Slashdot Mirror
MS vs AT&T Case Stirs Software Patent Debate
Stormwave0 writes "A Microsoft appeal against a decision for AT&T and their speech recognition patent has reached the Supreme Court. AT&T has argued that they did not license software using the patent for sales overseas. Microsoft, in the original case, argued "that it wasn't really liable for infringing on AT&T's licensing rights because it only supplied the golden disk to the replicator one time, and that disk did not really contain software in a usable form anyway." With that argument rejected, the case has moved in an unexpected direction. The court is now debating whether or not software is actually patentable."
The stories showing how sick the software patent system in the US is just want stop it seems. It was about time that this also has reached the courts.
The person(s) within Microsoft that decided to make this appeal might very well not be too popular with Ballmer right now (that is if he wasn't involved in taking the decision himself). According to the article it actually was the Microsoft lawyer that brought the entire topic of software patents in general up, I somehow have the feeling he was acting on his own here and might have to look for another client soon.
This is one of the stories that I hope there will be an follow up on.
If the supreme court suddenly decided that software patents are not actually a possibility anymore then that really could turn the tide in the "patent wars". I would think Microsoft is going to put everything into this trial now, if they loose this one they only have their two money cows left and really no bright future ahead of them at all, even investors should be able to see that.
I wonder how the other big holders of patents will react to such a decision, I have a feeling the only one of the big patent holders that will want to avoid that the entire idea of software patents is given up is Microsoft, them an entire legion of lawyers who will have to find something else to make money on.
Perhaps Steve Ballmer ought to have checked with legal before mouthing off about Linux and intellectual property yesterday?
I knew I should have "waked and baked" before reading Slashdot today. The Microsoft lawyer's getting all metaphysical on us. "Every product contains its own manifestation of its design." I don't envy the Supreme Court Justices here, it sounds like they're about to come up with some huge conclusions.
I write my software the same way that I write my songs . . .
I steal Everything
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
Congratulations on first post, but your grammar is atrocious. Several of your sentences don't actually make sentences. And it's 'lose', not 'loose'.
Having said that, and assuming you meant what you almost said, I think you are wrong. I seriously doubt anyone at Microsoft was stupid enough to turn this into a software patents debate. It was almost assuredly the lawyer. How he screwed up that majorly, I cannot imagine.
And Microsoft is surely not the only 'big patent holder' that wants to keep patents alive and well. Any major company whose business relies on having software that nobody else can reproduce exactly has a stake in this. It is to the benefit of -none- of them to lose patents. AT&T, Adobe, Apple, IBM, SCO, just to name a few.
No, this is possibly Microsoft's biggest mistake, but they haven't quite made the mistake yet. IANAL, but I believe they could still pull out of this before a decision is made. If they're lucky, AT&T will see the light and realize that losing this is a major, major loss for themselves, instead of the simple one that it appears to be at first.
Or maybe this is Microsoft's biggest evil yet... If they win this, software patents are confirmed by the US's highest court, and will be very hard to be rid of.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Sorry, said that backwards... If MS loses this, then software patents are confirmed. MS has paid big money to get their way before, so maybe this was all done on purpose. And they plan to lose badly on purpose.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I would think that Microsoft would benefit greatly if software patents were overturned. They have a tremendous ability to bring software to market. It is the little guy who has to worry. Suppose you or I develop a really great algorithm. Right now, at least theoretically, we can protect our ideas and sell them to larger companies. However, suppose the ability to patent algorithms was removed. Now, I could take ideas from MS and MS could take ideas from me. Who is more likely to be able to out market who? Actually, given their big investments, I'm sure Google has the most to worry about of all.
did a real good job being an AC, didn't you...
Well, i know whom i'm supporting in this case. C,UNIX,C++ vs. Clippy and Vista seems like a no-brainer to me. Yes, like the next slashdotter, i know software patents are evil, etc . But that doesn't mean i can't root for the good guy, right?
"You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." - President George W. Bush
Apparently, their questions pointed MS lawyers in the right direction, according to TFA. Also, "...in a double wammy decision, the court finds that polygamy is legal." (Futurama... sorry, I just had to.)
Except for one thing. If you bring a patent case against microsoft, you probably can't afford the legal costs to win, very few can.
The reverse is rarely true.
So, while in some ways it would be advantageous for Microsoft to be able to bring things to the market easier, they can afford to pay the royalties or legal fees, but they can also effectively keep others away from things that they have control over.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
If AT&T's counsel is really conceding that source code is not patentable, then shouldn't it be easy to get around a software patent by merely changing the machine or object code? For that matter, simply changing what compiler you use will handle the task for you.
Based on all the choice quotes from the justices, it's clear that there could be some serious fodder for dismissal of software patents to be found in the opinions written by the justices. You can almost bet that if this case doesn't decide whether software is patentable, the fallout will ultimately create other situations that bring the question squarely before the Supreme Court. The only hope for the big software companies now is in the fact that the illustrious members of our highest court have traditionally taken great pains to sidestep hot button topics like this by ruling on some less important issue. Nevertheless, you can bet there will be at least one justice who feels the need to write a separate opinion and address the matter of software patents, whether the majority opinion does so or not.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
So, one might argue that they legal system is what is broken, not the idea of software patents. Well, I guess both are broken, but the legal system is more broken. We need both, but we need them fixed.
What if what they want to bring to market is a clone of the Google search engine or some of the other Google products? If software patents are invalidated, then they can embrace and extend without fear.
Congratulations on first post, but your grammar is atrocious. Several of your sentences don't actually make sentences. And it's 'lose', not 'loose'.
;-)
So, do you speak Danish?
Come on, we can't blame foreigners too hard.
See, wasn't that easy?
It's very simple. Software is, by definition, entirely conceptual. The only difference between a programming language construct and a human language construct is that the human language construct changes the electrical signals in the reader's brain, while programming language constructs can also change the electrical signals in a computer's hardware.
Language constructs cannot be (and when the law is interpreted properly, are not) patentable. They are covered by copyright.
Case closed.
Sorry for my spelling, English is not my native language and when I am typing fast errors flourish.
I have just read TFA actually it seems that AT&T did take the stance of agreeing to the MS lawyer that software patents should not be possible and would accept loosing this specific case if Microsoft agrees to this.
This whole patent thing is a bit of a cold war as it has been mentioned in some of the other discussions, seems that at least AT&T would rather spend their time and other resources developing real software instead of applying for software patents.
it takes approximately $150,000 to make an international patent. And a legal service to defend your rights costs a lot more.
:
:
We have to get used to this world anyway : more and more intelligent people have access to a good education. That means more and more people have great ideas. The corollary is that several people come up with the same great idea at approximately the same time. If you go further in the reasoning
Adam, Barbara and Conrad live in different parts of the world but come up with the Great Idea X that will change the way we use wireless networks. Adam lives in US and has a lot of cash. He patents the idea, barring Barbara and Conrad of a revenue they would be (in some economico-ethics theories) entitled to.
Please allow me to take an arrogant European tone
You americans always focus on the "who is making profit ?" aspect of the law. Is this the lil' guy ? is this the big corporation ? is it the state ? Is it the "good" person ? (That is, according to an unwritten law of ethics and morals)
The European stance on the patent system is "What system favors the exchange of ideas and the development of innovative industries ?". It is rooted in the belief that good ideas are too precious to be kept solely by an individual seeking profit.
Now the world has evolved so much that patents still allows someone to make profits from them, but does it still helps the propagation of ideas ? I am not sure of it...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Why couldn't you patent the algorithm? The algorithm isn't the software, it's a genuinely something that you have created. A real invention. The implementation of that invention shouldn't be patentable tho, ie. you shouldn't be able to patent is the software that implements the algorithm.
If it's a compression algorithm, you can't patent "A digital means of conserving internal disk storage on home computers via file compression". That's a patent on a concept, not an invention. That's what should be under argument, and should ultimately be disallowed (like Amazon's One-Click, etc).
Of course, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.
As Justice Breyer implied, the issue of whether software is patentable isn't being raised by either side in this case, so the Court cannot rule on that question here. All they can do is interpret the law on the assumption that software is patentable. The ruling may very well suggest that the question is debatable though.
and due to the broken legal system based on finance rather than right/wrong/legal/illegal (or if they want the willingness to pay royalties), MS can still do this right now if they'd like.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
I don't think you're giving the Microsoft lawyers enough credit. They're almost on par with IBM's lawyers...
Microsoft spends a whole lot of money on patents -- either suing others or being sued. At some point they must realize that it's a sinking ship; they have not innovated much in the past few years and have been largely confined to incremental changes to their interfaces. Imagine how it is for them: They think of something that they want to add to Windows or Office. Alas, someone else invented (and patented) it years ago. All this detracts from their core business, namely, ummmm... Well, whatever their core business is, lawsuits (snarky comments aside) are not one of them.
On the one hand you can patent software in the USA, and the patents are granted easily. So you MUST patent EVERYTHING, because if you don't someone else will. Trade secret protection is not an option, even though it's very effective at protecting the algorithms inside software.
Yet on the other hand, software patents are not permitted in competitor markets like Europe or India or China. In those markets they CAN use trade secrets, they can also read the USA patents and copy the invention.
By allowing software patents, they took away the best method of protection available for software, trade secrets, and replaced it with forced disclosure to foreign competitors.
It would be a good idea to correct the faulty idea that software can be patented, and it looks like the supremes might do that here. It was only one of these dumb ideas dreamt up by the BSA and slotted into a vaguely worded trade agreement (TRIPS) that caused the mistake to happen anyway. Well that's why pencils have erasers.
Ok, Windows... check, Office... check.
What about games? They don't make any money from games? Hardware?
There is a war going on for your mind.
It sounds like a supreme bluff for a software company. Neither company wants software patents to go away. With the Court of Appeals having decided in AT&T's favor, the only way Microsoft can get out of paying for violating their license is to get AT&T to back down.
AT&T will back down, long before this reaches a final decision. Not only does AT&T want software patents to stay in place, but so does every software company out there. And each one is going to be knocking on AT&T's door, threatening to cease business and license agreements if AT&T follows through.
To quote Snowman, "Welcome to the world's biggest game of chicken, boys!"
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Microsoft lost around a billion dollars to patent trolls last year. How much did they make by licensing software patents (or indirectly by looking as if they might)?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm surprised by this number. It takes about £2,000 for a research organisation to get a patent in the UK (including a relevant fraction of the patent lawyer's retainer). Beyond this, getting it granted internationally is usually a matter of paying the filing fees and making a few minor tweaks.
The ballpark for defending, however, is usually quoted at around £1,000,000. If you aren't willing and able to put up that much money to defend a patent, then it's not worth bothering to file it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I am not sure that a ruling against software patents would be all that bad for MS.
OK, they would lose a chance of damage open source and tax small companies in the industry.
Against that patents are not much use against major competitors who are likely to find something to counter-sue over - and in the long run the industry, like semi-conductors, is likely to end up with all the major players cross-licensing to each other. Patents also leave them exposed to claims themselves.
The only clear winners from software patents are patent trolls - and, for all their faults, MS is better than that.
Isn't that what copyrights are for?
Random Musings
We Americans focus on the profit issue because we live in a market economy. Here's the reasoning: 1. Innovation can lead to a product that people find useful 2. People will pay for useful products 3. Other people see this, and try to innovate in that same area 4. Competition forces more innovation, or at least lower prices 5. Society gets better stuff at a lower price, and innovators make money The "European stance" (not applicable in more market-oriented states like Ireland, I suspect) ignores this reality, thus chopping incentives for innovation off at the knees. Your stance will restrict innovation to large, established, conservative companies, and create a disincentive for the entry of small businesses (which often are founded around a single, innovative idea or product and are the primary drivers of employment and economic dynamism). What causes you to look down your nose at us is the fact that some established market participants have found ways to game the system thanks to the general uselessness of our federal government. But this happens everywhere. Consider that our market economy continues to innovate despite this, compare the results to your own, and marvel.
I am giving you a figure I have heard from the people who write patents in my (French) company. Apparently, a French patent would cost you around 2000 euros. But there are no international patent office, so you have to translate it in many legalese dialects and make it approved by several offices. So add the costs for UK, US, Middle East, Asia (probably includes China, Japan, Korea as separated entities) plus a few other countries where you could plan to do business, you get a pretty big number on the bottom line.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
My dad tried to get a software patent through a major organization years ago, an organization that today holds countless thousands of software patents. The answer from the patent office was ominous: "there will NEVER be software patents".
stuff |
Correct but it doesn't fit the 150 character limits Slashdot imposes, I had to make it shorter. I prefer GBS version though...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
One of the most important difference of software compared other tangible products is, it doesn't cost to duplicate once a software product is developed. The other major difference is, it doesn't even cost to distribute even if to the whole world thanks to peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.
s p )
A minor, student or single person can easily infringe one or many software patents by writing a small computer program. That is, you don't have to be a company to violate Software Patents.
Software Patents are the single most danger faced today by the students, end users, software developers, scientists, companies especially small ones, etc.
Therefore, Software Patents strongly discourage if not completely stop innovation and advancement of science and technology.
Software Patents allow few big companies to earn money with following two dangers to the public:
1. Software Patents holder has no obligation to give a license to others.
2. Even if Software Patents holder agrees to give a license to others, there is no obligation for them to give at price affordable for others.
By using either or both above points they can simply cutoff others from implementing a technology or advancement of a technology. Please note, the technique used is cutoff, not compete.
Today I'm sitting on a product that I developed by advancing the technology using innovative ideas, but I cannot release it to the world either free or at fee unless I violate one single patent owned by a large company.
I wrote to that company asking how much royalty do I have to pay, there is no reply from them. They want us to violate the law and sue us later. They do not want to compete with us, they simply want to cutoff us from competition.
By being a victim of Software Patents, my suggestion is software should be managed by Copyright laws, not by Patent laws. If somebody does not want to given me a license for a software product, I can still sit and develop a functionally equivalent one as if I'm writing a new book without violating law.
This is how major industries such as music, movie, book publishing operates.
Sagara W
Following links may give you a better understanding of this Software Patents issue:
1. Public Patent Foundation ( http://www.pubpat.org/ )
2. http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
3. Software Patents vs Parliamentary Democracy ( http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html )
4. Petition for a Software Patent Free Europe ( http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html )
5. Software Patents Gone Bad ( http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1666755,00.a
Recent figures (from th past several years) from their games division, which includes the xbox and windows games, have shown losses in most fiscal quarters. They make money in some places with games, but the overall division has been held back a bit by designing and introducing two consoles without apparently hitting the sales numbers to break even overall (yet). In the long term they might make a killing, recently, not so much.
If there's any justice they must make money from peripherals, their mice etc. are great. Probably nothing on the scale of Windows, though, since they have so many competitors.
The usual arguments made by people in the U.S. as to why a particular patent/copyright rule should be in force is "What rewards people for developing ideas that benefit others?" At least that is the type of argument that usually wins.
Agreed. If he's smart, he'd get a patent, pronto, on chair throwing as a business method.
To whit :
"I'm a plan9 user, therefore I'm the most unreasonable of all creatures"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
" only supplied the golden disk to the replicator one time, and that disk did not really contain software in a usable form anyway..."
I always thought that you couldn't patent a core algorithm because that just boils down to a mathematical equation, and you can't patent mathematical equations. Patenting the implementation as a process sounds more like something that would be patentable.
Of course I could be entirely wrong...
Congratulations on first post, but your grammar is atrocious. Several of your sentences don't actually make sentences. And it's 'lose', not 'loose'.
In the hopes of trying to be helpful and follow up on this comment, I would like to add that it's "just won't stop" not "just want stop". Sadly, I've seen a lot worse than this. At first I thought it was just our American educational system failing to do its job, but I see truly horrible examples of grammar regularly on various forums from people in Canada, the UK, Australia (right now they seem particularly bad to me) and New Zealand, so it's not just us.
A tortured argument on Olson's part. By that logic, it's ok for me to distribute child porn to people in other countries via CD. At that point, they're just inert electrons. Only when the recipient opens the file do the bits resolve themselves into an actual image. So the offender is not the person who sent the CD, because it the images weren't executable, but rather the person who received it and opened it for viewing. Staggering.
A bit OT, I'm stunned by the poor performance on the part of this Joseffer person. Asst SGs aren't what they used to be, I guess. You cannot win a case during oral arguments before the Court, but you can lose. Seven years ago, I watched the AG of North Carolina throw away states' rights to sell the data from their DMV databases through a truly incompetent argument. Here we go again.
There have been successful patent suits against Microsoft, notably the recent ActiveX one, and they're always extremely disruptive.
If I were Ballmer, no matter how much I may dislike competition from Free Software and see patents as a potential battering ram against it (and they're of limited utility against FS anyway), I would see the sheer disruption and difficulty innovating that patents bring as overwhelmingly being the major issue.
If patents worked against Free Software, it would have died a long time ago. The distributed nature of the software's developers, the number of groups that maintain it in countries immune from software patent laws, the interoperability demanded by Microsoft's own customers that patents undermine, make it a poor weapon, usable mostly for FUD and little else.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You should read the article. It's an amazing paraphrase of a scene that must have had Microsoft's attorneys shitting their pants Justice Breyer realized. "I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?" he asked." That was not where they were going. MS argued that: For foreign replication to work, a golden disk is shipped abroad to the replication service, containing the master of the Vista operating system that includes AT&T's drivers. It's not software at that point, Olson says, because no one can execute it. When it's installed onto a hard drive, then it becomes software, and it's the end customer who does that. Now, I see three outcomes.
A) Court says SW patents are unconstitutional. yeah right
B) Court says SW patents are constitutional, MS wins and nothing changes too much.
C) Court says a disc which is an installer is analogous to a "blueprint" and is not the same as a SW patent (and thus dodges the SW patent question). Everything explodes, GPL and non-GPL software living on the same installation CD (read: legal for nvidia drives to be distributed).
But really, read up. The killer quotes? Justice Souter would not have the discussion divert into the patentability of photons. "Let's just take the master disk and forget the photon for the moment," and AT&T is willing to concede that software isn't patentable, if the Court will conclude that the things that software does - the methods and procedures and instructions that a processor carries out once software is installed - are patentable. baazing! WTF is the difference?! Who knows!!!!
-mix
As one who has a software patent to my name, this debate is intensely interesting to me. In my case, the patent is actually more an algorithm patent than a software patent, though the actual source code for the algorithm is listed in the patent itself. It represents one possible instantiation of the algorithm. And now I can see a debate immediately arising about the difference between "software" and "algorithm". :-)
Personally, I don't think software should be patentable despite the fact I have such a patent. It makes for a real mess and stymies the creative juices of developers who must worry over such things. Hell, if we all had to check every darn algorithm in our code to see if it might infringe a patent somewhere, we'd never get anything useful to market!
Personally, I hope the Supreme Court will lower the boom on all software patents, though I'd personally "loose" my patent (really owned by a Very Big Corporation). And actually, I am surprised to see law types have even a 10% clue about software, though I think their arguments rather specious and pointless. Software represent embodiments of ideas, and as far as I am concerned, ideas should be free. I think we all stand to benefit more from the free and open exploitation of ideas more so than a few holding monopolies and strangling the rest of the world.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
But without any patents, what would be the motivation for that individual to share their idea at all? Bringing an idea to fruition as an invention takes a lot of work. If you know that the day after your product goes to market, a dozen other identical ones will be on the shelf next to it, why bother? Sure, some people are altruistic or just doing it for the fun of it - but many people have a zillion other things to deal with that will take priority if their invention won't see much of a profit for them.
I'm not arguing for software patents necessarily, and I'll fully admit that there are a ton of problems with the US's patent system. But remember that often the best way to get that innovation out where people can benefit from it is to ensure that the innovator will make a profit.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
from the article:
"AT&T is willing to concede that software isn't patentable, if the Court will conclude that the things that software does - the methods and procedures and instructions that a processor carries out once software is installed - are patentable.
Or for us mere developers: even if software is not patentable the lawyers will still have a way with the words to F*ck you.
MS will lose badly, on purpose. If they don't, the Novell deal becomes hollow and without repercusions to Linux distros not signed up with MS.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
> dreamt up by the BSA
I had always thought that RSA was the first software/algorithmic US patent granted. That would make MIT the Pandora who opened the software patent box, not the loathed BSA.
Or did you just mis-type?
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
honestly, I don't think free software is at the top of his worries, he's probably more worried about other pieces of corporate software.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Money for nothing, pix for free
No, and I've never tried. If I -were- going to try, I'd fully expect people to correct my mistakes, though.
He wrote well enough that I was fooled into thinking he was a native speaker that just couldn't be bothered to re-read what he'd wrote before he submitted. It's exactly the kind of thing that happens when you are typing furiously and trying to get first post. In the next post down, you'll see that he admitted he was typing too fast and prone to mistakes when he does.
English is my native language, and I'm sick of seeing it butchered by people who don't care enough to use it properly. This means that I occasionally sternly correct someone who is learning and trying hard, instead of the usual idiots who can't be bothered to care.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
-
A tortured argument on Olson's part. By that logic, it's ok for me to distribute child porn to people in other countries via CD. At that point, they're just inert electrons. Only when the recipient opens the file do the bits resolve themselves into an actual image. So the offender is not the person who sent the CD, because it the images weren't executable, but rather the person who received it and opened it for viewing. Staggering.
For that matter, it's not really "child porn" until it's actually rendered as an image on your viewing screen.On the issue of child porn, I think the laws in this area are completely screwed up. Anyone can send a series of 1s and 0s to your computer from anywhere on the planet in the form of email, etc. If some unsolicited email happens to render as "child porn" on your computer, then you are now defined as "possessing child porn" and you could loose your computer, kids, have your reputation completely ruined, and all of this long before the court has a chance to determine your actual culpability in this instance. Trojanware could download lots of this crap to your computer and redistribute it without your knowledge -- and even rearrange the bits and bites to hide its tracks or make it look like you did it for real. Someone wants to frame you? They get this "frameware" on your computer and it emails the porn to the FBI from your computer along with personal information the "frameware" were able to glean from your personal files, after which it would remove all evidence of its existence. Anyone with half a brain could write a VB script to do this in just a few minutes, hour or two tops.
Am I paranoid? Pray that I am. But I've seen too much harm come to too many innocent people on the basis of screwy laws and crass ignorance in law enforcement.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
I've got ELECTRONS on my HARD DRIVE!
From the actual transcript (P.22, lines 6 to 10):
So, while IANAL and not familiar with things prior to these oral arguments, it is my suspicion that the issue of patentability was raised from the bench. Why wouldn't they raise that issue? If its not patentable, then the case is moot - they issue a ruling saying that software patents are invalid, and thus the case is dismissed; it's a waste of their time to go any farther. If they are patentable, then they rule on the case and back up the lower courts. However, as quoted above, the Supreme Court has not yet held that software patents are actually patentable, and this is highly reflected in the whole transcript where the Supreme Court keeps referring to software as a Blueprint and does not see how it is any different, despite AT&T and Microsoft and the Assistant to the Solicitor General say.
Personally, I think it is highly likely that (a) the Supreme Court will rule that software patents are not valid patents and that software cannot be patented (thus the case is moot), and (b) that it is possible - even likely - that AT&T and Microsoft are pushing this to the Supreme Court to get a verdict - either way - on patents. Of course, they'd be happier if software is patentable, but either way a verdict comes from the highest court of the land which can only be overturned by itself, or a change in the Constitution by Congress or the States.
That's my take on the transcript. Read it yourself and see what you think.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
I'm not a lawyer, or a mathemetician, but I'm not sure that a ban on patening an equation would extend to an algorithm. An equation is a statement of truth, e.g. "x=y". An algorithm isn't a statement of truth, but rather a process.
I would say this is the same as saying you can't patent a physical law, but you can patent a device that is based off of that physical law.
For example, I can't patent gravity, but I could patent a machine that worked by dropping things.
Similarly, I shouldn't be able to patent "f(x)=y" - which is a statement of truth, but I should be able to patent the process of using the fact that f(x)=y and g(t)=n, etc. to do something- which is what an algorithm is.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
I love it when the "thinkofthechildern" argument is used to screw the "Man". You know, instead of screwing the rest of us like it usually does.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Hahaha this is so funny.
Hey, what shall we do today?
I know, let's patent Analog to Digital Converters.
What about Analog Devices (The company?)
Who cares.
What about the bucket brigade?
Who cares.
What about.. What about.. What about Electro-Harmonix?
Who cares.
What about AT&T?
Who cares.
Now we got a lawsuit. wtf?!
who cares, lets lobby to MANDATE DRM an add PGP encryption to the stream.
Of course, I didn't read this article.
I get a 0 for reading comprehension
1 for my response
As for speech recognition. . . . . I recognise "the speech."
The speech is pure bullshit, same ol, same ol.
Fucking Corporate bullshit.
Fuck Vista.
"I hope we can continue calling it the golden disk," Justice Antonin Scalia said, when one justice blandly referred to it as the master disk. "It has a certain Scheherazade quality that really adds a lot of interest to this case." wash.post
"These are the core values of the company MySQL AB and its employees: ... We work against software patents" The "no software patents" logo at the bottom right of the pages on the web site is also deliberate.
Then the patent is useless. What is the point of patenting an algorithm, when someone can just go and implement it for free? No point.
THe fact is that patents are a complicated issue. When everyone had an equal playing field, they were ok. Now, you have companies with bank accounts of Billions, versus ordinary people.
FTA: a golden disk is shipped abroad to the replication service, containing the master of the Vista operating system that includes AT&T's drivers. It's not software at that point, Olson says, because no one can execute it. When it's installed onto a hard drive, then it becomes software, and it's the end customer who does that.
If I understand Microsoft's argument correctly, then, all of those illicit copies of Windows Vista don't really infringe on Microsoft's copyright because "It's not software at that point... because no one can execute it. When it's installed onto a hard drive, then it becomes software..."
IOTW, there's nothing wrong with copying the Windows Vista disks, because it's not software until it is actually installed on someone's machine.
This is absolutely incredible. This is the same Microsoft which is suing my local computer shop for copyright infringement over copies of Windows.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Consider the Newton.
(Although, patents wouldn't have helped.)
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
"An idea or a principle [such as] two plus two equals four can't be patented," [Microsoft attorney] Olson told the Justices. "It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device." ... [The] disk is shipped abroad to the replication service, containing the master of the Vista operating system that includes AT&T's drivers. It's not software at that point, Olson says, because no one can execute it. When it's installed onto a hard drive, then it becomes software, and it's the end customer who does that.
This seems like a dangerous position for Microsoft to take. If the BSA raids my house and finds thousands of CD-R's full of Vista and Office, can I just say "That's not pirated software. It's not software at all until somebody installs it on their computer. Microsoft says so themselves. If someone installed these discs on their computer, it would become software, possibly even illegal software, and you could get on their case, but until then this is just my perfectly legal collection of shiny five inch coasters."?
I didn't really accept M$'s golden disk defense anyway. It smelled very fishy. And somehow i couldn't believe that M$ argues against all software patents> If it really does and wins, it almost redeemed itself in my eyes.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
With the frequency at which MS copies other companies products, you'd think they'd be delighted if software was not patentable.
[I thought]he was a native speaker that just couldn't be bothered to re-read what he'd wrote before he submitted. ... English is my native language, and I'm sick of seeing it butchered by people who don't care enough to use it properly.
Ouch!
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
AT&T: OMG! Microsoft copied out patented software.
Justices: Microsoft, how do you respond to these allegations?
Microsoft: Whatever. It's not like software is even patentable anyway.
Justices: You raise an important issue. Why do you feel software shouldn't be patentable?
Microsoft: Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Justices: WTF? That's the best reason you can come up with not to uphold software patents? This court rules that software patents are legal and enforceable!
Microsoft: Oh, no! Please don't fling me in the briar patch!
First, Algorithms are Math. Math should not be patentable.
Second, I've independently invented several algorithms that are not patented or in public domain (as far as I can see- I work in a very specialized field). However, I've also independently invented algorithms that I later found other people invented long before me. I'm much more concered about random idiots suing me for accidentally violating patents I've never heard of than I am about people stealing my ideas. (Stealing my code is protected by copyright).
Third, If MS can take ideas from me and I can take ideas from MS, I benefit more than MS does- they have lots of intelligent people, and I have just me.
Something else you may be missing is that in software, if you have a great algorithm you probably have a program that runs using it. You don't just wake up in the middle of the night with a new Bayesian Filter without writing a program that checks your algorithm to see if it works. And if you have a prototype you can mass-produce it yourself.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Then copyright it. As an author you have the right to do that. Then put license restrictions around it that say in effect "if you have a copy of my code / algorithm that I didn't sell you, you are in violation of my rights as an author and you'd better pay up or I can sue you." This is how it was done for nigh on 30 years prior to the USPTO coming to the erroneous conclusion that software is somehow the same as a patentable device.
If you want better protection yet, build the algorithm into the appropriate binary (dll, loadable module, driver, or whatever) and now your work is protected by the (evil-ly usable) DMCA from reverse engineering, etc. and a violator is not only liable in civil courts but also in criminal courts.
Neither of these measures require software patents to work for the little guy.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Yeah- I bet that if Software patents were banned then Microsfot would copy Google's search engine- they would probably give it some stupid name like 'MSN Search' or something.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Two points.
One, it was Justice Breyer who wrote a very eloquent dissenting (minority) opinion in the Eldred case. A sample from his dissent:
Second point, it is not at all unusual for the members of the bench to raise questions that would seem to the layman as a personal predisposition. Breyer appears to "play his hand" by asking whether software patents are even viable, but in fact, he may personally quite agree with the concept or at least have no interest in visiting that legal question with his final opinion. You can't really listen to a Supreme Court Justice's probing questions and distinguish what is direct and what is merely socratic. They are shaking the trees to see what unexpected concepts fall out, so as to craft a more finessed ruling that has the least amount of unintended consequences.
[
I only supplied a copy of Windows to a replicator one time (to make 1,000,000 copies) and it wasn't in usable form anyway. After all, until you run the installer Windows on a disk does nothing, and even after that it's not usable (there are a lot of programs you need to install just to get basic OS functions that any other OS already has; this is quite apart from the argument that Windows is unusable in any form).
They sure got bent out of shape over the theft of source in the past, both in terms of copyright infringement (Whistler source) and patent infringement (the source they released telling how to connect to Active Directory with a license that said you could not work on FOSS if you read it). Still it is nice to see Microsoft on our side here. Maybe they have the clout to effect de facto patent reform through judicial action; they certainly have been hit by a lot of patent lawsuits recently that even the most ardent MS haters (I among them) must agree were grossly unfair and representative of the very abuses we decry. Their arguments in this case reflect those made by advocates of patent reform, so if they are successful they will go a long way to improving matters for all even though they will also cripple Microsoft's own Sinister Plans regarding FOSS.
I think Microsoft realizes that the danger posed to them from FOSS is nothing to the danger posed to all from poorly applied software patents. This is an important realization and one for which they deserve applause. Go Microsoft!
What about games? They don't make any money from games? Hardware? Are you saying that Microsoft was the innovator for Windows, the Office suite, Games, and Hardware?
Are you in need of a history lesson?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Yes an algorithm is a process. But it is also a mathematical function, an idea, and at it's lowest level just a string of 1's and 0's.
Imagine the program on your disk to be one large number in base 2. Can you patent a number? Of course not. Can you patent an idea, nope, you can only patent a thing. This is why they are talking about the patent being the software ON the computer. Both combined are patentable.
I think it's great that the supreme court is looking at this. It's about time.
Would striking down patents improve things or by forcing companies to use other ethods, i.e. copyrights, make things worse?
Here is my reasoning. Patents can be dysfunctional and obnoxios. But eventually they expire.
In contrast, thanks to the spineless slugs called the Supreme Court, copyrights can be extended into perpetuity.
Is there something I am missing? If people suddenly switch to copyrights, would the cure be worse than the disease? I think it could be.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
So two huge, bloated monopolies are fighting, and rather than vote for the one who might be in the right, you're voting for the one that used to dump some extra mountains of cash into research? I hope you never serve Jury duty. "Well, he did kill his wife, but he donated several hundred dollars to the EFF, while his wife voted for Bush. Let's give a verdict of 'Not Guilty'."
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Supreme Court outcomes are very hard to figure.
I honestly figure that Ballsmer will go appoplectic in his wind up with the chair, though.
One problem is that MS will settle any case they will potentially lose, or if the judgement is one that has any bearing on them whatsoever. They settle out of court all the time. Who says any judgement will be made on this at all or any precedent will be set?
If you were Ballmer you'd be jumping up and down like Donkey Kong, sweating, squirting, throwing chairs, and shouting "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!"
Then you'd go home and lie down on your big pile of money and take a nice nap.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I totally agree with the European view on patents. That used to be the case here, but ascendant conservatism has directed the government to favor corporate interests over the common good - to hell with the fact that software patents make no sense.
IANAL but this is a lose-lose case for Microsoft. If they prevail on the it's just 1's and 0's argument, I'm betting the legal precedents will be used against them in copying cases. If they lose, well, software patents in the U.S. go bye-bye.
For us, this case is a win-win...
Wow, Microsoft has really reached a new low here. They are provoking a patent dispute with AT&T and deliberately trying to lose the case, creating case law that might then be applied to open source.
Microsoft's argument seems carefully crafted to remove the issue of commercial sales vs. open source distribution; that is, that when Microsoft violates AT&T's patent in software they produce and ship it's entirely different from when open source distributions aggregate third party software.
You have to wonder what that company is going to do next... assassinate Linus? Blow up the FSF offices?
That's true, I never thought of it like that. Good point.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I find it amazing that if MS wins this one, in the context that Software Patents are invalid, then they will have killed all future lawsuits they could make against competitors. They have been selling patent protection to Linux users through Novell which will also become moot if they win this case in the context of software patents not being valid.
In my opinion, this means they will quickly and quietly settle with AT&T for what ever amount of money they have to pay because they can't afford to win this case on these terms.
Raydude
Ha! Looks like Captain Pedantic up there learnded his English real good. I wonder how bad it would be if it weren't his "native language".
God is imaginary
Any argument MS makes here is in regard to Patent law, not copyright. Don't confuse the two - they are entirely distinct.
Right, which is kinda why I thought the algorithm was patentable as a "construct". Yes, it's based on math. But, all the physical inventions that we use and would agree should be patentable are combinations of wheels, axles, inclined planes, etc, etc, which are generally unpatentable.
So, where does the line get drawn? I believe that it should be drawn at the "construct", and short of the implementation. I can patent an engine design, but shouldn't be able to patent uses of it, for example.
The main problem is that the patent process *is* valid and IMO needed, but it needs lots of intelligent people managing it. Not working with time limits, quotas, etc, etc. Smacking down companies that file obvious patents wouldn't hurt either.
I am in the UK. If something is patented in the US but not in the UK, I can try making and selling the patented item. I will not be liable to be sued in the US provided I do not sell stuff in the US itself. However, if you can prove that I have sold or exported stuff to the US or made the stuff in the US, then you can bring a case against me. When you bring that case, you can also sue for damages for all the overseas sales too. This seems to be an established practice in the US, rather than a piece of legislation.
Microsoft have a licence to make and sell something in the US. The discs are also copied abroad. If there isn't a case for patent infringement on US soil, then it will be very hard to bring a case against them. The case seems to hinge on what the concept of 'manufacture' is with a program. If it is in the coding or the compilation, then the 'golden disk' was made in the US, and Microsoft may be stuffed. If 'manufacture' means copying the disk and putting it in a box, then that happened (legally) in the US, or (illegally but outside US juristiction) abroad. If the program had been sent out over the net, then they could (and did, I think) argue that all the physical product had been made and sold overseas. However, the difference betweem e-mailing the program and taking it out on a disc is rightly not seen to be significant.
Sadly, this issue does not touch the actual patentibility of software.
For every litigation a company is in, they have to have financial resources set aside for the result. If software patents were invalidated, then pure software companies could pretty much release these financial resources for use; though not all - some one still be needed for Copyright and Trademark litigations & liabilities. This is partly what leads me to believe they either or both Microsoft & AT&T are trying to get software patents decided at the Supreme Court level. That would solve a lot of things for both of them.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
No matter what ruling they make, they will end up making a ruling on software patents - it's the heart of the case. If software patents are not valid, then the case is moot and its a waste of their time. So, more likely than not, they are using this case to say something about software patents.
Again, IANAL so take what I say with a grain of salt, but this is what I got of out it.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
If you know that the day after your product goes to market, a dozen other identical ones will be on the shelf next to it, why bother?
Well, ask Nokia, Ericsson or Motorola in the mobile phone market.
Or I could give you the answer right now: if you don't bring your product to market anyway, you're not gonna sell it at all.
Those are two interesting and very, very different examples. Bottled water, on the one hand, required little to no real innovation (to the point where I seriously doubt it was ever patentable) and is probably pretty cheap to make. There is also very little brand loyalty (despite the brands' best efforts), which makes it much easier for new players to get in because nobody cares what label is on the bottle they grab. It's also a huge seller, so the market can easily support new minor players.
Generic pharmaceuticals share a lot of the same properties. They require no innovation at all, nor any of the R&D costs associated with the brand names. But here's the question: If the original pharmaceutical company could not have the exclusive patent for seven years, would they have ever put in the several millions of dollars necessary to create the original drug? If the generics showed up within a year, let's say, the original company may never have been able to turn a profit, and so wouldn't be in the business to start with. And if they hadn't spent all that money to create the drug in the first place, the generic manufacturers would have nothing to sell either. Their business depends on the ability of the original company to make a profit before the patent expires.
Because having first-mover advantage is actually worth much more. Besides, if your innovation is such that it can be copied by a dozen competitiors the very next day, it probably wasn't much of an innovation in the first place.
Of course, the next day thing was hyperbole. But how long does it take to make a profit on something that cost quite a bit in money and manpower to create, assuming you are the only provider of it? A month? Six months? A year? Several years? I'm sure it varies from product to product - but chances are good that in a lot of cases, a copycat would be possible faster than you'd like it to be. And if they happen to design a more eyecatching box, they might steal more of your profits than you expected. The question is, how much risk are people willing to take when they have a great idea? And how much risk is society willing to take that that risk is too high and will cause innovations to never see the light of day?
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Or I could give you the answer right now: if you don't bring your product to market anyway, you're not gonna sell it at all.
But you also won't have any of the costs associated with bringing a product to market, nor will you have any risk of losing money on it at all.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
They will tell you how to get rid of all those electrons...just one catch, you have to get rid of all your thetans first.
And that will cost you big time.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Are you in need of corrective lenses?
I was merely pointing out that they have branched out into other products besides Windows & Office & if software patents aren't a legal construct, they have other ways of making money if forced to.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Good for the justices.
Bluntly, the only fix to the patent system is to eliminate it. Why? It's fundamentally flawed and has no inherent value despite claims by the legal industry and their well-heeled clients. Patents will always be fundamentally flawed because 1. they are based on monopolies (which are (supposed to be) illegal), and 2. because they monopolize ideas (not just a specific expression of an idea --- as with copyright --- which is far less objectionable). Ideas should not be subject to monopoly power for any duration no matter how short. Furthermore (for comparison), copyrights do not prevent independent discovery or expression. Patents monopolize an idea regardless of independent discovery, regardless of timing (though proponents claim otherwise), regardless or business merit, regardless of intent behind patent. Patents are absurd.
For the record, there are other problems with patents, their origins, the USPTO, the patent system, and the logistics of patents. For instance, there is no way to administer patents properly (catch-22). There are lots of problems with patents. Ultimately they stem from being fundamentally broken.
What are patents, really? Well, putting legal langauge aside, and adopting more of a metaphorical social and business look, my best analogy is:
patents are business landmines triggered by government approved (USPTO) ideas.
Emphasis: landmines. Landmines are a highly undesirable byproduct of war. That's what patents are. Byproducts of greedy, lazy business people. They are a byproduct of business war augmented by special interest arms manufacturers (legal industry). Lawyers invented and institutionalized patents (e.g., the Lehmann USPTO panel on software patents was a joke, all lawyers). The panel was deaf (but not dumb or blind, IMO). Landmines are extremely dangerous. Patents are debilitating to business, increase risk, and reduce innovation and freedom. The best way to avoid them is not to place them in the first place, or anyplace for that matter. I reiterate: patents are absurd.
Except for the legal industry where they're big money (not just to well-heeled clients, but more pointedly to the industry itself which imposed them). IOW, it's essentially a 'taxation without representation' issue, and will probably take a revolt against the legal industry to eradicate patents. Any "reform" is just another joke, IMO.
-=-
To answer the issue more broadly, there are potential "fix"es for the patent system. For example, in the software industry, OSS (open source software) principles are genuinely compelling in all the right ways. IOW, there are several "positives" which were originally intended to grow out of the patent system which can be achieved through more productive paths. For example, 1. benefit the small manufacturer by creating a window of opportunity to manufacture an invention, and 2. benefit the public by documenting discoveries and inventions (in a sane way).
#2 has long gone by the wayside as patents are obfuscated messes written up by lawyers to be overly general and uninformative (to prevent competition but to maintain control over broad range of ideas) without any public interest at all. Software patents aren't executable (to show they work) nor even compilable. They're just lawyer gobbledygook by unprincipled lawyers (apologies to patent attorneys, but if you truly know you're craft then you'll know I'm right). By contrast, OSS principles ride not on unexecutable gobbledygook, but on socially acceptable or at least compilable&executable code. A library of proven ideas (OSS) trumps gobbledygook legalese (patents) anyday.
Add in a variety of public libraries (internet) for software regarding #1 above (helping small manufacturer), and you have a growing public trust of available resources for the small manufacturer(s) to build on --- augmenting their design and innovation, and speeding their time to market. Just as intended (originally that is) by pat
The court is now debating whether or not software is actually patentable
Its about time.
The court needs to redefine software as something that is actually soft. Software should be that set of programs that are deliverer with the source code and making that completely un-patentable. Some of have a new term for this its called open source. But in reality its the only software that deserves to be called soft. You can still buy commercial-ware, if you want to. Lets just call commercial-ware, commercial-ware. There is nothing soft about it.
Which came first the software patent or the legal basis for the software patent?
Neither! Patent lawyers tried to reinterpret the conventions of the day, from Berne to TRIPS, Patent offices tried to expand their scope by accepting these broad interpretations. Mayhem ensues!
BSA is the current problem.
but either way a verdict comes from the highest court of the land which can only be overturned by itself, or a change in the Constitution by Congress or the States.
If the Court comes down with a decision that software patents are unconstitutional , then your statement would be correct.
However, if the court issues a decision that federal law does not allow software to be patented, then it is only an interpretation of the law, and Congress may change that law and make software patentable. So let the lobbying begin!
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
All inventions are obvious in hindsight. The fact that people made fans with separate blinds for close to a hundred years is more than enough testament that this invention was non-obvious despite how simple it was. Just because an invention is simple to reproduce doesn't automatically mean it was obvious, or was not very innovative. You're making an unsubstantiated assertion in your chain of logic to reach your preconceived conclusion that patents are unnecessary.
I wonder if the FSF is going to use this opportunity to file a friend-of-the-court brief elucidating this point?
Do a google for "abstraction physics" and look here for Abstraction_Physics
more fun can be had in using googles patent search and inputting "virtual interaction configuration".
Consider re-writting the found patent "semantic user interface" #RE39,090 IIRC (referencing the mentioned V.I.C., in Abstraction Physics link) in terms that are not patentable.
And I don't give a damn about either company in the article, but rather what is a human right and honest!
"Bringing an idea to fruition as an invention takes a lot of work."
Problem is, if you can manage to read through some patents, a lot of them, especially software patents, read like a patent on an idea, rather than as a patent on an invention.
As I understand it, what the parent was saying was that one should be able to patent the construct, e.g. the engine, but not ways to use that engine, e.g. "a method for moving a vehicle through the use of an engine".
That seems to be one of the major problems with software patents, they don't just patent the algorithm, they patent what can be done with the algorithm.
It would be the same as if I were to build a better mousetrap, then patent not only the mousetrap itself, but catching mice with the mousetrap as well- then suing anyone who invented their own similar mousetrap and went around selling their mouse-trapping services.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
"Because having first-mover advantage is actually worth much more."
The 90's called - they want their lameass-internet-stock-bubble-VC-speak back.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
There's one glaring problem with this. A software "algorithm" isn't something you could market and sell without patents. What you market and sell are software packages that provide a useful service to people. It may contain that "algorithm" but the "algorithm" could be the best thing since sliced bread with a buggy difficult to use interface that's makes the software as a whole useless. Yet, because you have a patent no one else could develop a better product without paying you. Software is not an "algorithm" software is a complete package including services like support and requires constant upgrading to remain useful. Software patents remove the competitive forces that push improvements in both the software and support that are a great boon to the both the software industry and the consumer. Software patents cause stagnation.
Who is John Galt?
Probably they want some software patents allowed and others denied.
.doc format to put OpenOffice 'out of business', which they'd really like to do. Whereas really, really stupid patents on things like cascading menus just make it hard for them to copy other peoples' ideas.
After all it would only take one valid patent on the
Some software ideas are more innovative than others. Unfortunately, all software patents hurt open source equally. And patents that are effectively monopoly lock-ins are seriously anticompetitive.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
No, a rubber company was the first to get a software patent. See: Diamond vs. Diehr:l /
c ourt=US&vol=450&invol=175/
http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.htm
See also:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
If you take your first mover advantage and squander it by releasing a product with no market appeal... sucks to be you. You need more than just one good idea to build a successful business.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Wikipedia says that algorithm is a "finite set of well-defined instructions". It is different from "software", which is an implementation of some algorithm. You can, for example, prove that an algorithm is correct, but you cannot do the same for software since its correctness is sensitive to the limitations of the actual computer (an easy illustration is the failure to allocate enough memory), as well as compiler, interpreter, etc.
An algorithm does not just "boil down" to a mathematical object; it is, strictly speaking, equivalent to some mu-recursive function. These are honest to god mathematical objects and patenting them makes no more sense than patenting the Pythagorean theorem.
That's funny; us Americans (the sane ones, anyway) think exactly the same way about copyright, except in reverse (i.e., American copyright was about "promoting progress" rather than creator's entitlement or control, until the (European) Berne Convention treaty was ratified). So I guess we both have each other to blame, don't we?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Then maybe question lot of small, profitable things which are manifactured and sold every day and give people who produce them big money (IKEA anyone?)?
Because there are lot of chair makers, in your opinion, anyone who can create unique chair will go out of business ASAP when other will try to copy them? Why this doesn't happen every day?
Ask any small manifacturer from what they afraid of - they are not afraid of competitors, no. They afraid from a) too much taxes and b) too big goverment influence in private sector (including patents).
Patents from begining whas lawyers and big thinkers baby. People who really do things everyday simply doesn't care.
(Sorry for my bad English, written in haste)
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
As Eli Whitney found out in the early years of the 1800's, Patents protect companies, not inventors.
An inventor will market a device for one reason, PROFIT. A business will too. They would like to be a monopoly, but you don't start a business with that power. Not without harming an awful lot of people. Harm to innocent third parties is the ultimate reason to reject broad patents.
Many large corporations will routinely steal patents from lone inventors, and then just tie them up in courts while they wait for him to die. Check out RCA verses Philo Farnsworth sometime. Classic example.
The modern patent system was started as a way to restrict industry to friends of the crown in Britain. 'Promoting Invention' was used later as an excuse. Reality is that patents still are just a means of limiting innovation. That's why they have only means limit use granted. It' not that the ends justify the means, it's that the means are the ends. All the justifications that I have seen are just that. Attempts after the fact to excuse the process. Any competent economist will tell you that monopoly creation on anything harms most of the people. All patents are letters patent granting a monopoly. (So to a lesser extent are copyrights and trademarks.)
That said, there is an argument to be made that patents do help society by limiting inventiveness to a rate that can be assimilated by society. Rapid change causes other problems. I've never seen that argument used to justify the patent system though.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Except that Algorithms are specifically not patentable.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
An algorithm is a finite sequence of unambiguous instructions. As such, it is analogous to a formal proof of a mathematical statement, which is a finite sequence of propositions expressed in the formal language, constructed from axioms in accordance with the rules of inference. In mathematical logic, proofs themselves are mathematical objects. They do exist, in a Platonic sense, just as integers exist. From a Platonic point of view, we do not "invent" new integers, we merely talk about these objects which already exist outside of our space and time.
Just as with formalization of proofs in the meta-theory, we can formalize the notion of algorithm. The most famous treatment of this problem is the Turing Machine. TM programs are algorithms in a very strict and formal sense. Each one is a finite mathematical object. Each one corresponds to a mu-recursive function. Each one exists in Heaven from the beginning of time.
A presentation of an algorithm, on the other hand, is not Platonic. It can be written in English, for example, or in some programming language. It makes sense to copyright the presentation, just as it makes sense to copyright a Calculus text book. It makes no sense to patent it though, just as it makes no sense to patent the Intermediate Value Theorem. These are not inventions but discoveries, and on that point we have an almost unanimous agreement among practicing mathematicians and computer scientists.
But they DON'T share their idea, not really. They patent the idea, but they don't provide source code, they don't provide interoperability specs, and they also copyright the implementation. In short, the software patent does not provide any benefit to society.
I would argue that if any of the above were required (supply source to be inspected, interoperability specs, or forgoing copyright), then software patents might be worthwhile.
Dave Williams
After reading the Supreme court oral arguments in their entirety, it appears that the MS lawyer was driving towards the point that software in and of itself is not patentable because a standalone program, Quickbooks for example, requires MS Windows or a MS Windows emulator to run thereby suggesting that MS truly owns the rights to all software that runs within their environment. This is a very disturbing claim and one that the Justices dismantled quite quickly. The oral arguments are quite interesting and can be found at www.supremecourtus.gov There are many interesting aspects of software patents that are discussed
an old Vladivostok telephone directory?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
AT&T wrote some drivers for Vista, then told MSFT that they could use the drivers, but only in the US. MSFT burned Vista (including the AT&T drivers) onto a golden "master disk", which it sent overseas for duplication. AT&T sued, claiming breach of contract. The Federal Circuit agreed with AT&T, and MSFT appealed.
MSFT's position is that the software on the golden master is not actually patentable until it's combined with the rest of the computer. "It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device." They're arguing that the disk is just a (non-patented) component, and that once the data is copied onto the hard drive, that the hard drive is a component of the final, patented device.
AT&T's position is that it's the data on the disk that's patentable, and that is what MSFT licensed. They basically give up on source code patentability (it's not at issue in this case), and go after the object code that's on the disk. Their argument is that the object code is the 'blueprints' for making the patented device. They will give up the 'software is patentable' argument if the Court will give them the patent on the methods that the software implements.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Perhaps Steve Ballmer ought to have checked with legal before mouthing off about Linux and intellectual property yesterday?
Maybe legal WANTS him to mouth off about Linux and IP.
Just think: If he raises enough stink about how Microsoft is ready to use patents to break Linux and other FOSS projects if software IS held to be patentable, and the justices hear about it...
%LTB-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why would my tax dollars be funding a defense of M$? My understanding of the DoJ's role in such situations is entirely political: the executive weighing in on decisions which regard executive policy, stated or unstated. One could ask: is M$ political pressure bringing the DoJ to its aid, irrespective of the arguments brought forward?
Perhaps a more useful question is: why does the Executive branch care about this case?
Do you think the US took a passive rôle in the drafting of that convention?
Historically, the US has aggressively participated in such drafting, and it has never ever ratified a convention which goes even a little bit against its idea of what's good for the US (which, I note, has not always been what's good for the US) It has even participated in the drafting of international regulations to the point of essentially blocking everything unless its wishes are followed, and then not ratified them internally.
Patents form the whole foundation on which MS is about to attack the OSS world. As it is, OSS is probably the single largest threat to MS. When it is a single company, it is easy for MS to target and destroy them. They can, and will, take illegal actions and count on having very friendly admins in office and DOJ. But OSS is like trying to take on a pack of Coyotes. One coyote is not a threat to a medium size dog or even a human, but a pack is pretty difficult to take on. Worse, these coyotes are growing into wolves, lions, and bears. Hard to defeat.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
> Suppose you or I develop a really great algorithm.
As a side point, you can't patent algorithms.
DYWYPI?
If you cant patent object code, i wonder how much further of a stretch to call music and video object code would be, and then call into play the similarities between patents and copyrights.
The entire IP system could come crashing down if we ( the public ) win this..
And to thing Microsoft helped it by claiming on the record you cant patent it. cool!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The problem is, like with your drug example, takes a lot of money prove out with animal trials, varying levels of human trials and such. The drug approval process is anything but cheap, and even with all those expenses, there's no guarantees that it will be effective, approved or marketable. That's part of what the patent system is protecting. Even with the "first mover advantage", I don't see a point in paying for all that if it can be cloned in a few years. The generic drug makers don't pay for any of that.
Given how strict the the approval process is now, something seemingly as simple as aspirin wouldn't be approved for sale. Or maybe the drug makers would try to place the formula it under trade secret, meaning that it could be locked away for longer than patents.
AT&T may back down, but as I see it this is still a problem for MicroSoft. Doesn't the principle of Judicial Estopple prevent MicroSoft from ever arguing that software patents are valid having argued just the opposite once in court even if that case was settled without judgement?
...meanwhile they're threatening to sue every Linux user in the world for allegedly violating their IP. I'm glad a major bastion of the industry like MS is leading the way by putting forth a sensible, consistent viewpoint about patents and copyrights...
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
And yes you have. I hate to point this out but back when America broke off, we struggled with the ideas of copyrights and patents. At that time, Apparently most of europe had a massive system for doing copyrights and patents that was designed to lock out the little guy. We decided on keeping a very short term system of CR/Patents so as to benefit society. Sadly, we have been overtaken by the same type of a*&^%$es that caused your issues. Hopefully, America will go back to what we were; an open and free society, rather than just following further down your road.
Although I have 2 months to go before I enroll in law school, IANAL (at the present moment) but I believe the distinction that AT&T is trying to make is that although the source code is not patentable, the resulting process originating from the source code is. Thus, I guess what they're trying to say that although source code (blueprint) is not patentable, the resulting software product (the widget) is. Although in AT&T's case, if Microsoft has licensed the speech recognition algorithm and while algorithm's are not patentable, is the resulting process of the algorithm patentable if it's not a software product, but merely a part of a software product? So if I let you use the blueprints to spork X and you use it to build widget Y, and widget Y is patentable, is spork X (which cannot function alone) also a patented product? Another issue that's raised is was the blueprint or the widget sent over? If Microsoft's golden disk contained only source code which was then compiled in another country, then it would probably (under the assumption that software is patentable, but source code is not) be outside US jurisdiction since the copyrighted widget is being created outside of the country. But if Microsoft sent over a copy of the compiled software to be physically duplicated, then they are sending over the Widget, which would be a patent violation, assuming that the widget itself was patented. But of course, even if the Widget is patented, that still leaves open the previous question (is spork X, a part of widget Y) patentable? Whatever the supreme court decides, I doubt it will affect the question of whether software as a whole is patentable but if components of that software can hold their own patents. It really could go either way.
I would love nothing more than for all of MS' overseas partners to receive a letter along the lines of:
Dear blah,
As a Microsoft Partner and Reseller, you have been found personally liable for copyright violations in the software that you have distributed on MS' behalf. Microsoft has spent millions to successfully argue in a US court that they have not indemnified you in any way for copyright violations in their software. Consequently you must immediately remit xxxxx as set out in schedule A. You must also immediately cease and desist from distributing any affected Microsoft products. Your Microsoft representative should be able to inform you what products are impacted. You should also be aware that if you continue to distribute impacted Microsoft products for any reason you may be subject to further civil and/or criminal penalties including seizure of assets or jail.
Good luck.
... and a patent would help him exactly how? When companies in China are ripping off your idea, a measly patent or two won't stop them.
Could this finally be a sign of the change of direction of M$, perhaps vista was/is one failure too many and it marks the end of ballmer's inebriated, chair throwing, monkey dancing, death threatening, true love confessing, rule.
Back to the biggest problem with software patents, with out supplying the code what right do you have to the patent. A patent pending upon a description might be reasonable but no patent should be supplied with the code that validates the patent being made available. Without the code it is like gaining a patent upon a product that nobody can produce and the code is the only proof of validity of the patent, add to that the code should be checked to ensure that a patent is not given upon a product that possibly infringes somebody else's patented/copyrighted code, so the whole concept is flawed.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Spoken like a non-inventor ... or am I wrong?
If they rule in favor of Microsoft, sure there is a lot of different rulings they could make, but it still comes down to one of two things: (1) They say software patents are invalid, the issue is moot, case dismissed, or (2) software patents are valid, but here's why we ruled for Microsoft.
I wish it were that way. But (2) would likely come out this way:
"We ruled for Microsoft because of this other reason, so we didn't have to resolve whether software patents are valid."
Being NAL, I don't recall the pseudo-Latin legalize for it. But I understand that one of the court's principles is to avoid making a decision that shakes things up unless it's the only way to settle a case.
(Of course they might still pick patentability of software as the reason to rule - especially if they decided the Federal District had egregiously ignored or misinterpreted their previous rulings, in order to clean up the mess and/or reassert their authority. But they don't necessarily have to settle the issue if they rule for Microsoft on some other grounds.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"AT&T is willing to concede that software isn't patentable, if the Court will conclude that the things that software does - the methods and procedures and instructions that a processor carries out once software is installed - are patentable.
Or for us mere developers: even if software is not patentable the lawyers will still have a way with the words to F*ck you.
I doubt the supremes would go for that.
The law explicitly exempts "mathematical algorithms" from patentability. But a "mathematical algorithm" is just a set of instructions for performing a mathematical computation. AT&T's argument would make it possible to patent performing the computation. If that's true, what was Congress saying when they blocked patenting mathematical algorithms?
"It's OK to contemplate the algorithm while meditating but not to actually USE it." No, I don't think so. And the Supremes are the country's experts at seeing through specious legal arguments.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ah, ffs... I forgot to check the AC button and my Karma went from Positive to Bad!
Grammar Nazi
Sadly this already happened and it is called Linux. I say sadly because there is such a massive counter example staring right in their face and yet the patent apologists keep asking the same lame question.
They settled before the case went to the Supreme Court. From pages 3 and 4 of the transcript:
I don't think Microsoft wants to win. Perhaps that's why the case involved ridiculous arguments about electrons, photons, and weaving equipment. Nowhere in the oral arguments was the word 'algorithm' used. Instead they debated as to what constitutes a component of software in terms of the physical object it was stored on.
I can' believe he was able to make the joined æ character but couldn't use "lose" correctly.
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-3.htm
Money for nothing, pix for free
Looking closer at your line of reasoning, not only is it a scathing indictment of the current system, it has logical flaws the size of a school bus: If he was in the phase of negotiating manufacturing deals, how could the Chinese copy his design the "very next day"? Did they, perhaps, come up with the design independently?
However, all that aside, this design is actually a fairly obvious solution in another industry - virtually all airplane propeller designs use tilt-blades.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Unfortunately, you changed the fundamental slant of the quote when you changed it; "reasonable" != "wise", and "unreasonable" != "fool".
Patents exist for the benefit of the market, not of the individual. A market is most efficient (or at least more efficient) when entry barriers are low and competition is high. Granting a monopoly on a certain technique counteracts normal market principles in an effort to encourage innovation when entry barriers are high. For patents to be worthwile the negative economic impact (by granting a monopoly, stifling further innovation on the subject in some cases) should be lower than the positive impact (new technology entering the market, innovation, etc. that would otherwise not be there).
For software patents, this just doesn't come up to a positive. There are tons of problems. First of all, the entry barriers in the market are low. It is easy to come up with a new algorithm, start a company, bring it to market and make a huge profit. In an industry where 2 years is a long time and the barriers to entry are so low (compare for instance a couple of thousand $ investment vs a couple of billion in other industries) it just doesn't make sense to allow software patents, since the net effect on your economy will be negative. There's not many studies yet with hard numbers but the ones that are out there all seem to point in the same direction: software patents do more harm than good. Therefore they are bad.
http://righttocreate.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-drug -companies-dont-need-patents.html
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Given that my law education comes from Groklaw and Law & Order, I don't think so...But I'm clearly not a lawyer. :-)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
"Yet it was copied the very next day by large companies (in China) who already had the manufacturing lines in place to quickly produce the things, while the actual inventor had to struggle to put together a business and negotiate deals with manufacturing companies. In the end he didn't receive much if anything for his invention."
I think your story reeks of hyperbole, which isn't a good thing, if you want to be taken seriously. "The very next day"...really? That seems higly unlikely, if it wasn't through industrial espionage...and in that case, patent law wouldn't have made much difference. Which brings me to me next point.
We *live* in a world where patents are granted, so your story, if true, actually proves that patents are of no use. I mean, I fail to see any point here: if you're arguing that patents could have prevented the copying 'the next day', then, seen the fact you can get patents in our 'modern' time, your story rather points to the failure of it. Thus, if there wasn't any patent-possibility around, and the chinese copied it the very next day...what exatly would be different?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---