Slashdot Mirror
Patent Law Ruling Threatens FOSS
savio13 writes "The EFF has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a patent law ruling that could pose a serious threat to Free and Open Source Software projects. A recent Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision required that even the most obvious incremental advances can be patented unless it can be proved that someone else suggested it prior to the patent being filed. As such, many 'bad patents' are being used as roadblocks for legitimate innovators, especially those working for FOSS projects (who have better things to do then search through thousands of technical papers for some mention of the obvious). The full brief is available online in PDF format."
Than to sort through yestarday's stories: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/15 13218
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Since the projects won't be sold for profit, or sold at all, why does patent infringement really matter? I know it's probably a stupid question, but I would think if no one is profiting, no one would really care if someone is using their idea.
Google: "All your data are belong to us."
The same story has already been posted a few hours ago:
5 13218
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/1
And this one contains a typo: "...who have better things to do then search..." should use "than", not "then".
as Greed drives yet more brilliance out of the USA
I think we need to add a new clause to software licenses: "Not for use within USA or other countries where software patents are applicable. Using this software in any of these countries is your responsibility and in doing so you accept to pay any patent fees that may affect this software."
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#whatpat
Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.
This says that if something is obvious, the patent can be rejected even if there is no real prior art or previous "suggestion" or anything. Does a judge have the right to change the USPTOs rules on it's behalf?
IMHO, They deliberately try to make it sound like the EFF is at the forefront of this case, appealing it to the Supreme Court.
What really has happened is that KSR has gone to the Supreme Court asking for review, and the Supreme Court granted review.
This happened a few months back, actually.
The EFF has filed a brief in support of KSR.
About 10 other briefs in support of KSR have been filed in support of KSR, besides the EFF one, including some more important ones, like the Solicitor General's (representing the views of the US/Bush Administration).
The Supreme Court generally cares more about what the SG thinks than the EFF.
Ja wohl, mein Führer!
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
I don't see what staging protests is going to do. If the people with lots of cash want FOSS made technically impossible to create in the U.S. they're going to get their way. The government (whether you like Bush or not) is extremely pro-business right now and for all the wrong reasons. It's one thing to make sure businesses operate fairly, it's another thing entirely to give them control of the law via lobbyists. This will likely happen here and we pro-FOSS people will have to do whatever it takes to get by. We're already "criminals" based on the DMCA if we're watching DVDs on our Linux boxes using Xine or MPlayer. That doesn't stop many of us anyway. Same thing applies to the development of new software. Hell, if we had to, we'd probably use pseudo code that gets sent and translated in a non-U.S. country to something that does work so it technically wasn't written here.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
At what point will it become so difficult to do research in the US that all meaningful science is done in other countries?
Due to global trade agreements that enforce US IP laws in many foreign countries, how long will it be before no one in the world can do any meaningful research without being liable for patent infringment?
I updated the project homepage, atomic-ptr-plus with the latest patent application, 20060130061 "Use of rollback RCU with read-side modifications to RCU-protected data structures", from Paul McKenney, inventor of RCU and "Rusty" Russel, one of the Linux kernel developers. Also some usenet postings from me contemporaneous with what was the basis of that patent. So you can get a real life example of an incremental patent on stuff in the public domain. Though it's not clear from the patent application what part is in the public domain and what part is covered by the patent.
it's reltive. To the patent trolls, 10,000 bucks is about the same as a penny for me.
This is an extremely good article on the problems faced by Open Source
in dealing with patents.
In a way the article is only a snapshot of the current set of problems. It is
the nature of lawyers to deliberately introduce more complications into any
legal situation in an effort to gain an advantage for their client. So as time
marches on patent law will become more convoluted and more of a problem for Open
Source.
While fighting this patent case in the Supreme Court is necessary it really is
only one bump in a long highway. There will be a continuous series of problems
created by innovative lawyers in the future. I think that the best solution
that we can find to the software patent problem is to abolish software patents.
It would be easier to put the effort into ending the software patent mess
forever by abolishing software patents than to be perpetually fighting the
latest lawyers' brainstorm.
----------------------
Steve Stites
No, the summary is saying something more like this:
1) Someone patents something. (Even though there's prior art)
2) FOSS Person doesn't check patents, because he knows he's doing something that's obvious and has been done before.
3) FOSS Person writes a program violating patent that should never have been issued.
4) FOSS Person gets sued by commercial entity that holds the rights to the obvious patent, and loses because he doesn't have the resources to fight it in court.
Stupid patents should not get granted. If they do, the patent office has become no more than a filing cabinet to reference before going to court. OTOH, maybe that's the whole idea.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
1) FOSS Person writes a program.
2) Someone patents something. (Even though there's prior art.)
3) FOSS Person gets sued.
Think about it this way though, if some part-time OSS developer can stumble on the same idea how non-obvious is it?
There is a difference between "not done yet" and "non-obvious". The non-obvious leap is something where even if you knew about the problem you wouldn't have likely found the solution.
Take LZW for example, it's a rather straightforward addition to LZ78. In my books any competent comp.sci student would try that too. It's obvious. By the same token, it wasn't obvious how to get MP3 like efficiency 20 years ago in encoding audio [given that the state of the art back then was ADPCM, CELP and u-Law].
Most OSS developers couldn't implement an MP3 codec [hence the lack of options in choosing such a lib] but most could implement LZW, specially when given LZ78.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
You know that judicial activism that those "right wing wingnuts" bitch about? This is an example of it. Judges seem to often lack any common sense, reading comprehension skills and any sense of limit on what words can actually mean. Kelo v. New London's gang rape of the phrase "public use," which was interpretted in its most legalistic and textbook definition, rather than it is more long-lived, vernacular use, is but one of many examples... this being the latest.
Even most patent law defenders would agree that this is bad and outside the scope of what patents are for. Unfortunately, judges have often proved that if they can interpet something some way, they will almost seemingly for the hell of it.
The only solution I can think of involves ending life-long terms and breaking up the law schools, which are, quite frankly, dens of sophistry, malfeasance, linguistic license and villainy. Generally speaking, any law that requires a highly specialized person, trained **in the law** (not the regulated profession), to interpet it, is a bad law.
"The summary seems to be saying:..."
Only when donning the 'Slashdot anti-OSS troll'-coloured glasses. Others might see it as shifting the burden of confirming validity from the Patent Office, who's job it is currently, to the applicant.
Support EFF. They do useful things.
I've never understood all the hooplah about this open source stuff and taking grief from the corporations. If you want to write free software and give it away to the world for free, no problem - just do it anonymously and all of this patent headache goes away.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
...and why patents are so unjustifiably incompatible with software, see e.g. this paper, as well as a free book on the "mechanics" of the patent debates.
What really bothers me is not simply that the patent system is being used to protect the obvious these days, because it's a reflection on the general zeitgeist in America.
It seems to me in a very general way that there is no sense of achievement in American business outside of the next quarter. Instead of concentrating on moving forward and doing new things, there's an emphasis on not moving at all and creating wealth by protecting what someone has.
It's become a very different kind of hostile business climate. Not so many years ago a hostile business climate was described as one with high tax burden and many regulations that made it expensive to run a business. I'd say we're well on our way to eliminating both in the U.S. and yet the business climate is even more hostile because of the threat of litigation. Is the country better off for this? For the majority of Americans, I'd say no. Not at all.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The court system is being overrun by a bunch of crazy people who have no appreciation for the consequences of their decisions. Every time something like this threatens the FOSS community, it is because of this.
Patents aren't about any specific implementation (or embodiment) at all. They are about a general concept that can be embodied in a specific implementation.
If I have a patent on a braking system for cars and someone goes out and makes something nearly identical for use on trucks this is clearly patent infringement. At least I should because any smart patent lawyer will make sure "cars" never appears in the claims for the patent and it remains general. As general as possible while still preserving the concept.
Yes, my name is listed as "inventor" on a bunch of pretty silly patents.
Actually Maybe it doesn't make any sense.
You are allowed to use any patented idea for your own personal use. If someone patents a type of swing set and you go and build one in your back yard that is fine.
Is it fine if you let the kids down the street use it. Probably so.
What is illegal is selling the swing sets.
Free as in beer software could fall into the for my own use or education category of patent law.
What everyone is forgetting is this isn't just an issue for FOSS but frankly for every software vendor. It is really most likely to hit a big company like Microsoft more than a FOSS developer.
If Microsoft violates a patent you own man that is like money in the bank.
Software patents are stupid. It really is all just math and logic. All of it falls in to the obvious category.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Although it may seem MORE onerous on FOSS developers I do not see how proprietary developers/companies escape the implications either.
... but will not small development houses also immediately get creamed? Especially since they are definitely trying to make money off of "new" ideas.
I.e. a used previously-patented idea is that regardless.
So a very large software development company may be able to patent/hide/paper-over/pay-licenses for a small number of patents relatively easily
I.e. given the implications won't they start to get shut down first (since they might actually be able to pay)?
Every legitimate software development house should join in this suite!
Mod parent -1, Wrong. There is no personal use exception for patents in the US Code.
The patent system was designed to shelter innovation by offering a limited monopoly to develop a business or livelihood around it. Parts of it operate quite well, however, in the intellectual life it has serious shortcomings. Software is one of those parts of the intellectual life where the character of the process is more akin to governance then to making a cunning artifact.
This therefore brings us to three observations: first, software developers move much faster then business processes; Second, the goal of business is adding value (like support and auditing) to generate sales; third, the common wealth is ill served by business turf wars. If business believes in competition, then let them coach their teams better. I'll expand on these points.
The fundamental design of systems is very fluid. As an engineer that has worked on and co-ordinated large projects, I find that I tend to go though about four or five related designs before settling on a particular architecture. I have to think of the cost of the hardware, but also of the system cost. It serves the efforts no good if I design cheap hardware that prevents the software guys from achieving the system goals. And the software guys iterate over several solutions while deciding how to partition their part. When we are very, very lucky, we may have some time to sit down together and try to find the exact right "cut here" line!
Assuming that we all managed to get it right, and we are actually delivering what the customer needs, we get to support it. That is the value of business to me, as a designer. It means that others (The Customer) can benefit from our collective work, that they can continue to do so, and that they will soon find new, interesting things for us to do. Marketing here does the research of what is out there so we can digest it and figure out the better mousetrap. They also do the customer legwork so the people we are talking to know what their system requirements are. (their business can be treated as a system in this conversation) The rest is negotiation, and avoiding the dead ends.
A humourous example: The Customer Wants a Car in the Bauhaus Style; that is, the salient marketing features are spare, rectilinear lines. The dead end is delivering Bauhaus Square Wheels. Clearly, intellegent compromise is needed.
Playing around with turf wars, the adult equivalent of King of the Hill, is a gumption trap that will suck the life right out of the organization. I don't think any intellegent executive wants this, but they'll scrap if they have to. Wisdom consists of setting up our affairs so we don't have to.
As a humourous close, why hasn't someone started to patent forms of government? I see a huge market potential in this. Dictatorships could patent Democracy, for example...
This is progress?
I'm a subscriber & I saw this & sent a note regarding it being a dupe. So much for their reporting system!
Sometimes, like with alcoholics or drug addicts, they can't see the problem until they hit rock bottom. This software patent issue will inevitably collapse under its own burdensome restrictions, and THEN we'll get some meaningful change. Until then I expect it to get much worse unfortunately, but the rest of the planet might decide to just go ahead and ignore the bulk of software/business process/natural living things patents.
The other part is demographics, we are now getting close to the first full internet-accessed generation reaching voting age. This is *very important* and could conceivably be a major factor in changing a lot of aspects of government, not just with software patents, but across a whole range o social and economic issues.
Probably why governments are in such a tizzy to slap more restrictions on the internet, BTW, it is a direct threat to "rule by your betters" model that exists in most nations now.
The problem has been too many people in positions of authority who just don't "get it" on the whole voluntary sharing idea, or how unfettered access to software increases productivity in all the other areas of the economy. Adding onerous restrictions and unnecessary cost and layers of parasitical skimming middlemen just slows down progress and technological advances.
We had non tangible "Intellectual Property" back when all this was setup as a governmentally controlled resource. They specifically EXCLUDED writings, music, drawings, etc from those things that were worthy of getting a patent, relying on copyright instead. They were correct them and showed some amazing foresight that should carry on to today. Copyright should be more than enough for various stuff typed up in some language, which is all software really is. If you allow software patents, you might as well allow novels and paintings and musical scores to be patented.
> Think about it this way though, if some part-time OSS developer can stumble on the same idea how non-obvious is it?
The timing of such things also comes into play at times.
While some patents may seem obvious in retrospect, many of the so hated software patents were come up with before it was so obvious and at the time was actually something novel... of course in the internet age the amount of time from novel to common place to old news is rather short.
It would be a different story if the patent holder and a part-time OSS developer 'stumbled' on the same idea at the same time.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Patent law is just as big a mess as copyright law due to technology and commerce slamming into one another...
Watch EFF attorney Jason Schultz tear the roof off in the new documentary, ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM. Maybe you will learn something or be able to show your friends and then we can all make sure digital rights are always kept in mind...
Also features Dangermouse (of Gnarls Barkley), Lawrence Lessig, Richard Stallman...
Check it out:
http://alternativefreedom.org/ [alternativefreedom.org]
Patents are supposed to be for specific implementations, not general ideas.
Check out the variety of automatic transmission designs, each under it's own patent. Yet clearly they do the same "obvious" task of shifting.
The only reason that isn't the case for software patents is that the USPTO and legal system haven't got a clue how to do anything but follow the money. And the money is in the hands of those who benefit from misinterpreting the law.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Sourcecode goes into hiding and the Author changes his coding Handle. easy... Then releases when the company has died off.
Judges are not supposed to apply "common sense" when deciding a case. they are supposed to evaluate the law in applicaion to a case. what we need is our elected law makers to construct clear law so the judges have an easier time applying a law "as it is writen" instead of trying to figure out what congress meant.
I'm not sure that the Bush Admin has anything to do with it. The DCMA was passed under Clinton, right? And the SG is arguing against this issue.
Mmm a lot of time would have to pass where some missing link would later become common knowledge.
To use the LZW cases there really isn't any missing link. Basically LZ78 is a dictionary matching algo for compression where it builds up strings of previously seen data and then replaces them with indexes. LZW is a modification where you preload the table with all byte values removing the need for escape sequences [since there are no literals anymore]. LZW is an obvious adaptation to LZ78 and any serious practitioner would have thought about it.
I'm not trying to dismiss all patents outright. Merely I'm suggesting that the vast majority of patents out there are not legitimate and should be tossed out.
For instance, Certicom has patents on a Crypto ALU where they have your basic ALU with larger registers and they do polynomial math. That to be is a no brainer. ALUs already existed prior to their patent and crypto algorithms [e.g. bignum stuff] already existed. Throwing the two together is obvious. Yet they hold a patent on it. Now it should be a patent on specific ALU dimensions and configuration but history has shown that patent holders will try to be vague as possible so they can mold their "specific" invention onto whatever competitors come up with.
While timing does have some significance it doesn't mean it was any less obvious. There is also the need for such a solution. If you never had to solve it before, it doesn't mean the solution isn't something anyone else couldn't come up with.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Yes, you're correct- let's all ignore IP laws, and just be careful to do so anonymously so that we can't get in trouble. Who cares what laws they pass, we'll just ignore them anyway. Of course, if you're going to run illegal software, why bother with Open Source when you can just pirate the latest Microsoft software?
We've discussed this with you in the past, Steve- Open Source is worthless if it isn't legal and doesn't credit the inventor. For one thing, many Open Source products come from or are supported by companies that would not participate in illegal activity. For another, most people want to take credit for the work they have done. For a third, laws that illegalize good behavior make criminals out of good people.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Who looks over these submissions anyway? Is it really too much trouble to have someone literate go over submissions before subjecting us to misspellings and shitty grammar?
Then != than you morons.
Make patent holders liable for legal fees and associated costs of all parties including courts when patents are overturned due to prior art. This would hold the patent aplicants accountable for their patents and let lawyers be useful.
-#1
Results of this would be 2-fold: publically disclose ideas such that they could be checked against as prior art, and also help encourage the FOSS SW community to share SW architecture ideas even if the individuals involved don't get time to implement the code for such an idea. There would likely be a lot of non-useful churn in such a system, but if you make it searchable and threadable with comments and/or topic sortable, it might be at least useful to avoid stupid patents over time.
Probably the only way to make something like this work would be to get some groups like the EFF and the FSF to get involved in it.
Erich Boleyn (no Slashdot account, email: "erich@uruk.org")
To apply for a patent, describe the invention using standardized terminology, email it to the paper patent repository. No claims would be needed.
Developers can access the paper patent repository for ideas relevant to their product.
Payment for inventions is by way of a patent tax on each product category. The tax level could be roughly 50% of the value of patents to that product category.
The allocation of the collected patent tax would be based on usage of the inventions, perceived value, etc.
With this approach, the pace of innovation should increase significantly, and thereby be an improvement over the current patent system.
Is this, If you create an open source application in the UK and people in US download it and use it, yet there is already an application in US that's not open source using the same principles or ideas. Would the patent have any effect on that? This is a global internet and I should think it would be hard to tell a guy in timbuktu he just violated H.R Puffinstuff's patent and enforce any measures against him.
I'm not sure if this is relevant as I don't have an inkling of understanding international law.
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
Sorry to go against the flow, but what makes you think that just because I might develop a product in software rather than creating a physical device my invention should not be protected? As long as I have created a non-obvious invention I should be able to patent it. The solution is not to abolish software patents. There should be a way to discourage submission of obvious ideas, be it financial penalties or otherwise. How do you prove something was an obvious idea at the time? Most obvious ideas probably come from a simple enhancement of a wide-spread existing technology. If you can look at the existing technologies of the time, and have the patent author submit R&D notes on deriving their idea, then you have some good evidence to work with.
IANAL, but I don't think there is any personal-use exemption in patent law. You may get away with it (especially if you have a high fence), but you're still liable.
Add to this thread to have a documented record of the prior art.
I hereby suggest "doing things with other things".
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Hey moron, the Bush admin is on the same side as the EFF on this one.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Decoding the Windows NT Event Log message "The Data Is The Error Code"
..
.. * B=04 .. * C=00 .. * D=00. We first convert from HEX to Decimal this means from base 16 to base 10. * A = C6 = 198 .. * B = 04 = 4 .. * C = 0 = 0 .. * D = 0 = 0. The Windows Calculator is a good tool to convert from HEX to Decimal.
.. * B = 4 .. * C = 0 .. * D = 0. What we do not is add A + (B * 256) + (C * 65536) + (D * 16777216). * 198 + (4 * 256) .. * 198 + (4 * 256) + (0 * 65536) .. * 198 + (4 * 256) + (0 * 65536) + (0 * 16777216)
The message The data is the error code is a very confusing term to most people and
Lets work with an example:
This error message in the Windows NT Event log is telling us that the data bytes C6 04 00 00 are the error code. So how do we get the error code, and then what do we do with it when we have it? The 4 bytes that are listed are a LONG value this means that they can contain a value from 0 to 2147483647.
What we need to do is multiple the bytes to get the value in our case what we do is treat each byte as a different multiplier. * A=C6
Load the Windows Calculator. On the View menu select the Scientific option. When this view is shown, select the HEX option and type in the value C6. To convert to Decimal simply click the Dec option
After the conversion we now have the following values. * A = 198
This will produce the value: * 198 + 1024 + 0 + 0. For our sum of 1222. We now have 1222 but what does it mean? What we do next is load a command prompt by selecting the START Menu and select RUN and enter the filename CMD.EXE
At the command prompt we type in the following: NET HELPMSG 1222 Note: There is a space between NET and HELPMSG. So we see that the error message returned is The network is not present or not started.
- unquote -
I'm glad Windows isn't as obscure as that command line driven Linux
was Re:Better Idea...
davecb5620@gmail.com
I need to find a job doing something else before arrays are patented.
Really? I thought that there was a personal/educational exemption in the patent law.
The very idea of the a patent is to make the knowledge public so that people can learn and benefit from it while offering the creator commercial protection.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'll just extend you idea and suggest that you distribute it over the Internet. It's a modified approach and wasn't explicitly stated: therefore I can sue if you use your idea over the Internet.
Laugh all you want (or not at all), unfortunately this is what the new law could potentially do.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
I spoke with real-life patent examiners recently, and the picture I got was that there really is no test for "obviousness" other than prior art. Seriously: they said that they often reviewed patent applications that they found to be obvious or stupid but they were obligated to grant them because they couldn't find any published evidence of prior art. This doesn't jive with the spirit of patents, but as far as I could figure from talking with them, this is how it worked. They didn't seem to like it much, but that was their job.
The upshot is that if some new enabling technology (like computers or the internet) comes along, for the first several years absolutely anything using that new technology is patentable since there can't be prior art. My opinion is that all of those inventions are obvious if they're so quickly discovered. But there is nothing in the process to reflect this. Sad.
Cheers.
I wish it were that easy, but a patent grants "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States"
So even if an open source developer distributes the app that uses the patented technology for free, he's infringing on the patent since he's "making" the invention.
source
If all we have to do is suggest that some minor improvement is easy/obvious/possible, then let's close that hole right now.
I'll start:
"Voice communications systems (mobile and stationary, personal and corporate and public) can stand a lot of improvement. But current technology just needs a few tweeks to make significant progress. Improved signal filtering for one; more integrated electronics; better shielding; water-proofing; better user interfaces in general; smaller packages that integrate with clothing and into automobiles; ubiquitous use of GPS; integration into the environment; low-cost availability of services; novel forms of subscription service like pay-per-phoneme; etc."
"Social networking system software and user interfaces are nowhere near their potential, and the things waiting to be done are obvious and need only a little creative work. Areas like community-based mapping; ubiquitous presence; integration with common objects like personal apparel; tight integration with multi-player gaming environments; auto-discovery; auto-generated avatars based on what you are wearing today; integration with embedded bioelectronics to sense individual mood and healthy; integration with mobile technology; virus-based personal introductions; etc"
That's all I have time for now. Anyone else?
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
The last story was about some legal action whereas this is meant to envoke the destruction of FOSS and the collapse of the US economy. This happens everytime there is some useless decision slightly altering the perceived boundaries of patent claims. Two simple facts. First, patent litigation is rare. Two, if you do anything useful, or more broadly valuable, you're going to get sued by someone, somehow.
Why is some "part-time OSS developer" automatically assumed to be less astute than a corporate software hack or somebody doing research at a university? A lot of part-time OSS developers are corporate software hacks and university researchers in the rest of their time.
this threatens US based FOSS, not FOSS in general.
. htm
If america manages to succeed in it's apparent crusade to heavily restrict all forms of software development (not just FOSS), then the US will find itself rendered irrelevent by developers in third world countries, India, africa, China, and good old Blighty (where I reside), to name but a few.
Such developers, myself included, will just carry on, and ignore the rantings of the US while they paint themselves into a corner.
Sometimes I wonder if the parties on both sides of the Patent dispute in america remember their history lessons. Any restrictive system which seeks to limit the exploration of idea's invariably results in new avenues of expression being founded.
Heck, how do you think Hollywood got started? They were over in California to get away from a restrictive patenting system, not because of the weather.
See this reference: http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/edison_trust
I really hope that the US gets it's act together.
Perhaps the only thing that will stop it will be the software equivilent of Sputnik flying overhead and beeping. I have no idea what that might be.
Maybe we should say:
If you can't code around the patent, it is either obvious (the only way to solve the prolem) or too broad. For either reason, the patent is invalid.
Which is why the patent system will collapse in on itself eventually. That or all companies will merge. Take your pick.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
...maybe the EFF can talk the US Supreme Court into invalidating ALL software patents, not just the "obvious" ones.
That's a great idea. Software never should of been patented to begin with. Or "business methods", or algorithms. Patents on these don't encourage progress they hinder it, and that was the stated purpose of copyrights and patents, to encourage cultural and scientific progress.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I believe that corporations should not have as much power as they do. They influence politicians all the time, but they have absolutely no vote, so why should they have influence. If you don't have a vote, then you should not be able to contribute to a politician. So, since corporations don't have ideas, why should they be able to own patents? (I know... you can't patent ideas, it's the concept, okay?) If the patent is supposed to benefit the inventor, then benefit the inventor, not the corporation.
Elimination of corporate ownership of patents will do the single most important thing for patents, reward those who actually have the ideas. Corporations may license (and even license exclusive rights), but they would not be allowed to own the patents.
I know that people are going to say that the corporations fund the work done to do the invention. Fine, they then pay for their license to the patent through their funding. But they then don't have the power to squash other innovation with stupid litigation.
Of course, the greedy corporations will think of ways to get around everything. If they can't sue because they don't own the patent, then they will just give money to the patent holder to do the suit. Well, there are no perfect solutions to any problem, so what do you do?
If only this was being handled by an organisation with a record of winning vitally important court cases, instead of establishing destructive precedents by losing them. By now losing doesn't seem to matter to the EFF as long as they can still crow about what they did and put out the hat for money to do it again. It looks like a classic case of an institution promoting its own survival by destroying the thing it's supposed to be working for.
http://www.wikipatents.com/ is a forum/wiki devoted to clarifying the extent to which patents are legitimate and/or valuable.
Not likely. The Supreme Court's job is to uphold law, not make new ones.
As the third leg of government the primary duty of the USSC is to uphold the Constitution. This means they can, and should, find a law unconstitutional if it is unconstitutional.
FalconShould there be a Law?
By Patenting a "new kind of rubber" you get the protection for a single recepie for a product that fits a specific need.
By patenting "the first voice recognition software ever" you achieve the protection not (only) for the hard work to find the algorithms and do all the programming, you also prevent others from thinking up another way to find a solution to the thought "hey, wouldn't that be nice if my computer could 'understand' what I'm babbling?".
It would absolutely not matter, what algorithms you used, not matter if your software performed like Vista Voice Ventilat^WRecogition. The idea would be yours.
Yeah. Lah-deh-la. big game. "Patenting software" ist not "showing the source" or "presenting the algorithms". So your insanely powerful peer-to-peer model is - in the core - closed source. You have a point. People can look at it and watch it work, but they have to do a really great job to make it
- do the same thing a your software, so bot can interoperate
- do so with self-found (possibly totally different)
- work on other OS
- interoperate with even more p2p-networks so it will be distinguishable and - well - "better" than yours.
Patenting the idea that a task _can_ be solved in software is objectionable, because thinking up the task is not the hard thing. Thinking up and implementing the solution is, where 99% of the work goes. That must be valued. That's what copyright is for.
That's certanly one definition and one that's implied by natural language and logic, but IANAL, yet I got the impression that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals seems to be redefining the term obvious to mean obvious because the idea had been published and the document presented, now something is obvious only if it was prior art and then only if the prior art was documented at the USPTO.
While documentation would be posible W/O a USPTO filing through professional journals, internal publications ect. these are not conducive to FOSS and small shop software developers. patent examiners are now prohibited from using external documentaion and even good'ol common sense when evaluating an application for obviousness.
Software developers will have increasing difficulty in being "persons having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITAs) that Section 103 relies upon to determine obviousness because the informal correspondance on the mailing lists and forums will not spell out many things because they are obvious to the PHOSITAs, and thereby cause them to be undocumented and officialy unobvious.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Does this also mean that someone could create a nonprofit organization that accepted donations and used the money to manufacture generic versions of patented prescription medicines and distribute them for free to people who can't afford them? That's an interesting idea.
Actually there is a clause in international trade, maybe in WIPO or WTO, that allows a country to buy cheap generic drugs if they are needed. Some pharmaceutical companies raised banshees, er a loud wail, when South Africa paid a manufacturer in India to make anti AIDs medication several years ago under this clause.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And you're dead wrong about the Bush admin siding with EFF.
The Bush admin is siding with EFF on this:
The U.S. Justice department and U.S. Patent Office also filed an amicus brief in the case, stating that under the test, "a claimed invention that combined elements already present in the prior art would not have been obvious at the time of invention unless there was a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led a person of ordinary skill to combine the prior art references in the manner claimed."
And it's not just them, Microsoft and Cisco are also on tha same side:
FOSS advocates aren't alone in the tech industry in questioning the suggestion test. Microsoft Corp. and Cisco Systems Inc. were among the companies signing on to an earlier brief arguing the appeals court has been "too lenient" in accepting patents. The suggestion test hurts innovation by forcing companies to spend their resources on "defensive, large-scale patenting," the companies argued.
I'm no supporter of Bush or his admin but they are doing right by this. It's one of maybe a handfull of things I think they are doing right.
FalconShould there be a Law?
and I get modded "over-rated"? damn you moderators!
The only solution I can think of involves ending life-long terms
Ah but ending life long tenure for judges will only lead to more politics in courts. Judges have life long tenure so the political winds won't say who's judge. Judges are more able to rule on constitutional and law issues than if they have to kiss ass every couple of years to be reseated.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Using this software in any of these countries is your responsibility and in doing so you accept to pay any patent fees that may affect this software.
A "no responsibility" clause would be much better. The author does not have to force an agreement between me and some patent holding asshole in order to shirk "responsibility" for my use of the software. It has nothing to do with the author as things are now and is of no concern outside the US. It is a perversion of US law that distributors of software have to worry. The author should be free of care for how their software is used in some other country, just as much as you are free of censorship laws in other countries even though your writing is available there.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
How about lawn trimmers? I use my lawn trimmers to make an obvious pattern in the hedge, but one that is not covered by anyone else's patent. Therefore I get to patent the pattern in the hedge. And before anyone else thinks of it, I will also get those too terrified to trim, and patent most random overgrowths from untrimmed hedge.
They don't do so because they hate software patents. Microsoft holds plenty of their own software patents. But MS believes the proper purpose for a patent is in a portfolio to be used to force others to cross license so you can ignore patents others may hold while selectively denying licensing to whoever they chose. They hate the idea of patents in the hands of people who might actually sue.
Oh, I agree!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Lets say the legitimate company then has to begin competing against a group of OS developers who "picked up on the idea". The OS developers are absolutely infringing on the patent and giving away the hard work of the patent holder for free.
Only implementations shoukld be patented NOT ideas!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Actually, yes, it does mean we should do away with a whole class of patents. Specifically, because your counter-argument for point 1) confuses two completely different things: math and physical objects. Without so much as explaining why, you lumped together mathematical equations (ideas) and physical objects (subject to laws of nature), and concluded from that if patents for ideas like mathematical equations are invalidated, all patents would be invalidated. Quite honestly, my head hurts just trying to figure out how you came up with this. For a very good discussion on the difference between the two and how patent law could accomodate the differences, check out this article on Michel Rocard's report.
This is how you would distinguish between the two, and this is how you would make sure that patent's on ideas don't completely stifle innovation, and make solely the domain of large corporations.
As for your comment that copyright doesn't protect ideas, you seem to be under the misguided impression that patents on ideas are righteous. Quite frankly, the mere thought of it disgusts me. Besides the fact that the free exchange of ideas is what lead to the explosion of knowledge in the last 200 years, there's the problem that ideas are a dime a dozen, and that the devil is in the detail (to abuse cliches). Anybody can have ideas. Hey, here's an idea: let's create a device that creates energy from hot air! Great, ain't it? Now who should get credit for it - the guy (or girl) who dreams up the idea, or the one who implements it? In my not so humble opinion, the one who dreams it up should get a slap across the face for even asking for compensation. It is infinitely harder to create something that works than it is to dream something up. Putting a lock-down on ideas is nothing but the wet dream of lazy asses who want to get paid millions for breathing.
On a side note, I've talked to a few patent lawyers, and I find it fascinating the amount of work they put into crap justifications. I've heard everything from "I protect the little guy" (never mind that the little guy can't compete with a corporation that is willing to spend millions on a lawsuit) to "I protect people from theft" (see above for an idea on where I stand on that).
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The kernel of Google's success is its reliance on its Page-Rank algorithm patent.
This means that the FSF (or anybody else) could not create an open source version of the Google search engine. Likewise, its ability to generate revenue with its click ads derives from a patent that it licenses from Yahoo, which acquired the owner of that patent, Overture.
However, Google has been using projects like "Summer of Code" to shut up its critics.
In other words, advocates of open source software are silenced once they see bundles of money dancing in front of their eyes to produce open source projects. The offspring of such largesse is the "Google Fanbois" who post on Slashdot, singing the praises of how great Google is (despite the fact that most of Google's other software is acquired from vendors outside the company).
Google's motto is "Do no evil."
Patents are evil.
Google's success relies on Google's patent.
(Draw your own conclusion here: _____________ )
Interesting. Not a typical stance for the Bush administration since it's a bit anti-business
Where does Bush being antibusiness come from? It's more like he is pro corporatist. More than any other president he has been handing other to corporations business that the government used to do. For instance he has expanded corporate military operations bigger than was previously done. Many of the critical operations in Iraq are handled by corporations like Blackwater USA, If I recall right Afghan President Hamid Karzai's security force, bodyguards, are or were US mercenaries. Bush and behind him, Cheney are pushing to open up ANWAR to big oil companies for drilling. And he wants to open up Yellowstone for natural gas exploration, which seeing as how Yellowstone is a supervolcano is a bad idea. And his economics advisor said outsourcing jobs is good for the economy.
FalconShould there be a Law?
they mispelled will. it s/b "will be refused."
by including may, they can do whatever they want, and some booze and hookers goes a long way to getting these guys to figuratively drop america's shorts for the pleasure of the corporations.
Hai guys I gonna patent i++ We're in the 21th century, for fsck's sake. Alright, the USA is socially still in the late 19th/early 20th. But Europe and China should make an alliance to invalidate and ignore all foreign patents, and if good old Bush gets scared and wants to do something nasty, we can always threaten to ignore copyrights as well.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
>Who is the user going to report bugs to then? How can the programmer improve the program if there's no way users can contact them? There's nothing to stop someone from anonymously creating, say, a Yahoo Group, Usenet Forum or other anonymous internet forum where people can post bugs where the author could monitor them. Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
As for OSS, if an OSS project puts out a novel idea, that idea instantly becomes prior art and nobody can patent it. There is no way for them to be "locked out" of that field. But if somebody else thought of it first, why should OSS be allowed to get a free ride?
Suppose for example OSS came out with a demo of a new way to lay out menus. Suppose Microsoft one week later applies for a patent for a way and method for the user to choose between the standard menu layout and the improved layout.It is an obvious feature and the research into an implementation of the choice needs less than two weeks. Moreover, MS would not need a working demo to apply for a patent even if FOSS already had a demo. I would love to be able admit that this was a contrived example, but it is pretty close to the mess that patents actually are.
Of course some software and some gadgets should be patentable, but where do you draw the line. There's just no algorithm for that.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
I've finally been able to put a finger on what it was that annoyed me about doing something for recognition:
"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out."
-- Baron Thomas Babington Macauley, English historian and statesman (1800-1859)
Steve, dying in a fire
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
we are now getting close to the first full internet-accessed generation reaching voting age. This is *very important* and could conceivably be a major factor in changing a lot of aspects of government
Have you ever listened to, or observed, members of this "first full internet-accessed generation"? I guess not. They certainly aren't going to change things for the better when they reach voting age, because most of them:
Actually, Rob needs needs to report this reterded script-kiddie's IP address and post to the authorities for making threats to shut a server down, which is a felony. As a result, the retard needs to spend a lot of time in prison.
Basically I think you have difficulty accepting that you can be a nice guy without being entirely selfless. Let's take "Fred" for example- a fictional nice guy. Fred has found out that if he is nice and polite to people, they are usually nice and polite to him. Thus, Fred's politeness is also in Fred's self-interest. Now, let's say that you knew that Fred was a nice guy- and then found out that he actually expects other people to be nice in return! Would that lower your opinion of Fred? If so, how much?
Also, different programs are released for free or open-source for various reasons. Since many people may contribute together for one project, each person might have different reasons for joining. Some might do it for the prestige. Others might do it as a learning experience. Some do it as a political statement. Some do it for efficiency. Some do it for business reasons- either to build name recognition or as a means of getting cheap software for themselves (for instance, it might be cheaper for a large group of companies to each send $10 per employee to fund Open Office and use that, than to pay $50/employee for MS Office). Some people do open source for the hippy free-love and software thing.
Another point... let's take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Here we have people trying to make the world a better place. And, of course, they have their names attached to it. You could argue that Bill Gates is just trying to go down in history as the greatest philanthropist ever... but I would argue that that just makes him an arrogant generous person. I would think anyone criticizing them because they wanted their name on the Foundation to be a wee bit self-righteous.
Also, what you may be missing is that all software comes with strings attached. Open Source software also needs those strings if you don't want other people stealing your work and claiming it as their own product.
Lastly... How many books have you read by "Anonymous". Do you know of any paintings by an unknown artist (Graffiti doesn't count). Do you know of any advances in Science or Mathematics where the inventor/discover didn't want anyrecognition? (Try "Primary Colors" and Gregory Perelman, but these are huge exceptions to the rule). Why do you think Free Software should be different?
I'm actually trying to make a few points with this. First, just because some people do the right thing for selfish reasons doesn't mean everyone doing the right thing is doing it for selfish reasons. Second, if we can get people to do the right thing for selfish reasons, that's probably a good thing. Third, just because people get some small benefit from helping others, that doesn't change that they are being helpful. Lastly, people want credit for their work, free or not.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.