Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus, Monty, Rasmus: No Software Patents

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stick-to-your-guns dept.

Jan Wildeboer writes "The three most famous European authors of open-source software have issued an appeal against software patents on NoSoftwarePatents.com. Linus Torvalds (Linux), Michael "Monty" Widenius (MySQL) and Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP) urge the EU Council, which will convene later in the week, not to adopt a draft directive on software patents that they consider "deceptive, dangerous, and democratically illegitimate". They also call on the Internet community to express solidarity by placing NoSoftwarePatents.com links and banners on many Web sites."

14 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. It's a nice idea, but by Fox_1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how much mindshare it will really get at the level decisions are made it in business and government.

    --
    The rock, the vulture, and the chain
    1. Re:It's a nice idea, but by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet, all those good things aside, I bet it still gets passed.

      The beauty of being a politician is the public listens to what you say, not what you do.

      So yeah, they'll make tons of noise about being against sw patents, and then silently pass it into law.

      If it ever comes up, they figure ( rightly so I imagine ) that they can spin it so the other guy looks bad, and they were the knight in shining armor ( armour for those of you on the other side of the pond ).

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:It's a nice idea, but by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No need, politics is the same regardless of past history. So they tried it once and failed. They won't try it again, smarter this time?

      Is it still cynicism when it's based on past experiences?

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  2. Crossing fingers and stuff by jmo_jon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really hope we don't get the same absurd laws here many other countries has adopted. Maybe with the weight of these three dudes it'll help out but I'm scpetical. Tha lack of knowledge people in power have about what they make decetions about is downright scary.

  3. Ineffectual by delta_avi_delta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure lots of banners and links are going to have a minimal effect. Considering that the bill will be decided by politicians, how come they don't organise an email campaign, where you can find your relevant politician, and send him an email?

  4. Re:People look out for their own self interests.. by dabadab · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "[i]rely heavily on imitating prior art.[/i]"

    Just like all software written in the past 50 years. Perhaps you also heard about "standing upon
    the shoulders of giants". That's how development works in general: you take an existing thing, add your own ideas and wow: there's an improved version (which someone will take and add his own ideas to make something even better).

    --
    Real life is overrated.
  5. Re:People look out for their own self interests.. by Sanity · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't see any reason to take their views as somehow more correct or enlightened than microsoft's or IBM's might be from the other side. each actor is acting in his economic self interest in a pretty blatant way
    So what? The difference is that the interests of Linux and MySql happen to coincide with the public interest, all they want is the freedom to innovate without threat of litigation, this is good for almost everyone. Microsoft and IBM want to stifle competition, and that is against the public interest.
  6. Software Patents Sometimes Good by Dink+Paisy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I know this is against conventional instinct here, but the majority of opinions on software patents I have seen presented on this site are so simplistic and obviously wrong that they don't deserve to be called thought.

    Software patents are even more important than patents in other fields, due to the ease with which software techniques can be duplicated. Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source.

    Much of the criticism against patents that has been leveled on this website is also driven by ignorance. People do not realize how specific patents are. I have seen posts on many patent articles here that read the first one or two claims and assume that a huge range of existing work is covered, without checking out the remaining claims that make it clear that one very small thing that is original is the actual target of the patent.

    I won't defend the existing patent system too much, since it is flawed with respect to software. Since software patents are easy to implement, the costs required to develop them can be recuperated much faster than other areas, so a shorter duration of protection would probably be better. Some patents have been applied overly broadly, or granted when they were not merited.

    But the abuses do not stop the patent system from being useful for software. The problems are things that can be worked out, not fundamental flaws with the idea of patenting software algorithms.

    --

    Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
    whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
    --Proverbs 9:7
    1. Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good by the_womble · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You ignore the key arguments against the idea: 1) They are not necessary, software as not advanced faster since patents were itnroduced, so what purpose to they serve. 2) If you can find any gains from patents, they will not be worth the extra cost of litigation and patent fees. 3) The arguments in favour of woftware patents are based on supposition not backed up by evidence. If they worked there would avhe been an increase in softare development budgets as soon as aptents were possible - this did not happen. Where are your good software patents? Where are the small firms that benefitted from them? Can you give us some examples? Enough to out weigh the use of patents by incumbents to block new entrants?

    2. Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good by sploxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source.
      I don't think so(*). Because

      1.) (Software)Patents are very expensive which is a much higher burden for a small company than a big one (in relative terms)

      2.) Defending patents is expensive. In the ideal world, it would be simple yes/no outcome of a log(n)-searchtree if a patent applies or not. In the real world, it very much depends on how you pay your lawyers...

      3.) Corruption. Yes, it happens.

      And if a patent application of a 10000+ employees company is considered, the name is probably well known to the evaluating person etc.pp. Not so with 5-people garage inc.

      IMHO, SWPATs are just an addition to the immune system of the big companys, to squash the smaller ones and in the end to stifle innovation. Yes, this is a rant.

      (*) - I don't even think that ordinary patents do any good to small companies, but that's another issue...

    3. Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source."

      Software needs to interoperate with other software. Sooner or later you have to sign away your patent protection to gain the closed API, or use of someone else's patents. If you look at the companies that have successfully used patents against big companies, they are almost always pure patent plays that sell no real product.

      "I have seen posts on many patent articles here that read the first one or two claims and assume that a huge range of existing work is covered,"

      Patents for browser plugins successfully used in court, one click patents successfully used in court, patents for video conferencing successfully used in court..... The courts seem to have the same problem!

      "But the abuses do not stop the patent system from being useful for software."

      Its not just abuses there are more fundamental problems:

      Software implementation is already covered by copyright. The algorithm inside the software was never previously patentable, as a result most existing software is built on algorithms that haven't been disclosed.
      YOU CAN'T TELL THE ALGORITHMS USED FROM THE COMPILED RESULT.
      Hence prior-art can't be established because you can't see inside the old software.

      The BSAs tricky wording removes the 'technology' requirement from software (as required by TRIPS). Other inventions have to be technological, but thanks to some backdoor work by the BSA, simply being software is enough to count as technology.
      So a one-tick of a paper order form isn't patentable, but the same system written in software is.

      The lobbyists bypassed the EU Parliament to push this through.

  7. Re:People look out for their own self interests.. by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . .both are technologies that, for whatever their pluses, rely heavily on imitating prior art.

    As do virtually all technologies. I'll point out, however, that despite popular views to the contrary software is not technology. It is mathematics.

    I don't see any reason to take their views as somehow more correct or enlightened than microsoft's or IBM's might be from the other side.

    So I'll go with two of the great thinkers of The Enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who were both scientists and inventors of commercial products and yet opposed the overbroad and over strong application of "intellectual property" in general, believing that ideas were for the benefit, and the property, of all mankind.

    And software is nothing but an abstract idea.

    KFG

  8. Re:People look out for their own self interests.. by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It sure would be funny to see you on a jury:

    "The defense said the guy was innocent, but they're the defense so of course they said that. The prosecution argued to the contrary, of course. Oh, well, no disinterested parties weighed in so I guess we'll have to declare a mistrial and move on."

    What you've managed to do is completely ignore what both sides are saying. Why don't you listen in and see which is more convincing?

  9. Mindless, ignorant drivel. by Wolfbone · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Much of the criticism against patents that has been leveled on this website is also driven by ignorance. People do not realize how specific patents are. I have seen posts on many patent articles here that read the first one or two claims and assume that a huge range of existing work is covered, without checking out the remaining claims that make it clear that one very small thing that is original is the actual target of the patent."

    Apart from this being generally one of the most insightless posts there's ever been on this subject - while disgracefully and ironically dismissing as ignorant the many truly insightful ones there have been - the parent is himself grossly ignorant even of what a patent is: Patent claims in a patent document do not narrow the scope of any of the earlier claims. Each independent claim stands on it's own - which is why it is called a claim! I would've thought most people here would know that by now. Driven by ignorance indeed!