Slashdot Mirror
Alan Cox on Patent Law and GPLv3
tykev writes "Linux kernel guru Alan Cox talks about kernel features, cooperation with hardware vendors, and software patents. From the interview: 'I don't think [Microsoft's patent threats] are the biggest danger. As Microsoft has been finding out recently it is the patent trolls, and organisations with buried patents in interesting areas that are the biggest threat in the USA. The real answer to that problem, however, is to pull the USA back into line with the majority of the world which simply does not recognize patents on software but respects them as literary works subject to copyright law.'"
We let manufacturing jobs slip into other countries, and are told to be reassured - we get to keep the good engineering jobs. Yet they also set up the system that does not promote innovation, but rather one that is stacked in favor of the big players but with "good" intentions came the unintended consequences - like how leechers game the system.
How can people stay positive on an economy that seems neither ultimately market-based rather than litigation based and where what used to be virtues (hard work, creativity, taking a chance) are punished by the government and unworthy trolls/big_players get the gains instead?
We aren't talking about "organically-evolved law", the implication being that such laws evolved over a substantial amount of time and are so ingrained into a society that changing them causes significant disruption. We are talking about recent corruptions/subversions/perversions of organically-evolved law, and such things can be repealed. And they need to repealed soon, before they do become ingrained.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Could someone explain to me why this is a discussion about "software patents" and not just "patents" in general? You could just as easily have 2347 vaguely worded patents preventing your from implementing even the most trivial non-computer tasks. How many ways are there to compress a fluid? How many patents are there on compressors? How many conflicting patents are there for the same way to compress a fluid?
/. audience has some interest in software vs. hardware, but as someone familiar with the hardware patent world I've never understood why software people think that conflicting, overly-broad patents on the basic process required to achieve some end result are unique to software and not a problem inherent in the patent system regardless of application.
I know the
Like in the forest, you look for the bears, but it's the snakes and cobras that ultimately get you. You don't see 'em until it's too late.
Everyone looks and waits to be sued by Oracle, AMD, Ford, GM, Union Pacific, Amtrak, United, Fidelity, Morgan, Carnegie, Microsoft, IBM, Boeing, Raytheon, Intel, Nike, McDonalds, Disney, or any other household name.
But it's some un heard of patent troll, some unknown law firm from the middle of nowhere, who will kill you at the end . . . .
The snakes who sneak around the darkness of the floor of the forest . . . .
From the playgrounds of the world, I am nasty . . . . Making kids cry . . . .
The padlocked.swings
Someone had earlier posted about the four different types of "intellectual properties" - patents, copyright, trademark and trade secrets. I always find it pretty amazing that software seems to be the only field where all 4 protections could be available on the same piece of code.
A piece of code can be protected by patents, can be copyrighted, trademarked and even held a trade secret (closed source). What's so special about software that it mandates so much protection? I'd love to see just one protection available for software. For instance, if it's trade secret (closed source) then you don't get patent or copyright protection. If it's open source, then you get only copyright protection. For really core and non-obvious algorithms, you can get patent protection, but you will lose copyright protection in that case (say you will need to submit the code as part of the patent application, making it public domain).
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi