Ubuntu Founder Says Microsoft Not A Big Threat

Golygydd Max writes "Who says that Microsoft and open source developers are enemies? It's not Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth. He says that Microsoft is not the patent threat Linux and open source developers should be worried about, and that the software giant will itself be fighting against the software patents system within a few years. 'He said the most dangerous litigants are companies not themselves in the software business, small ventures or holding companies that get their principal revenue from patent licensing. He singled out former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold and his company Intellectual Ventures, which is stockpiling patents at a rate that alarms large companies such as IBM and HP, as an example of such a potentially dangerous company.'"

Comments

Reform the System

[teknopurge]

Why not just (common sense)reform the patent system, thus crushing this holding companies?

Re:Reform the System

[lixee]

Because your governemnt would prioritize the interests of corporations over those of regular blokes.

Re:Reform the System

[superpulpsicle]

If they took all software and computer related patents out into a "separate" system, they will be fine. The existing system is clearly not flexible enough to deal with todays technology.

Re:Reform the System

[Kadin2048]

I'm not convinced that any sort of software algorithm should be patentable, but if we are going to allow patents on some narrowly-defined "implementations," which might involve software at some point in them (but not being wholly comprised of software), I think it's pretty clear that the term of the patents needs to be substantially reduced.

The term of our patents was set in an era when sending a message from one city to another took days, or if it was separated by an ocean, weeks (potentially months). The flow of information moved at a completely different pace. Ten years then would have been a very brief time in which to bring a product to market. In today's world, I think it would be about 12-18 months: just enough to give the patentee a slight advantage over the rest of the marketplace, but not enough for them to amass an arsenal of patents with which to destroy all competition.

Now, perhaps there's something to be said for somewhat longer patents on pharmaceuticals, because of the long government-mandated review process that they have to go through, before they can become profitable (and which mandate disclosure of the ingredients, meaning that keeping it a trade secret isn't an option). However, I think this should clearly be the exception rather than the rule.

A patent length of a year -- five or at most ten for pharmaceuticals -- non-renewable, would do wonders towards improving competition and the production of new ideas in the technology sector. (While we're at it, lets have a 20-year copyright span, too.) Unfortunately I think by the time the major players come around to realizing that the system is hurting more than it's helping, the U.S. will be increasingly irrelevant.

Re:Reform the System

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Why not just (common sense)reform the patent system, thus crushing this holding companies?

I've explained this before. I used to work for the US government many years ago. Look at it from Uncle Sam's perspective.

1) The patent office makes money. A lot of it. Unlike other government agencies who consume tax dollars, the patent office makes a profit. Profit = good. Why would you "reform" an agency who is making you a ton of money and thus make less money?
2) Businesses have yet to scream en masse that patent reform = a good thing. Until Microsoft and IBM and Cisco and Intel and lots of Fortune 500 companies say "The system is hurting us and costing us more money than you are making under the current system. A reform would actually bring you more money." then it will never happen.
3) Government bureaucrats are outstandingly good at protecting their own turf. Expect patent office mangement to fight tooth and nail against reforms.
4) The government is convinced that this is win-win for everyone because it's like Mutual Assured Destruction. Everyone has patents, so nobody will use them unfairly. Unfortunately, the reality is that Shuttlesworth is right. The company everyone should fear is the company that has nothing but patents, like the guys who went after BlackBerry.
5) Most people in Congress are lawyers. Most lawyers like patents. It provides easy work for other lawyers on both the "infringing" companies and the IP holders doing the suing. If everybody is being sued, lawyers have lots of work and earn lots of money. Win-win!

Re:Reform the System

[Znork]

"The existing system is clearly not flexible enough to deal with todays technology."

More like it's not flexible enough to deal with todays rate of communications, and the development of mankinds knowledge turning into a million small, trivial, and disclosed steps.

What makes the software sector special is the extremely low barrier of entry into the market, the massively componentized approach to development and the prevalence of use of modern communications and collaboration methods. This, however, does not mean that the same change isn't happening/can't happen in other sectors, nor that patents wont be as damaging and hinder progress as much there.

In fact, a realistic economic analysis of the investment patterns in the protected sectors strongly suggest a suboptimal use of capital, where much more is geared towards capitalizing on the monopoly of patents than in researching to gain more patents.

So while disqualifying software from patenting might be a useful start, restructuring the innovation incentive systems to actually reward useful research without causing the economic damage inherent in monopolies, extending across all sectors, would be much better in the long term. Because while I'd like to enjoy a future with software being continually improved, I might enjoy a future where we'd be getting five times the medical research for the same money we already spend today even more.

Re:Reform the System

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the feeling that 99.9999% of people here don't fully understand the patent system and how it works. Possibly the same number that don't grok the nature of the relationship of process to hardware. The majority of people here that are against the patent system are against it for purely for selfish reasons. Basically there reasoning is superficial, "I want X and I don't want to pay for it".

The excuse that something is intangible is a weak defense of why software or processes should not be patented. There are plenty of physical patents out there that are above and beyond the understanding of most people here and therefore are intangible to most.

All that said, my view on things is that what maybe needed are stricter guidelines and definitions, and properly trained reviewers. Software patents should follow the same basic philosophy that mechanical patents do. No more, no less. Software should NOT get special treatment, nor should it get singled out.

Another thing to remember is that patents have no value until they are tested in court. I would bet a lot of them would not stick in court.

Re:Reform the System

[TemporalBeing]

I'm not convinced that any sort of software algorithm should be patentable, but if we are going to allow patents on some narrowly-defined "implementations," which might involve software at some point in them (but not being wholly comprised of software), I think it's pretty clear that the term of the patents needs to be substantially reduced.

Yes - we do need to have terms that match the industries the patents are for. And perhaps we need to even break patents down to be more like Trademarks, i.e. you can get a patent for use in one industry (e.g. Telephone Switch Networks) that does not affect another industry (e.g. Internet Routers).

The best way I can think to do this is to require a business plan to be filed with the patent, and the two go hand in hand. The business plan then determines the basic term granted for that specific patent, and is limited by allowing the patentee to recoup costs and some percentage of profit above and beyond that (e.g. you spend $100K to develop the patent, and then you get to make $150K guaranteed by the granting of the patent). Additionally, by putting a review board in (comprised of members from SEC and IRS) to review the business plans on a periodic basis (e.g. annually, ever other year, etc.) the term can then be lengthened or shortened to meet the industry based on the performance of the patent.

This would allow high cost patents (e.g. drugs) to be around for a long time, while low cost patents (e.g. software patents) would go away quickly. Additionally, if the cost was low enough the patent would not be granted as it would be recouped before the patent was granted.

Patent trolls would also go out of business as they would not be able to submit business plans that would qualify, and be exposed for what they are.

So this is a real win-win if adopted. (BTW, I would get rid of the USPTO and replace it with a new organization that had arms in the IRS and SEC to do the job. A lot of the information required is already filed with the IRS and SEC, and if anything would only require a little more documentation in the files as some stuff might have to be further broken down. Point is, it's already there.)

Re:Reform the System

[mcrbids]

I'm not convinced that any sort of software algorithm should be patentable, but if we are going to allow patents on some narrowly-defined "implementations," which might involve software at some point in them (but not being wholly comprised of software), I think it's pretty clear that the term of the patents needs to be substantially reduced.

What's perhaps funny about this (very long run-on) sentence is that, at its heart, EVERYTHING IS SOFTWARE. Listen to particle physicists nowadays - they all talk about "information entropy". Heck, the big deal about Hawking radiation is that it allows for (gasp!) information leaks at the event horizon of a black hole, and thus the eventual collapse of the black hole back into "normal" space!

The entire universe can now be narrowly (and apparently, quite accurately) defined as a massive information machine. Perhaps Douglas Adams, for all his absurd literature, was actually pretty close to the mark?

Anyhow, if the entire universe is definable in the same terms as software is, fundamentally nothing more than bits of information, what is really the line between software and other "physical" processes?

In reality, they are the same thing!

Re:Reform the System

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in biotech in the Seattle area, and I know a local biotech business guy who visited Myhrvold's company. Basically its a bunch of PhD's sitting around and filling patents on whatever they can think of with no intention of implementing any of them, just waiting for someone to sue down the road. He said he would never go near them again and he thinks that Myhrvold is the biggest threat in the city to our relatively small biotech community.

As for patent length in pharmaceuticals, it takes 10 years and 80 million dollars to get a drug from inception through the FDA approval process, so a 5 or 10 year patent length is simply too short. The clock starts ticking when the patent is filed, not when the drug is approved. There has to be some ability for the companies to get a return on their investment otherwise there will be no new drugs.

Re:Reform the System

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently go out of a career in patent law. The biggest driver for expanding patent rights from my experience is patent attorneys. Before KSR vs Teleflex, several major bar associations drafted responses to the decision, every one of them shouting out vehemently against any reversal of the obviousness standard. Why? Less work for them. That's all that matters, not innovation or any of that BS.

On the other hand, the PTO was pushing hard for some sort of change, as the obviousness standard is a major swamp of litigation for them. Patent examiners also are frustrated at the lack of options available for patent application rejections. Besides, currently the office can't expand fast enough to put a dent in the backlog and it's starting to make them look bad. A reduction in the recent explosion of patent filings would only be good for them. It's not like any examiners are going to be laid off patent filings rapidly decrease. Just put on a hiring freeze and let their atrocious retention rate do all the work.

Unfortunately, you have a lot of people who have gone to school, taken bar exams, and made a very profitable career over prosecuting patents, and they've got some powerful friends in congress.

Re:Reform the System

[Cyberax]

There ARE 'patentable' algorithms (i.e. algorithms which DESERVE to be patented).

For example, we've licensed a scheduler-planner algorithm (it's a trade secret and not patented), it's VERY hard (reference implementation is about 500kb of C++ code) and it took several years for the company to develop. It certainly is not one-click-buy type of algorithm.

Unfortunately, such algorithms are exceedingly rare.

Re:Reform the System

[Kadin2048]

As for patent length in pharmaceuticals, it takes 10 years and 80 million dollars to get a drug from inception through the FDA approval process, so a 5 or 10 year patent length is simply too short. The clock starts ticking when the patent is filed, not when the drug is approved. There has to be some ability for the companies to get a return on their investment otherwise there will be no new drugs.

Since the major source of delays in the pharmaceutical industry seem directly tied to the FDA approval process, maybe the solution is to somehow tie the patent process and the FDA approval together; e.g., if you file a patent application and then file for FDA approval, the patent clock can "stop ticking" until the FDA makes a decision one way or the other. Basically, make the time that the drug spends in the approval process not count towards the patent's span, or only have the clock start ticking once approval goes through (just issue them on a provisional basis to drugs not-yet-approved).

Or maybe more directly -- you could just say that no company can use research done by another company in order to get its own drug approved, for ten years. That way, a generic drug maker can't just wait for some company to spend the billions pushing a drug to market, and then ride the coattails of the approval and start making generics; they'd have to get it approved based on completely independent research, as if it was a new and totally different drug, or wait a few years in order to be able to use the first company's research and approvals.

Re:Reform the System

[nschubach]

Why not have Software patents "time out" after a preset time span if nothing was developed by the patent holder using that technology. If the patent holder doesn't take the patent to production in that time span, they forfeit the patent. It's kind of along your lines, but if the patent holder can't prove they used the technology in that time span, then they dissolve all rights to it.

Re:Reform the System

[TemporalBeing]

A reform would actually bring you more money." then it will never happen.

My reform mentioned in this post would make the gov't more money than they are making now. It would also (a) make lawyers a lot more money, and create a whole new class of gov't workers that deal with business plans, so people with MBA's will make more money too. How about we propose it up? That should take then, no?

Reality is that it is business and patent trolls that are fighting against patent reform. Even the USPTO has recognized a problem and been trying to reform some, and even Congress has been doing work towards that too. That's how we got the public peer reviews of patents going. So, yes, it is all about money, but it is more about whose money. Patents make a lot of money for a lot of people, gov't and business included; and until businsses get in line and say we need reform (which is starting to happen), then only have the stakeholders involved are for it, and the other half are against it and pay for the elections of the other half.

Re:Reform the System

[amber_of_luxor]

>Less Work for them.

Then the following will give them even less work:
Prior to qualifying for the Bar, one has to demonstrate that one has memorized the following texts, in their _original_ language, by reciting them to an audience:
* The Q'ran;
* The Mahabharata;
* The Tanakh;
* The YiJing;
* The Dao De Jing;

Then the audience gets to select a text for the person to translate into the original language of another text that the audience also gets to select. That translation is to be done in front of the audience. [No reference books allowed.]

After that hurdle, then the individual can apply for the bar exam.

Amber

Re:Reform the System

[compro01]

The clock starts ticking when the patent is filed, not when the drug is approved.

then perhaps that should be changed.

Re:Reform the System

[jas_public]

The business plan then determines the basic term granted for that specific patent, and is limited by allowing the patentee to recoup costs and some percentage of profit above and beyond that (e.g. you spend $100K to develop the patent, and then you get to make $150K guaranteed by the granting of the patent).

Then if my company is a patent troll, then I'll pay myself $100M in deferred compensation and company stock options, to be recovered later.

Re:Reform the System

[Knuckles]

it's VERY hard

So? Coming up with all kinds of math was hard too, should it be patented?

Re:Reform the System

[Knuckles]

therefore are intangible to most

I don't think you know what (in)tangible means.

Re:Reform the System

[joseph11h]

Exactly, one must look at it from the government's perspective, patent offices make money.

And remember that almost everything in government is influenced substantially by money that came from somewhere, be it taxes, political contributions, or even patent fees.

I'm not saying that the way patents are registered shouldn't be changed--it should--but this money factor makes it difficult to change, at least from the perspective of the government officials in charge.

Re:Reform the System

[geekoid]

It makes the Government zero dollars. Like all government agencies that have a revenue, they must make 0 dollars.

Yes, they have screamed it, unfortunately who do you think their reform would be good for?
BTW, enough tax payers will get them to reform.
Which brings me to a minor nitpick. It is NOT the patent offices job to reform. They do what they are mandated by congress to do. You know, they people you vote for?

Sorry, I know to many agency that have sought change. The problem is the person from outside has no idea how an agency is run, or what mandates it must work with. So things that are in place for legal reasons become"Hey, they're just protecting their own turf!"

Newsflash slick, Lawyers are people. Some like patents, some do not. Most patent lawyers I have talk to support paten reform. Granted, my sample size is only about 100, but that's all I got.

You used to work for the US government? Doing what, peeling potatoes? You sure as hell don't illustrate any knowledge of how things work.
Yes I work for the Government. Mostly doing accounting programming these days, and saving taxpayers a boat load of money, thank you very much.

Re:Reform the System

[joseph11h]

Hey, geekoid, I know that stuff gets done in government. My uncle lives in Delhi, India and works for the US Embassy...he gets a lot done. But I also know that this is not always the case. The more power you have, the more that money from friends plays a big role (with this administration it seems, at least)

It's nice to see someone who works for the government who also has passion in what he does. Props, and I mean that. : )

Re:Reform the System

[!eopard]

Why not just (common sense)reform the patent system, thus crushing this holding companies?

The US appears to be dependant on Intellectual Property superseeding actual goods in it's balance of payments with other countries. Have a look at how standardisation of laws between the US and other countries regarding IP is a high priority now. Reforming the patent system would lessen the ability to do this - why do you think there is so much action around DRM and IP for music/movies right now? ;)

Re:Reform the System

[Garrett Fox]

Although I like the idea of having different patent terms for different industries (which we kind of have already in the distinction between patent and copyright), I disagree with the business plan approach. That model would involve a substantially increased degree of government control over industry, with many opportunities for trollish lobbying. Once you have the IRS and SEC reviewing a plan from year to year to decide how much profit is "enough," others will want a seat on the review board. Just imagine Jack Thomson demanding that the latest patent be invalidated because it's being used to make ultra-realistic violent video games!

Re:Reform the System

[Touvan]

I actually think the fix is kinda simple. Simply ban "trade secret" patents (patents where you don't have to demonstrate an implementation). Since software is implemented in the form of source code, you should have to show the source code (implementation) in order to get a patent on it. This would protect specifically written software as if it were an invention, but would not be so broad that it could stop someone from implementing the basic idea (algorithm - I suppose we need a legal definition for that too), which should not be patentable in the first place, which uses a different implementation (meaning different source code).

From the uspto faq:

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.

Re:Reform the System

[TemporalBeing]

Although I like the idea of having different patent terms for different industries (which we kind of have already in the distinction between patent and copyright), I disagree with the business plan approach. That model would involve a substantially increased degree of government control over industry, with many opportunities for trollish lobbying. Once you have the IRS and SEC reviewing a plan from year to year to decide how much profit is "enough," others will want a seat on the review board. Just imagine Jack Thomson demanding that the latest patent be invalidated because it's being used to make ultra-realistic violent video games!

I would not leave that percentage profit to the whims of the review board, but would codify it in the law that sets up the reform. True, companies would likely try to sway congress to change that percentage...however, at the same time it could very well be used against Congress. So as long as it is codified in law it become a political influencer both ways, and will be fought over just like taxes, etc.

The only real problem I see with my own plan would be the cost to implement, and the burden on those patenting to get a patent. It will be raise the cost to get a patent, but it should lower the cost in the long run as far the USPTO goes. So, there are tradeoffs.

But regardless, I would not leave it to the whims of the review board. Their only job would be to evaluate how the business plan is going, and to revoke the patent when the cost+profit is met. It might be good to also have codified that patents only get the cost+profit at time of file or granting instead of whatever it may be at time of review, i.e. changes to the percentage profit should not be retroactive to existing patents.

Industry would likely be able to buy into this if there is a grandfather clause for existing patents in the existing system such that they will exist under current law until their terms expire, and extensions would have to be provided under the new system.

Re:Reform the System

[Cyberax]

I don't know. Pure math (like Fermat theorem proof) definitely should not be patented.

But some areas of applied math may be eligible for patents. For example, mathematicians are not very interested in these scheduling algorithms. Basically, scheduling algorithms consist of a large number of heuristics and pattern recognition. There's nothing interesting and exciting in them - and not much incentive to develop them as a result.

Re:Reform the System

[Knuckles]

That's actually an interesting point to ponder.

Re:Reform the System

[Anonymous Coward]

try logging in next time. surely then, you'd get a better score.

Re:Reform the System

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I believe we should abolish Patents, not just reform them. Who cares if they make the government money. They have enough money from all of the taxes on just about everything already.

Lobbyists

[iamacat]

Nah, once big software companies feel threatened rather than empowered by patents, lobbyists will make sure that laws gets passed to protect them. One onerous requirement might be for a patent holder to maintain a credible product in commercial production in order to sue others for royalties. This will be phrased to stop patent-only law firms that skim companies without innovation themselves, but will take care of open source authors quite nicely.

Re:Lobbyists

[ronadams]

One onerous requirement might be for a patent holder to maintain a credible product in commercial production in order to sue others for royalties. Add "or be able to substantially prove ready plans in development to do so" to that, and you've got my vote. This idea of patents being some repository to hold ideas hostage is really detrimental to the technology market. Kudos to Shuttlesworth for pointing out our common enemy.

Re:Lobbyists

[Rahga]

I agreed with you up to the end of your first sentence... "... lobbyists will make sure that laws gets passed to protect them."

Those new laws or whatever legistlation won't be protecting us. Rather, I suspect that the government will keep Microsoft out of court in exchange for agreements not to leverage their own patent portfolio against other American companies, leading to an eventual federalization of the patent system. American companies will be able to use american technologies however they wish, and instead of defending it against against foreign interests (a futile proposition in reality), the new PIAA (Patent Industry Association of America) will trade American tech for stuf like common credits and world bank debt. Mark my words, 10 years, max.

Re:Lobbyists

[SydShamino]

One onerous requirement might be for a patent holder to maintain a credible product in commercial production in order to sue others for royalties.

Really Bad Idea. This breaks the basic premise that a non-obvious improvement to an existing design may itself be patentable, even if the existing design is patented by someone else. You may be able to patent it, sure, but you would never profit from it.

Take the old example of the automobile. It's a good idea, and was at one point patentable. Then, someone else invests the automatic transmission. It's a non-obvious improvement to the design, and is separately patentable. But the guy who invented the automatic transmission cannot build cars, because that would violate the patent held by the car inventor. The guy could try to sell the automatic transmission alone, but he would probably go out of business unless the car inventor chose to buy those transmissions. Why would the car inventor do that? If he just waits a few years, the automatic transmission inventor will go out of business, and, using your proposal, the car inventor could exploit the patent without fear of repercussion.

The basic premise for patents is not just to grant a monopoly in exchange for publishing your data eventually. The data is published up front in part to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

Your proposal breaks that incentive, because, until your patent expires, no one else can build on your design without forfeiting their improvements to you.

Re:Lobbyists

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . once big software companies feel threatened rather than empowered by patents, lobbyists will make sure that laws gets passed to protect them.

That bill is already written. It has been introduced in Congress each year since 2005. It will pass eventually.

YIIALBIANYL. GYOGDL. YMNO.

Re:Lobbyists

[vtcodger]

It's not entirely relevant, but it seems not to be as well known as it ought to be. There actually was was a patent on the automobile -- the Selden Patent -- US Patent 549,160. It was issued in 1895 and was used to extort substantial royalty payments from early automobile makers. Henry Ford refused to go along and Selden -- a patent attorney -- not only sued Ford but threatened to sue Ford's customers. The case, of course dragged on forever with a lot of the antics that we are only too familiar with today. eventually, the courts narrowed the scope of Seldon's patent so much that it no longer applied to any vehicle made in the US.

This is only one of the numerous examples of how the patent system has impeded innovation and has mostly made a mess of things. Another shining example was the airplane. Most of the basic patents in the US were held by either the Wright Brothers or Glen Curtiss. The Wrights and Curtiss despised one another and engaged in a decade of pointless and expensive legal wrangling. Aircraft makers were unsure what to license from whom and often couldn't negotiate terms. The result was that when World War I came along, the US was far behind Europe in aircraft technology even though the airplane was invented in the US. In order to get the US back into the aircraft business before the huns or turks or whoever started bombing New York, a patent pool was established and litigation was put on hold. Thankfully it was not reinstated after the war.

Y'know what. We got along just fine without software patents for 20 years. I think we could do so again. I'd go further than that, and (carefully) dismantle the entire damn Patent system. It's pointless, doesn't -- so far as I can see -- encourage innovation, and doesn't even work very well. We've got enough problems with global warming, overpopulation, incompetent and mendacious leaders, corporations run amock, etc, etc, etc. Why go out of our way to create more?

Re:Lobbyists

[Deliveranc3]

One onerous requirement might be for a patent holder to maintain a credible product in commercial production in order to sue others for royalties.

This will remove the original purpose of patents, to allow individual inventors to try and get funding for their inventions.

But if we look at many of the curent elements of business we see that this isn't working, too many market segments have monopolies or oligopolies that don't look outside the company to individual inventors. They may liscense it from other companies but they won't pay individual inventors. Look at Space Ship one, DWave etc. It's cheaper to either pay them a couple million or to wait till they have no money and buy it for a pittance than to acknowledge the value of invention (You'd need to pay your R&D teams more than your marketting teams OH NOES.

Re:Lobbyists

[geekoid]

But there are thousands of example of people who legitimatly made money from patent, as well as many, many examples of progress made with patents.

What, they shouldn't have patented airplane technology? oh I get it, flight was just so damn obvious.

The patent system is fine except for 2 things:
Software patents, business method patents.

Re:Lobbyists

[Space_Pirate_Arrr]

But the guy who invented the automatic transmission cannot build cars, because that would violate the patent held by the car inventor.

Until the patent on cars expires, which will happen before the transmission patent expires. The inventor of the automatic transmission will then have a brief window to exploit his patent before everyone else joins in. How brief the window should be (ideally) is debatable.

Re:Lobbyists

[Max Littlemore]

Y'know what. We got along just fine without software patents for 20 years. I think we could do so again. I'd go further than that, and (carefully) dismantle the entire damn Patent system. It's pointless, doesn't -- so far as I can see -- encourage innovation, and doesn't even work very well. We've got enough problems with global warming, overpopulation, incompetent and mendacious leaders, corporations run amock, etc, etc, etc. Why go out of our way to create more?

Terrorist!

Re:Lobbyists

[Bert64]

Plenty of things flew before airplanes...
You have balloons, birds, insects etc... it was fairly obvious to try and replicate existing behaviour with a machine... People have been trying to fly for centuries.

Re:Lobbyists

[vtcodger]

***But there are thousands of example of people who legitimatly made money from patent, as well as many, many examples of progress made with patents.***

Both true. BUT There are too many patents that are based on (often known) prior art, are incomprehensbible, overreach, or are obvious. I personally don't think the occasional case where the system works as intended is enough to offset its flaws. Neither does the system seem to be fixable.

If it were fixed, I wouldn't object to it.

***The patent system is fine except for 2 things: Software patents, business method patents.***

No, it's really not. An acquaintance bent my ear a few months ago about patents on chemical compounds that he was sure the "inventor" couldn't even make. (how the hell can you justify patents on a chemical compound -- not a technology for making it -- the compound itself?) . And how about patents on DNA sequences?. And the incredible royalty fees associated with some patented drugs and medical tests -- although straightening out the shambles that is the pharmaceutical/medical industry is a monumental job and patents are only a small part of the job.

Far as I can see, patents are an 18th Century system that should have been dratically altered and eventually discarded as times changed.

Re:Lobbyists

[vtcodger]

***Terrorist!***

Yup! Goes to show what happens when you let Godless athiests establish the curriculum in schools.

patent system failure cancel or allow?

[wizardforce]

stockpiling patents at a rate that alarms large companies such as IBM and HP

  if patents were issued based on good standards it shouldnt worry them but they're not. they're used as weapons to destroy any competition that could reduce their profits rather than actually innovating anything. in short, patents are doing the exact opposite that they were originally supposed to do.

Re:patent system failure cancel or allow?

[gilesjuk]

That's the whole purpose of patents, to stop or hinder a competitor from seeing your idea and copying it.

They were originally intended to help the little guy protect his idea and stop the big companies copying it. But it's now about the big companies attacking each other or smaller competition. Usually followed by the inevitable deal to work together, cross-licencing etc.

Uh oh.

[pair-a-noyd]

"Ubuntu Founder Says Microsoft Not A Big Threat"

So he's conceding that MS is a threat though not a big threat.
Poor choice of words Mr. Shuttleworth. You could have worded that differently.
Is Ubuntu on the verge of a MicroNovell type deal now?

Re:Uh oh.

[Cristofori42]

You're reading WAY too much into that.

Re:Uh oh.

[dmbasso]

He chose exactly the appropriate words: it is a threat, not a big one. It threatens in the sense of hindering GNU/Linux adoption, but it's far from breaking its development.

Re:Uh oh.

[L'homme de Fromage]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if an Ubuntu/Microsoft patent deal is forthcoming, since Dell and Microsoft have such a deal for Dell's Suse Linux servers. Since Dell will be selling desktop systems with Ubuntu, they may make that same deal.

Also, Shuttleworth appears to be a bit of a Microsoft fan. Read his confused comments here: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118

Especially this gem:
"I have high regard for Microsoft. They produce some amazing software, and
they made software much cheaper than it ever was before they were around.
Many people at Microsoft are motivated by a similar ideal to one we have
in Ubuntu: to empower people for the digital era."

Sorry, but I think Shuttleworth is an idiot for believing that nonsense. Too bad for Ubuntu.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

God you are such a pathetic Linux fanboy.

Re:Uh oh.

[ptrace]

This is just a typical businessman's reaction... don't piss off the giant until you have a foolproof way to survive or win.

Re:Uh oh.

[Delkster]

Just because he isn't a foam-mouthed zealot doesn't mean he's an idiot (or an MS fan for that matter). Some people need to and wisely choose to be diplomatic rather than overly sharp-tongued.

It's quite common in the real world to soften things a little.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should not forget bug#1.

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

He said they made software "much cheaper than it ever was before they were around". He chose not to say they're pushing the price as high as they dare now, and asking far more than what they've got is worth. He said they "produce some amazing software". He chose not to say that much of their stuff is sub-standard, and much that even they themselves would have liked to have ditched is still around in Vista. He must know these things.

Shuttleworth's not Ballmer.

Take Ballmer braying at the iPhone. He made himself look like an asshole, because there was this wonderful piece of kit, but he was too lacking in generosity to say anything positive. And it was so obvious he was frightened by it.

That's not Shuttleworth's style at all. He's secure in himself and his products, and polite and fair-minded. He doesn't want the general public to think he or Canonical are mean-spirited. It's unlikely he doesn't know about the failings of many of Microsoft's products, but he'd sooner err on the side of being too generous and be heard to be doing that.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just have this image of Mark Shuttleworth cutting the branch he is sitting on. A Novell type deal would be a sad sight to see... But then, again, a branch is cut, so what? Another grows. But then again, I hope I am reading too much into it.

There will be lawsuits in the next five-ten years but GPL will protect distros. So why now talk about "the greater threat." Bug#1 remains. Copyright law will change. Painful or not. So isn't this losing focus? Microsoft is and should be the target of the most-commonly used Linux distro.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I had no idea Mark Shuttleworth had such good feelings about MS. As an Ubuntu user I'm very disappointed. I chose Ubuntu because I wanted to get away from MS' crappy software. I don't think MS makes amazing stuff at all. I read the rest of what he said in that link, and I may rethink Ubuntu and use another distro now.

Chances of Microsoft using other's patents

[zukinux]

Chances of Microsoft using other's patents are much bigger then linux infringements Microsoft's patents.
In-fact, if Microsoft really had a points in-which Linux kernel infringements Microsoft's patents, they would have show the exact spots in which the code were using Microsoft's patents.
but, Microsoft's code is closed, and more then probably they are using IBM's or any other standard OS thinking patents and that will be disclosured in the near - future in which Microsoft will have to pay explanations to Linux community and everybody else in the computing area.

Who had lost from all this story? Novell which declared the coward and the Linux community ashamed of doing business with.

Re:Chances of Microsoft using other's patents

[FudRucker]

i agree, microsoft is not a threat because they are such good guys, they are not a threat because there is no infringing code in Linux...

Re:Chances of Microsoft using other's patents

[dedazo]

What you say?

Re:Chances of Microsoft using other's patents

[ClosedSource]

Well, as it's been noted before, IBM and MS probably already have cross-licensing agreements given their long partnership. In addition the "Linux community" isn't a real organization that holds patents and has standing to sue anybody. If MS is sued for patent infringement, it's going to have to be by specific patent holders, not vague groups of people.

Re:Chances of Microsoft using other's patents

[ichigo 2.0]

Somebody set us up the patent bomb.

Re:Chances of Microsoft using other's patents

[ptrace]

Novell is trying to make a statement... Novell joins EFF for patent reform .

Re:Microsoft to Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

ballmer is that you? thse "hippies" as you call them essentually use linux to run over 60% of the net. in fact, without them the net would likely grind to a hault with all those botnets, DDOS attacks, ANSI cursor downloads and other crap just being routed by those windows servers out there.

Re:Microsoft to Ubuntu

[h2_plus_O]

what the fuck does Ubuntu mean?

it's actually a pretty cool concept, tho (as with any good idea) it's been variously interpreted and applied.
from Wikipedia:

"... the concept of ubuntu defines the individual in terms of their several relationships with others [...] while the Zulu maxim umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu ("a person is a person through (other) persons") may have no apparent religious connotations in the context of Western society, in an African context it suggests that the person one is to become by behaving with humanity is an ancestor worthy of respect or veneration."

In other words, it's a contextual view of humanity as being constituted of relationships. We are the relationships we have.

Patent Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think patents should apply only to tangible inventions or objects (i.e. say a new motherboard system bus design) and copyright should apply to software.

Re:Patent Copyright

[vthokie69]

That's the obvious solution. You'd better patent it.

Re:Patent Copyright

[vthokie69]

Better yet. I'm going to patent it.

Re:Patent Copyright

[Volante3192]

But...but...if copyright were applied to software, then there'd be so many ways to work around it!

Just think, $i++; would be seperate from $i = $i + 1; which would be seperate from $a = 1; $i = $i + $a; Think of the poor coders who have to come up with every variation in every language!

Cuts down on a lot of repeditive paperwork to just hold a patent on "A method for incrimenting the value of a variable by a single unit."

Re:Patent Copyright

[Phaldor]

Here's the kicker on this. What is to stop someone from copyrighting the conceptual method using psuedo code? This would allow for anyone to conceptually design a software program and copyright it using an arbitrary language. This could get really messy, which is why the lawyers out there stay in business. To take the example from above, someone could copyright, as a part of a program, "A method for incrementing the value of a variable by a single unit." and if it was found that anyone used this in their own copyright or patent, the original copyrighter could then sue and collect royalties. Makes about as much sense as the person who sued (and won the case against) McDonalds because she spilled coffee in her own lap. No, we definitely do NOT want to allow copyrighting for software.....

Re:Patent Copyright

[Pensacola Tiger]

Because you can't copyright a concept, perhaps?

Re:Patent Copyright

[Volante3192]

FWIW, and offtopic, but whatever... the McDonalds coffee case is not as cut and dried as "Lady spills coffee on lap, wins millions," but in fact McDonalds had a lengthy history of serving coffee at temperatures higher than the industry norm and known to cause third degree burns. They also had a chronic history of ignoring customer complains about it. There were memos as well that came out.

It was this continued brushing off of the customer that really tightened the screws for McDonalds. McDs wasn't punished *just* for her, but for the many others who had complained.

Almost a good thing

[Luke Dawson]

Doesn't this just reiterate why software patents are such a retarded idea in the first place? Once these patent trolls start bleeding the big companies dry, then maybe something will actually get done to address this ridiculousness? Or am I just being naive?

Re:Microsoft to Ubuntu

[eneville]

what the fuck does Ubuntu mean?

it's actually a pretty cool concept, tho (as with any good idea) it's been variously interpreted and applied.
from Wikipedia: [ducks] oohh! UBUNTU, for ages i've been reading it as 'ubutnut'... [/ducks]

Will patents finally be a two edged sword

[grapeape]

nothing will be done with patent reform until they represent a direct threat to those that can afford to buy lobbyists and grease palms. Once that happens rest assured there will be provisions provided to protect the interests of big business.

come up with ideas, do initial work-patent pool

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe OSDL has a patent pool. Can we expand it?

There are lots and lots of creative folks that work with GNU, Linux, *BSD, and who read Slashdot. It would be great if there was an open invention process whereby one could take an idea, do the basic stuff, then submit it to the OSDL (or another reputable group) who would get the patent in your name, but assigned to them.

Such a process would reduce the barrier to entry for getting patents on truly new ideas. (I would have a dozen or more if my employers had filed for patents on some of my ideas.) It would also allow you to have your name on a patent which looks great on a resume (finally something that is actually worth something to the inventor). But, most importantly it would expand the pool of patents available for open source and remove additional ideas, concepts, and inventions further out of the reaches of the patent-only law firms.

This should be a call to action!

Re:come up with ideas, do initial work-patent pool

[hxnwix]

But, most importantly it would expand the pool of patents available for open source and remove additional ideas, concepts, and inventions further out of the reaches of the patent-only law firms. The evildoers only need one essential patent on, say, using electronic memory .... with a computer *.

Or, using non-electronic memory without a computer. Wait, that will not fly. OK, how about: using non-electronic memory ... with a computer*?? Ding ding ding! It doesn't matter if you are an antisocial greedhead with no friends and no brain, because you too invent old and once-original technology and bend the world over a barrel for already using it! And it doesn't matter how many patents others may have, because anti-social greedheads only want to make money, and they don't necessarily use their computers to do it. Yes, put away your making-money-...-with-a-computer patent, for it is useless against these vermin.

*If these are taken, you may need to resort to patenting real life actions + computer. Think: buying stuff... with a computer. Buying not-stuff... with a computer. Be creative.

Re:come up with ideas, do initial work-patent pool

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF is a more trustworthy entity, by an order of magnitude.

Not

[zr-rifle]

> "Microsoft is not the patent threat Linux and open source developers should be worried about"

Of course! SCO is the REAL threat!

Those godless, marauding mancubi will feel no remorse prying your $699 from your cold, dead, chips/pretzel/pizza/popcorn/nacho/cheetos/Neal mix stained hands...

Re:Not

[StringBlade]

Those godless, marauding mancubi will feel no remorse prying your $699 from your cold, dead, chips/pretzel/pizza/popcorn/nacho/cheetos/Neal mix stained hands...

"Neal mix"?

*shudder*

I don't think I what to know what goes into that, but I'm sure a very large blender must be involved.

Re:Lobbyists (oops)

[Rahga]

FWIW, I meant "Carbon Credits", not "common credits"

People grow into Microsoft devs after open source

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Who says that Microsoft and open source developers are enemies?

I don't think they're enemies at all. Many open source developers train themselves on the basics through open source projects and then become closed system developers (using Microsoft, Flash, Apple, Sony, etc. systems) when they realize they prefer getting paid for their work.

Lulled into a false sense of security

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark has simply fallen for all the "Microsoft is dead" press that seems to be all over the place lately. Microsoft is far from dead, and they are a powerful foe. The latest round of posturing we have seen from them conclusively proves that they are gearing up for a huge fight, and what a fight it will be: those on the side of freedom vs those who choose to oppress the creativity of others. Mark my words, by this time next year Mark will either have had to retract his naive words or he will have been pushed out of business by the very patents that make Ubuntu such a newbie-friendly distro (patents he seems to think are harmless).

Ubuntu type of distros are a real threat to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

They dropped PowerPC official support claiming PowerPC is dead while Apple plans/releases Leopard and at least 10.6 supporting down to G4.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PowerPCReview

That type of distro is a first. I think Linux kernel still supports MIPS/Alpha CPUs ,when did last MIPS sell?

Don't be tricked, we really don't need another RDF type person and his fanboys.

For Linux, credible sources are: Linus, Debian people, Redhat Inc. and even RMS. Not some bored billionaire who will show very evil face soon.

I know Linus is not some "Wow, 8 Xeons, lets buy" type guy and I have reason to believe he still uses Dual G5 Mac as one of the posters mentioned on URL above.

Expect anything from that spoiled billionaire.

Re:No conspiracy here?

[morgan_greywolf]

There's no chance that Microsoft helped Myhrvold to start his business is there?

That's a little bit like asking "Is there any chance that Microsoft helped Bill Gates start the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?" The answer is mu.

While Microsoft probably has no direct involvement in Myhrvold's company, the stock options Myhrvold collected as part of his compensation from MSFT probably at least helped pay for the startup costs for his new company, and Myhrvold has probably solicited and gotten the help of many of his colleagues at Microsoft, both in the form of advice and other indirect support and in the form of monetary investment.

Patent Trolls

[Kiaser Zohsay]

More than once the analogy has been made between the "Mutual Assured Destruction" scenario of the Cold War days and the strategy of building "defensive" patents portfolios under the current system. Then along come these so-called investment firms that buy up "offensive" patents for no other purpose than to sue other companies and collect licensing revenue. In the Cold War analogy, these guy have their own nukes (patents) and they can threaten you with them, but they have no country of their own (original R&D work) so you can't threaten to bomb them back.

These guys are the Osama Bin Laden of the patent system.

Shuttleworth is right. Companies with this business model are a far more serious patent threat than Microsoft.

Re:Patent Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet companies of this sort would not exist if it wasn't for Microsoft to take the lead.

Intellectual Property should not be transferable

[erroneus]

Each form of intellectual property is claimed and purported to be created in order to benefit the creator, designer or author of whatever intellectual property item may exist. (Trademarks may be a mild exception when a trademarked word, phrase or icon when it is sold to an entity by a creator, designer or author though it can only be sold once.) So if reform were to occur with focus on the fact that the concept of IP was created to benefit the author, designer or creator, then it makes no sense that anyone or any entity should be allowed to sell or re-sell said IP as that is removed from the [original] intent of IP's concept. (I don't think it should be necessary that I recite the intent of patents and copyrights... that they are created to allow the creator benefit of said works and to inspire them to create more, etc...)

This means, that IP should be useless to those who do not create or otherwise use their inventions. IP should be useless to those who do not benefit from the arts created. If this sort of reform were to happen, we'd see an end to patent trolls because they would have to actually MAKE something that uses the patents in question, not simply license or sell the patents to other parties. (Licensing is okay, but the ownership of a patent should never be salable.) Song writers and musicians should never be allowed to sell their copyrights, but instead force the recording and media companies to bargain with them for each item they wish to distribute. This would force fair prices and values to be paid to the artists out there and prevent them from essentially being enslaved by the labels out there.

IP should have its value, but it should never be salable. And because it's salable, we have this ridiculous, abusive and litigious condition we have today. All of humanity would be the better if we could get rid of the salability of IP. The benefits of everything from life-saving drugs to works of art would eventually fall upon humanity and would give direct and arguably more bountiful benefit to the ACTUAL creators of IP.

Oh yeah... and reduce the limits on IP back to their original terms or less... This lifetime+70 years and 100 years for a corporation is simply ridiculous.

Re:Microsoft to Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what everyone thinks it means, but to me, UBUNTU means:

"For the tenth time, you can't install Sun's JAVA and expect it to work!"

I say, don't let patents be transferrable

[Anonymous Coward]

What if patents weren't transferable? They protect the original inventor and perhaps they company they work for. If you get bought out, the patent goes in the public domain.

That solves the original problem of "protect the little guy" while simultaneously preventing these patent-hoarding entities from causing any damage. If they want to buy a patent they have to hire the owner. That'll make patent-hoarding pretty expensive.

Moving to Uzbekistan

[presidenteloco]

It's going to be annoying to have to move
to Uzbekistan to continue coding...

      - no insult intended to Uzbeks - it's the Kazakhs I can't stand ;-)

but move there I will if I have to to get these patent retards off my
back.

Coding is basically the application of math and logic to the world,
and those who tell me I'm not free to do that can go f**k themselves.

is there any evidence that m$ doesn't control the

[someone1234]

patent troll in question? I wouldn't be surprised if they use a sock puppet to achieve their nasty goals.

Re:People grow into Microsoft devs after open sour

[pembo13]

so open source developers don't get paid?

Re:Microsoft to Ubuntu

[Zonk (troll)]

sudo apt-get install sun-java6-jre sun-java6-plugin sun-java6-fonts
sudo update-java-alternatives -s java-6-sun
sudo -b gedit /etc/jvm
(add "/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun" before the other entries, no quotes)


Then you get a Java that isn't unusably slow. It'd sure be nice if Ubuntu did this by default, or at least provided a n00b-friendly (ie, no command line) way of doing it.

If you're using Eclipse and would like for it to not take 30 seconds to display code completion, do this:


sudo -b gedit /etc/eclipse/java_home
(add "/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun" before the other entries, no quotes)

When the source is open, you can afford to care

[Geof]

Many open source developers train themselves on the basics through open source projects and then become closed system developers . . . when they realize they prefer getting paid for their work.

What about proprietary deveolpers who become open source developers when they realize they prefer their work to be meaningful? That's what I'm in the process of doing - and yes, I'm being paid for it.

I'm sure many developers find satisfaction in proprietary development. That's a personal thing. I find FOSS development necessarily more meaningful simply because it's free and contributes (however little) to freedom. It makes me happy to see others use it; even happier when they change it. Before, I cared about my work - but not too much, because I always had to leave it behind. As often as not, it was canned for business reasons; I wouldn't be surprised if that code doesn't even exist anymore.

Re:People grow into Microsoft devs after open sour

[taragui]

Many open source developers train themselves on the basics through open source projects and then become closed system developers (using Microsoft, Flash, Apple, Sony, etc. systems) when they realize they prefer getting paid for their work.

Any chance of providing any form of data to back up your data, or are you just hoping someone feeds the troll? I have yet to see any actual study showing this trend, not least because there is a large number of people being paid for their work in free software (Red Hat alone has employees in the thousands range, to mention only one of the best known).

Free meaning free as in speech, many people who work in FS do not do so for free. The largest producers of FS, measured in lines of code, are commercial companies, who in turn obtain revenue from support, hardware or custom development contracts.

Phil Salin about patents

[a1mint]

An absolute *MUST* read by anyone talking about patents and freedom of speech in software.

Too bad the guy is dead now, he could have helped us all out a great deal !

http://www.philsalin.com/patents.html

Try this 2004 survey done through SourceForge

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I can help with your educational journey. Please take a look at this 2004 survey done through SourceForge.

http://www.ostg.com/bcg/

About 2000 lead developers of the top SourceForge projects were surveyed. 30% responded. Of those 30% said they made money while creating open source projects. The top two motivators for open source were "intellectual stimulation" (i.e., fun) and "skill improvement" (i.e., training).

So...I'd say my basic premise holds: people often use open source projects to practice their skills for their non-open source "day jobs".

Mark spoke at our conference last week...

[pieterh]

We (the FFII) are organising a series of conferences to discuss the European patent system, and Mark Shuttleworth was our keynote speaker last week. (The conference had over thirty speakers and panelists, including Bill Kovacic, the US Federal Trade Commissioner...)

Mark spoke for 30 minutes, and his keynote is available here. He provided this very elegant argument against patents on business methods and most software: patents are society's gift to inventors in exchange for disclosure. When an invention is self-disclosing, i.e. you understand it when you use it, society has no interest in granting a patent for it, indeed is penalised by doing so, and therefore should not grant it.

More on the conference here.

Re:Mark spoke at our conference last week...

[Kjella]

He provided this very elegant argument against patents on business methods and most software: patents are society's gift to inventors in exchange for disclosure. When an invention is self-disclosing, i.e. you understand it when you use it, society has no interest in granting a patent for it, indeed is penalised by doing so, and therefore should not grant it.

Just because it is trivial to understand (read: the inner workings are very visible) doesn't mean it was trivial to create. Patents are society's gift to inventors in exchange for inventing and disclosing. If they go "meh, even if we figure it out it's not patentable" and work on something else, society loses out.

Re:Mark spoke at our conference last week...

[pieterh]

Strange. So how did society invent and produce before there were patents? What about the internet, produced when software was not patentable...?

Your argument that people invent to secure patents is completely bogus. People invent because it's the only way to create market advantage, and that's the only way to make money. There are a few exceptions, cases where patents have stopped the small inventor from being crushed by big competitors. These exceptions are so rare, and so proportionally unimportant that they are really insufficient to justify the whole patent system.

Promoting disclosure, yes the patent system should in theory do this. Promoting invention, that's complete and utter bollocks.

Agriculture, where no patents have applied, has managed to eliminate famine since the 1950's. Not one single famine due to failure of the agricultural system. (Only due to war, natural disaster, politics.)

Pharmaceutics, heavily protected by patents, has failed to stop mass death and sickness from preventable diseases, has failed to promote invention in the areas where it's most needed - malaria, dengue fever, etc. etc. - and has failed to create a competitive market. It's succeeded in creating cartels and monopolies of the worst kind.

Software == Knowledge

[feranick]

Software, and algorithms are just like knowledge. Imagine a world where every piece of knowledge (scientific for example) is patented. For example, someone had patented the linear regression algorithm. You need to use it on your research, then you would need to pay to use it. Extend this to all known science, you wouldn't be able to progress. It's true that some part of science is patented, but it's not usually the actual knowledge part, it's instead the precess that uses that knowledge. Software is the same. The general algorithm should not be patented, eventually only the process where you apply/combine those algorithms could, but only if they are truly demonstrated to be new, and groundbreaking. I know there is a fine line here, but a good start would be just to be hypercritic in judging the patent applications and grant them only after a detailed scrutiny. In any case, I know for sure that if people dedicated effort and money on advancing knowledge instead of making workarounds on someone else work (to avoid patenting) or to invest on absurd patents, the software world should be a much better place.

Re:Software == Knowledge

[nexuspal]

Software == Algorithms. And algorithms (being mathmatical expressions of scientific truths), should not be patentable. Copyrightable yes, but patentable, no...

This whole mess came about because of rulings by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit court allowing both algorithms (mathmatical proofs if you will), and business method patents (the scarier patent from a business persons perspective) to exist. The business method patents hinder innovation in a way never before dreamed. Imagine you owned a business wanted to serve cereal (simplified business problem). To your horror, somebody else has already patented the business method of serving cereal in a restaurant! You are now in a lawsuit and unable to serve CEREAL to your guests! You are screwed, and the economy takes another dive...
cereal patent

Not A Big Threat?

[phalse phace]

Not a big threat? Billg responds, "That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft."

Re:Microsoft to Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd sure be nice if Ubuntu did this by default, or at least provided a n00b-friendly (ie, no command line) way of doing it.

But what would a n00b need a non "unusably slow" [sic] Java on his system instead of the one shipped with Ubuntu? To run Azureus?

I do sincerely hope that a Java programmer at least knows the basics when it comes to using the command line...

Not something to be complacent about, but...

[itsdapead]

the most dangerous litigants are companies not themselves in the software business

The difference is that certain large traditional software companies have a motive to burn some of their spare cash - or risk or having a few patents invalidated - in order to cripple the pesky open source industry. Patent trolls - sock-puppet shenanigans aside - are only in it for the direct profit.

At worst, trolls are an equal threat to the whole software industry, not just open source. At best, the open source industry should be less attractive to them - attack an open source company with a plausible patent case and there is a risk that they'll go titsup.com before you get your damages. You certainly won't see any continuing royalties. Worse, lots of big players who would just sit back and eat peanuts while you went after a commercial competitor, have a vested interest in the same bits of FOSS and might gang up on you while every geek on the internet searches for prior art. Best stick to closed-soruce companies who have a budget for patent extortion.

The real glass-half-full aspect is that these clowns are helping discredit the patent system, and upsetting the Mutually Assured Destruction status quo that keeps the big players on the pro-patent side.

Patent Mills

[Kintar1900]

One thing I'll never understand is why patent laws weren't changed the minute people started acquiring patents and not using them. The whole point is to feed innovation, so why not add a clause saying any patent that is held but not being developed against is void after X period of time? This way people still get to claim patents, but we don't have to worry about dipshits like Intellectual Ventures hoarding patents they have no intention of ever using.

Easy solution

[Ignatius]

Let the patent holders pay for their state granted monopoly they enjoy. When someone files a patent, he should state how much it is worth for him, and then pay a certain percentage of this (say 2%) per year to keep his claim. Whenever someone pays up the sum (adjusted for the remaining period, so 70% after 3 years for a 10-year patent), the patent goes into the public domain. The sum can be adjusted yearly by the holder in a +/- 10% range.

So any patent would come with a price tag and it would cost something to hold them. No more frivolous patents and no more 50000+ portfolios. Only patents that are used as intended i.e. to protect your own product or to sell licences would be worth holding.

The Prime Example

[brunes69]

So.. I was curious as to what this company "Intellectual Ventures" had patented thus far, so I did a search on a href="http://www.google.com/patents>"Google Patents.

p>What is the #2 result? A patent on how to find and protect intellectual property (aka patents).

So, this company already has a patent on patenting patents. So all you slashdotters with the Step 1, Step2, .... Profit jokes owe them money.

Re:Microsoft to Ubuntu

[dcam]

I thought it means "I can't configure debian".

A different (even more unrealistic) approach

[ukemike]

When our nation was young, corporations were on a much shorter leash. A corporation was given a charter for a specific enterprise. That charter could expire, or be revoked. When the charter term was over the owners would have to justify re-issuing the charter. I'm not suggesting we go back that far, but...

If we got a lot more strict about corporate charters we could solve all sorts of societal ills. If UnaCal is participating in the enslavement of Burmese to build it's pipeline, revoke the charter and sell of the assets. If Maxxam buys out Pacific Lumber and starts liquidating the inventory (California's forests) to pay the acquisition debt, revoke the charter and sell the assets to someone with morals. If some rich dude from Microsoft wants to hoard patents and then sue actual productive companies, then deny him a corporate charter in the first place, or revoke it when he makes an ass of himself.

Patent Trivia...

[nexuspal]

Q.
Can I patent the idea of making cereal at a restaurant and serving it to guests?

A.
Yes you may! It is a business method patent and will readily be accepted by the US Patent Office.

Imagine you owned a business wanted to serve cereal (simplified business problem). To your horror, somebody else has already patented the business method of serving cereal in a restaurant! You are now in a lawsuit and unable to serve CEREAL to your guests! You are screwed, and the economy takes another dive... cereal patent [inthesetimes.com]

The software patent war won't be a war

[Jessta]

the great thing about being a patent holding company is that you aren't making anything and therefore not violating anyone else's patents.
The software patent war won't be a war, but an extermination.
Where those companies that make things will be crushed by those that don't.

Microsoft Founder Says Ubuntu Not A Big Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

And somehow... I'll go out on a limb and say the wealthiest man in the world is right.

BTW... if you are talking about "reform"... who exactly is going to be leading the reform? I doubt any legislators give two shits about Lunix, but they might be pretty happy with a campaign contribution from a major software company.

Be very careful when wishing for "reform". You just might get it.

"Ubuntu Founder Says Microsoft Not A Big Threat"

[inews.110mb.com]

"Ubuntu Founder Says Microsoft Not A Big Threat" - isn't that an obvious truth

I know

[bytesex]

Software patents - or any untested region of patents, for that matter - are a bit like printing your own money; you can have as much as you like, all it takes is a little bit of work, and the outside world *might* believe it, but if they don't - if they suddenly find out that it is indeed worthless self-printed money, then - oops, the whole house of cards comes down.

Software is a special kind of product

[master_p]

Software is a special kind of product, it should not be patented. Software is mathematics, and mathematical theorems can not be patented.

Novell, Dell,

[I am Jack's username]

[Microsoft] signed a Linux deal with Novell that indemnifies the company against Microsoft patent claims over Linux. Two weeks ago Dell joined the deal, becoming the first hardware vendor to do so.

/me scratches off the Dell Inspiron 9400 from my shortlist of notebooks I'm looking into.

Fundamental difference.

[jotaeleemeese]

Software is for all intents and purposes reproducible at will.

Normal matter isn't.

When we get device that reorganize matter in any way we want in order to copy physical objects, then you may have a point, but for the time being, we will take you as a raving lunatic.

Percentage-Based Patent Rewards

[Garrett Fox]

Why a cost plus percentage formula, though? If someone comes up with something that cost little to invent but that's worth a fortune to society, the current system would reward them greatly, while this proposal would give more to a guy who invented a slightly better toothbrush but spent a lot of money doing it. I've heard traditional aerospace companies (the kind SpaceX is gunning for) criticized for getting "cost-plus" payments that encourage wasteful management, and the same criticism would apply here.

On the other hand, something like what you proposed is being used a little, with some success. The Ansari X Prize offered a flat fee for a demonstration of a particular technology, NASA's doing something with its "MoonROx" prize, etc..

Re:Percentage-Based Patent Rewards

[TemporalBeing]

Why a cost plus percentage formula, though?

It's easy to measure a business plan against. That's not to say it would necessarily encourage wasteful management, as the business plan itself would be under scrutiny and the cost part would have to be justified. Could you justify 5 engineers, and 10 people in management for designing a new toothbrush? Not likely. (And yes, I am familiar with how some of that goes.)

True - the proposed system does, as you say, give little weight and little RIO on inventions that cost little but have huge societal benefits. To a degree that was intentional - to keep from having every little thing no matter cost to invent patented, and to help kill off patent trolls and trivial inventions - but perhaps there could be an exception clause for extremely low cost inventions that some how weights the societal value in instead of cost, but the patentee would have to justify the need to fall under that exception, and it should be an exception that is hard to obtain. (Otherwise it would be abused.)

Per the cost plus contracts - this would not quite work that way. Cost Plus contracting means that you get to submit your costs as part of the contract, and they are not subject to much scrutiny (though there is some, and the customer does have some say over how you spend the money). This, on the other hand, would be subject to much scrutiny, and cost would need to be strictly defined as what did it really cost to invent, likely even as unburdened labor, etc. (Cost plus contracting you get to submit burdened labor.) Your books would be opened to see the cost. If you hired 1 manager and 5 engineers to make the invention, and you paid them $60k, as well as spent $100k in equipment, capital, etc - than $160K is your cost.

Essentially, this pushes more for smaller organizations to invest larger chunks of money to invent. The idea is to level the playing field more, and ensure that the public has some better say over how long a patent or copyright is granted for.

Re:Microsoft to Ubuntu

[lightsaber777]

Missing libraries and other such things are the fault of the package maintainer, not necessarily Ubuntu. If you don't like it, just install it the non-apt way and everything is fine.