would rather buy it than crush it.
Mostly, they get patents to cross-license as protection or to protect their market niche from the other huge companies or *aggressive* startups.

2) small companies looking for a big company to sue for violating a patent. They are an ant themselves, looking to take down one of the elephants. Other ants don't have enough money to make enticing targets.

Neither of these cases really cares about crushing some lone coder just for the savage thrill.

Plus, (IANAL) the damages they can get are related to the profits they would have had but for the infringement. If you are some small potatoes guy, the revenue you suck away would be tiny, unless you are obviously going against some cash cow like Microsoft Office or iTunes Music Store or a commercial data base. Creating a commercial product dedicated directly to putting MS out of business is obviously asking for trouble. But is also beyond the lone coder.

Don't waste psychic energy worrying about the remote risk that a patent lawsuit will crush you. You'll have plenty of other reasons to fail, anyway. Life is too short to worry about this kind of thing before the C&D warning shot comes over the bow.

Re:I am not a lawyer

[dourk]

Unrelated to software, but a similar situation from my industry:

Honda has a patent regarding the routing of the front brake line on their motocross bikes. Yamaha is forced to use an alternate (longer) routing to keep from infringing the patent, which ends up decreasing sensitivity on the front brake.

Suzuki ignores the patent. Honda doesn't care. They aren't nearly as concerned about losing sales to Suz as they are to Yamaha.

And I have a bunch of short brake line kits for those yams, if anyone wants better brake feel.

Yes! (No)

[JanusFury]

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).

Not if you're Jeff Minter

[failrate]

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.

Economist article

[grandmaster_spunk]

The Economist has a timely opinion piece about the patent problem in their most recent issue.
http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?stor y_id=3376181"

Spiderweb software, and others...

[Richard]

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/.

Re:ok - you are wrong!

[StikyPad]

"Carson.. promise you'll never die."

"You know I can't promise that."

"If you did, I'd make love to you right now."

"I promise. I will never die."

Re:Bittorrent

[chris_mahan]

Probably not. But I bet his resume/cv will climb to the top with this:

==Skills==
*Bittorent: Imagined, designed, coded, deployed, and now maintaining the Bittorent protocol and OS-independent Python client. 12 million users since 2003; 500,000 gigabytes of transfers per day on average.

==Objective==
Build a world-class, industrial-grade extranet messaging and collaboration protocol for your company.

==Requirement==
$180,000/yr, total combined annual work hours not to exceed 2300. Cost of living adjustment based on consumer index no later than April 1 of each year. Choice of location.

I tell you, if this guy works for a company 4 years and costs them $1M, they will have gotten themselves a bargain. This guy is cheaper than an average team of 4.

The situation's simultanously better and worse...

[John_Booty]

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.

Re:Not to worry...

[tpgp]

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.

Re:Not to worry...

[bee-yotch]

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.

Count me as a fellow Lone Coder

[turnstyle]

I'm a fellow lone coder.

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.

Re:Count me as a fellow Lone Coder

[lakeland]

There is some truth in what you're saying, but I think the idea of selling cheap software is going the way of the dodo. Essentially, the free software momement appears to result in a clone of any software that's been around for a long time and has a big userbase. Of course, software got cloned before the free software movement too, but there the clones cost a similar amount to the first product and so didn't slowly suck up the profit margins, essentially they competed fairly.

There are reasons for this, but you could think them up as easily as me. More relevant are the implications. In this case, since the grandparent was able to swap to a GPLed version tells me you've got something close to a commodity. And this means you're going to have to keep innovating, staying ahead of the GPLed version, or else users will gradully shift to the cheaper, more flexible alternative.

If you want to continue selling shrinkwrapped software as a one-man team, then I suggest you look at where the free software movement has traditionally done badly -- areas where the software cannot be totally free (due to integration with non-free data), very expensive products for a small market, etc.

But I think a more viable long-term option is to start adding software modifications/consulting and the like to your portfolio.

Of course, there is no hurry for any of this, I just expect every year will be a little harder than the one before.

Re:Someone has to...PRELIMINARY AUTOPSY RESULTS

[darkPHi3er]

"The Lone Coder was found dead in front of his home computer this evening"

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...!"

Re:ok - you are wrong!

[AvitarX]

He is wrong though.

step one Incorporate.

step two pay yourself a salary

step three you are safe.

Incorporating is to protect you from bullshit, it costs less then 100 dollors.

MS set the president that companies are not guilty for the infringemeant of their users.

There are additional taxes though, the corporations income and your income.

EUROPE!!!

[Fuzzums]

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.