Slashdot Mirror
Time To Abolish Software Patents?
gnujoshua writes "Has the time come to abolish software patents? Fortune columnist Roger Parloff reports on a new campaign called End Software Patents, which he views as 'attempting to ride a wave of corporate and judicial disenchantment with aspects of the current patent system.' Ryan Paul of Ars Technica writes that the purpose of the campaign is to 'educate the public and encourage grass-roots patent reform activism in order to promote effective legislative solutions to the software patent problem.' The campaign site is informative and targets many types of readers, and it includes a scholarship contest with a top prize of $10,000.00. We've recently discussed the potential legal re-examination of software patents."
Yes.
c++;
Actually, it's time to see if "regular" patents work as intended. If they don't we need to see if they can be fixed or if we have to get rid of them, and if so, if we should replace them with something else.
Money for nothing, pix for free
What are the implications of abolishing software patents? Weigh the possible advantages and disadvantages against the (questionable) advantages and (severe) disadvantages of the current system.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
You can bitch and moan all you want about software patents, but the problem is something else. It is the inability of "the little guy" to license patents in a way that doesn't cripple him, or make him subject to the whims of the patent holders.
When patents are easily and fairly licensed, the incentive to use them is increased, and the patent holder reaps the rewards of the increased usage. When they are kept locked down tight and only used as bargaining chips in patent wars, then no one benefits, not even the patent holder.
Patents should be freely licensable if the holder does not currently produce a product based upon the patent. The patent should be negotiable to any other third party who requires it, and it should be available at a reasonable price for reasonable terms. The only time a licensing request should be denied is in the case of gross misconduct of the licensee or if the licensee is a direct competitor to whom providing the patent would materially damage the patent holder. An arbitration agency should be in charge of deciding if a license denial is valid, and to decide if a particular patent holder is denying license requests too often.
Isn't this a valid point? If we abolish copyright and patents there is no law or regulations that keeps me from stealing from poor OSS programmers. I can make as much profit as I want without ever having to give anything back..
Abolition of Software Patents is just plainly nonsense. Not only because companies will madly lobby to destroy any attempt to do so, but because it's not fair for the rightful owners of software patents who developed software (NOT patent trolls).
We all know the answer, there should be some kind of legislation or law (IANAL) that should enforce patent owners to
a) keep developing software based on the patent, not just earn royalties
b) be rightful creators, or earn the patents on a company merge
c) be a real company, not just some patent troll
Where a, b & c should be all true.
My 2c,
W
ATH++
I personally don't have a problem with the concept of patenting software. And by software, I mean a full application. The biggest problem with software patents and the patent system as a whole is that you can patent bits and pieces of code/components. I say patent the product, not the product's components.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
It's only a month ago that Slashdot covered the UK's decision to not reject software patents "out of hand".
So, while software patents probably do need abolishing (or at the very least being converted to a proper patent that can then be implemented or described in software, rather than an algorithmic patent) I think we in the UK have a leadership that think otherwise and a populace who don't know much better and don't care unless it is in some reality TV show.
No, we haven't.
We've established that mathematics should not be patentable.
Oh, BTW: you probably meant "an exception to the rule that he who creates something novel should be rewarded".
Any other fields of endevour we should exempt? Not that anyone here doesn't have a personal stake in the outcome.Otherwise it just doesn't make sense, with or without Chewbacca.
Well, let's first see if patents even work as intended.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Your sarcasm is predicated on the assumption that the only way to be
rewarded for creation is by patent.
Here's a list to start you off
* Works of fiction
* Mathematical theorems
* Business methods
* Algorithms
* SOFTWARE
:
As I recall, so-called "reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing" (RAND) makes use in free and open source software impossible.
Also, some guy claims he prooved mathematically that software patents fail (disclaimer: i don't understand it) [1].
[1] http://www.juergen-ernst.de/info_swpat_en.html
So then someone can come along, change 1% of the design and sell it as their own? I'm thinking of cars as usual. In software's case, the final product is protected by copyright rather than patents. Individual methods are protected by patents. AFAIK America only introduced software patents in the 90s and things have gone downhill over there since then.
which is totally what she said
The problem isn't software patents. The problem is actually business model patents masquerading as software patents. Another issue is that patent length is standard across industries, when it should vary based on the timescale of innovation. Seven years in software is an epoch; the same for pharmaceuticals would be about a third of the amount of time spent developing a drug.
But the mechanism by which one implements his invention shouldn't matter. The fact that the bar is too low is an entirely separate problem.
The legislative approach is difficult, but I think it's the best option in the USA. Getting good legislation would be very difficult. Most legislation in the USA is dreadful, but there's a good constitution, so the judges have the job of reconciling the letter of the law with common sense. So I think this campaign is taking the right approach by working via the court system.
FWIW, my background is that I worked on the EU anti-swpat campaign.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
My worries stem from several things:
- Many companies have come to rely on software patents raising the barrier to entry for competitors. Software patents certainly can level the playing field because the size of a company has less to do with the defendability of a patent than you might think. Without software patents, a large company can "simply" throw a bunch of engineers at the problem and produce something similar very quickly. Is this better that the current software patent system?
- My small company currently has software patents pending. Our valuation and chance of obtaining funding depends on these patents. In today's post dotcom industry, it has become very hard to obtain funding on just an idea alone.
- If an abolishment somehow comes to fruition, what are the mechanics going to be? Like I mentioned, we have patents pending and have invested a substantial amount of money on lawyer and other patent fees. Are we going to get our money back? From whom? What if you already have a software patent? Will there be a refund?
Anyway, I think reform in patents is good but all these kinds of issues certainly need to be considered very carefully.I want to patent my idea first: It's a method of crippling a system's CPU using only a few lines of code. I'm not going to write it here obviously though, because otherwise someone will beat me to the chase.
Summation 2
The problem isn't software patents per se, it's vague patents.
What's the worst that could happen if patents were abolished? Simple, inventors could refuse to invent stuff. So that tells you what should be patentable and what shouldn't be. If the "invention" is not something an inventor could prevent society from having by choosing not to invent it -- then it shouldn't be patentable. (Similarly, if the inventor could prevent society from having it, then it should be patentable.)
A patent is not a "grant" of rights, it is merely a recognition of a right the inventor already possesses, the right not to invent. Until the government gets it straight that governments don't "grant" rights, but rather recognize them, we will always have problems with patents.
(I checked Anonymous but my name still showed up in the preview...)
That the patent laws are flawed is, well, patently obvious.
Software patents have contributed to making these flaws obvious enough for anyone to see.
In spirit, patent laws serve the greater good; unfortunately, in letter they fail. The same has been said about most of the 'isms' and 'anities'.
Other things that you write should not be patentable. I can just see the patent trolls waiting for a blockbuster like Harry Potter to come along so they can claim their cut for having patented "protagonists with a hidden relationship to the villain - but in a novel about modern day alchemists".
I have three wishes. 1. that I had mod points 2. that there was a "Stupid Idea" moderation option 3. that I won't need to wish that #1 and #2 come true. How do you see it? Patenting a word processor? Even more stupid than patenting a blinking cursor. Patenting Word 2007? Hell, why anybody would want to? >,<
At FOSDEM 2008, another initiative was announce that goes for the kill:
Kill Software Patents
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
They are not being sued for using their own patents, their own patents are still good for them.
c++;
Well, in truth, since anyone else could do the same to the (ostensibly very large by that time) public domain source base, and since costs of adding 1% original code won't be as high as they are to duplicate a car, I doubt you'll see a lot of that done.
;)
I'd expect a boom in online services as companies switch from copyright to trade secrets though
"AFAIK America only introduced software patents in the 90s and things have gone downhill over there since then"
In other news, SCO have become the richest company in the world By claiming the patent of granting a patent.
There are lots of things which can't be patented - mathematics, scientific discoveries[*], plot devices in novels or films, methods of trolling Slashdot. Why should software algorithms be an exception to the rule?
(* well, except for genes, but that's mad too IMO.)
Blink, blink... nope, just middle-aged synapses misfiring again.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
(Light blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance.)
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
How would they sell it as their own?
Recursively applying the same idea, the next guy will improve it by another 1% and sell it as his own and so forth.
Before you know it, hundreds of people are creating improvements for the benefit of society!
And all this, without using restrictions on society as an incentive? Sounds great to me.
Because when it comes to world leaders there are things far higher on the list of importance than copyrights and patents.
With me, economics comes first, foreign policy second, social issues third, everything else in no particular order after that.
Gone!
I didn't say improve, I said change :p The moment a big company gets their paws on the idea they're going to be able to mass produce them a lot easier than any individual. Hand crafted stuff is often better quality, but the mass produced stuff is going to be cheaper and take the lion's share of the market. I think the original copyright and patent systems had it right, it's the stupid extensions that are causing issues here. It's not 'fair' if someone spends years inventing say a flying car, then GM buys one, reverse engineers it, puts a GM badge on it and claims it all as its own without paying any licensing fees. That's not much of an incentive to be an inventor IMO, though it benefits society if they have cheap flying cars (mainly because all the idiots will crash and burn I schpose)
which is totally what she said
Software patents are not usable patents. "In the old days" a patent allowed a company to avoid R&D costs to produce a product. It was a way to allow inventors to create things and companies to build things. An inventor could invest his own time and money on his dream, patent an invention and a company could build the invention from the patent and pay a royalty. It was a beneficial arrangement. It makes a lot of sense in that context.
Patents today do nothing for the licensor except "protect" them from litigation on that patent. You still need to invest R&D to implement the idea. Worse yet, the ideas are so trivial they are valueless to the R&D. The only thing that they are good for is lawyers.
If you look at what a patent is really for, a software patent does not make any sense whatsoever. They should have never existed.
For something to be patentable, it has to meet the following crieteria: novel, non-obvious and useful. Software by itself is not useful as it doesn't do anything - it must have a computer or some other hardware devices attached to it to be the least bit useful at all. If you don't then you essentially have a work of material created by an author and this would then fall under copyright law, not patent law.
Software should only be patentable as part of a largert device that does something. So for example if someone created a novel GPS device, the unit and the software together can be patented as the unit as a whole is useful. The algorithm that someone created may be novel, but as a stand alone it is not useful.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
In "Math You Can't Use", Ben Klemens makes the point that the software development market is divided almost evenly into three segments: retail, consulting, and in-house. Software patents as currently defined and enforced benefit the first group, retail, but hurt the other two because they do not have the same market dynamics at all.
Patents are an artificial market force created to prevent certain kinds of unfair practices in a centralized, controlled-distribution market. Applied to a decentralized and distributed market such as that for free and open source software, patents create the nightmare scenario of an exponential increase in legal exposure as developers build upon each other's work.
The answer, then, isn't to do away with patents, but to tweak them so they make economic sense again.
Here is Chapter 5 of "Math You Can't Use", and it is well worth reading.
I just purchased the book and am looking forward to reading the rest. A very interesting work.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
We don't need to get rid of software patents, we just need to get people to review them that know what the hell they're reading.
Patents do not allow competitive pricing. They should end them for good.
You can't patent music so why can you patent software? It seems very similar to me. All musicians use the same notes over an over again but it's how you order them that makes a song. Songs are copyrighted but not patented. So the same should hold for software in that programers can share the same tools (notes) and right completely different forms of software which should then be copyrighted but not patented.
The problem is not with patents per se. The original motivation behind patents, rewarding innovation, still holds. The problem is that the world moves much faster now than it did in Jefferson's day. I got a patent as a young pup that just finally expired. I haven't been able to use the technique for most of my career because my ex-employer, who did absolutely nothing with the idea, held the patent. Aside from allowing me to give the one-finger salute to patent trolls who contacted me about it, it did me no good at all to get the patent.
My proposal is to grant software patents for three years. If an idea is going to take off, that's plenty of time to develop a commanding position based on it. If it isn't going to take off, it's no loss to have the patent expire and better for society (the original purpose of patents, after all, was the good of society) for the idea to be available for others.
Stremo
There are three main problem with software patents (and business method patents as well). One is the impossibility of searching the prior art. Another is obviousness to a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA). And a third is that many software patents don't claim innovative solutions to problems, but claim all solutions to a newly discovered problem, even one for which the applicant really hasn't provided a practical, implemented, innovative solution.
The prior art in software is the corpus of all previously written software. To see if something had been done before, it would be necessary for a patent examiner to look through all software that had been written before to determine if a particular technique claimed in a patent application had been used. Programmers don't document their work very thoroughly, much less write journal articles on the techniques they use. And a lot of software technology is just learned by doing and by copying ideas discovered by reading other peoples' code but not formally otherwise documented by them.
Open source software provides one window into the corpus of software, and the IBM Type 4 program libraries (for machines such as the 360 and 1130) have some published source code, but proprietary software is distinctly unavailable for searching in most cases.
The same applies to business method patents. What business writes journal articles about their ways of doing things, especially ways that give them a competitive edge? Again, ideas are learned by doing and copying ideas learned on previous jobs.
One example is the Amazon "One Click" patent. That patent combines the cookie with the open account. You couldn't tell that by looking at the obfuscated language in which the patent is written, but that is what it does. Evidence of the open account as a business process can probably be found by looking in records written in Babylonian cuneiform. However, the USPTO doesn't search records in Babylonian cuneiform to look for evidence that a business process has been used before.
A second example is the patent for which Verizon sued Vonage. Any programmer with a brain would know that to hook up a VOIP system to a telephone switch would require some information and that the best way to organize the information would be in a database. The rest is legal obfuscation. If patent applications had to be written to a level of plain understanding, most would fall away because of obviousness.
Finally, patent applications should be required to include a working model or implementation or some kind of other evidence that the applicant wasn't just patenting the problem but actually had a solution. There was a discussion some months ago on Slashdot about a patent that covered all ways of doing something with graphics. The recipient clearly had discovered something that needed to be done in a graphics system. What the patent claimed was all ways of doing what was needed. IIRC, what the patent actually provided may have been one way of doing it, or might not have provided an actual solution. This is the software equivalent of patenting the electric light without figuring out how to make one that worked, a process that took Edison a lot of time and effort.
Many lawyers have a difficult time understanding technology. Some became lawyers because they weren't good at math and science. When those lawyers become judges, they don't suddenly gain an understanding of technology. They stick to their comfort zone. That is the reason the CAFC required documentary evidence to prove what prompted a PHOSITA to do something obvious. If it wasn't obvious to a lawyer, why should they treat it as obvious to a PHOSITA? Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw otherwise. Perhaps the courts will come to their senses on software and business method patents as well.
Software is the new Hardware, so I don't think patents should be done away with as we move into this realm. But the duration needs an update to reflect the modern-day pace of innovation. I'd say that 17 months would be about right.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I'll come squarely on the anti-slashdot side on this one. Software patens must continue to exist. Maybe in a better-defined way, but if they are abolished, software will be hindered severely. I am a mathematician. I may have an idea of how to SOLVE the travelling salesman problem in polynomial time.... Again, not prove that it's impossible, but solve it. It's not my direct are of expertise. So I would need to invest at least a year to iron the details of my idea. I have no intentions of doing it just to publish a paper. Plainly, it's too boring a subject for a paper. I would only do it for financial gain. Without software patents no financial gain can be made from solving an outstanding problem of this magnitude.... that is none for the person who would solve the problem. All the leprecons who'd "implement" the solution would stand to earn large amounts of money. To summarize: no patents=no solution to an outstanding problem. I am aware of all the points on the other side of this argument. They amount to the argument that "business method" patents should be abandoned -- not software patents.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
...patent-able.
which makes this effort something of a public deception.
Instead what is needed is a proper genuine and honest perspective, rather than a political/economic argument
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
My wikipedia like page (with links and more) is currently down.
You missed the point. I'm talking about patenting what the usable output of an application is. For example, the instant messanger. To the best of my knowledge, AOL was the first to come up with this back when AOL was a self contained piece of crap (though you might argue that IRC was the first place this was done, but I'm just trying to make a hypthetical example). They could have reasonably patented the instant messanger. However, it makes little sense to allow them to patent the methods they used to make the instant messanger work. To patent the "buddy list" (a list of frequent contacts made for ready access) would be retarded.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
That's fine, and that's the goal. The "how" isn't made available now anyways. The problem is people are patenting the "what", not the "how". Anybody should be able to copy or design their own "how" for any "what". This means there will always be service work for programmers, for customization. The ultimate incentive, for the productivity code delivers, doesn't disappear in the slightest with the removal of patents. If designers want to keep their methodology a secret, let them try -- it changes nothing from the way it already is with the patent system. Nobody (as in We the People) gets delivered to their mail, or sees posted, the ingredients or methodological steps for creating any product which was ever patented. You won't mass profit from any technological improvement without by definition trading it in some form, even obscured/hidden/scrambled, to others for money. No difference whatsoever, it what is already done with patent submissions anyway.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
Maybe developing a flying car is so expensive that it will be impossible to make a profit by being the first to have one.
My personal opinion is that patents are indeed not necessary in the general case, and that the you-get-to-sell-it-first is enough of a financial incentive.
Also, I think that if something is necessary, its probably not fully fledged patents but:
Especially now that we are in the year of Linux on the desktop.
I said that it's boring as far as papers go. I didn't say it's the most boring thing in the world (you know -- like being anything but a mathematician). On a more trolling note, math is the beginning of all knowledge. So it's earning potential when fully explored (something that is rarely accomplished) is much higher than that of any other profession. But if you think that I have no right to negotiate a fee for my unique work, then you are trying to usurp it. And without proper authorship ip protection of an idea my work can be used by anyone without paying a fee. Or I could just figure it out and never publish it because I can explore it on my own for its profit potential (it has implications in AI producing better-than-actual intelligence). Or not. But without assurances that my idea will be mine, you'll never see its benefits. To answer your question with a question, "who's john galt?"
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The problem isn't software patents. The problem is that it seems like the vast majority of patents, software or otherwise, are granted for things that shouldn't be patentable, either because there is prior art, because the thing being patented is obvious or the claim is far too broad.
The cake is a pie
Yay! Another article about software patents! I love hearing about software patents! I can't get enough! In fact, I'm going to talk about software patents all the time! Here I go! Software patents, software patents, software patents, software patents, software patents, software patents, software patents!!! YAY!!!
X = Patentented Code. Y = Total Project Code Y/X = Patentholder's Royalties %.
Sadly, you, sir, are incorrect.
Blimey - I always hate it when I make analogies to something which must surely be obviously mad, only for that to end up happening too...
The only way to test obviousness is with a jury of people skilled in the relevant art (a true jury of peers for an inventor). The problem is these people cost too much (both for patent examination and even trials). That's why obviousness is never going to be a significant part of patent examination, the best we get is lawyer developed objective methods (which boil down to "it's the first time it appeared in print so it's non obvious) and the amateur opinion of patent examiners (who will get shouted down by lawyers if they turn down a patent for something as subjective as their opinion on obviousness).
... or patents on nothing. I chose patents on nothing.
You can not make obviousness an integral part of the patent process, even if the lawyers would let you (which they won't) it's simply impossible.
So pick your poison, patents on everything
You can move the world *and* get the Fields medal.
As for RSA, you'll have to explain that one.
* It was developed before there was any reason to believe that a software patent was viable. The first "software patent" was the setuid patent, applied for in 1972, granted in 1979. RSA was published in 1977.
* It was only patentable in the US because they didn't file until months after they published.
* The biggest effect of the patent was to kick off a search for a non-patented alternative, leading to the DSA algorithm being explicitly released royalty-free world-wide in 1991.
* The next biggest effect of the patent was to create nearly as big a split in the crypto community between the US and the rest of the world as ITAR did.
* It wasn't economically valuable for years because nobody could afford hardware that could actually manage to run it fast enough to be economical: I remember a lecture at UNI in 1979 where the prof started an RSA encryption with a fairly short key at the start of the lecture and it finished at the end.
* By the time RSA was making money from RSA, rather than from venture capital, the main reason that RSA was in wide use was PGP... and RSA managed to screw PGP up in the process. The history of RSA is a mess of acquisitions and speculation.
So the work clearly wasn't motivated by software patents - the patent itself seems to have been an afterthought, and it's at the very least questionable that the RSA patent has in fact advanced the state of the art. So where's your point?
Software is the new Hardware, so I don't think patents should be done away with as we move into this realm.
Hardware patents are one thing but software patents are totally different. Software is already protected by copyrights.
FalconShould there be a Law?
pills
As one of TFA says though, there are no pharmaceutical patent trolls.
FalconShould there be a Law?
drug X must get FDA approval which takes 2 years, but drug Generic-X can use the previous approval
Actually no they can't. An excellent example of this is Taxol. The National Cancer Institution, as part of the National Institutes of Health it's a government organization, did all the research into Taxol for chemotherapy in treating cancers such as breast cancer. After spending $183 million of US tax payer money the NCI sold all of the research including the data needed for FDA approval to Bristol-Myers Sqibb, BMS, for $43 million. No other pharmaceutical can use the date needed to win FDA approval.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yes the thought of Congress re-evaluating Patents with the situation as it is, is a very scary thought to me. Imagine if Patents were extended to life time of inventor + 70 years.
There's one problem with this, as one of TFAs said among those threatened by software patents are banks, and they'd put up a lot of money to stop this.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Abstractions are result of human creativity (and often its method). As such they are original and useful science(to some they even art). Therefore, they pass the litmus test for patentability directly established by The Constitution.
Wrong, The Constitution of the USA says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Progress not useful. Software patents however stifle progress.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And without proper authorship ip protection of an idea my work can be used by anyone without paying a fee.
Have you ever heard of copyrights and Trade secrets? Software patents are not needed. Software was being written in the 1960s and '70s without patents. Tech Model Railroad Club members at MIT were writing, and leaving out so others could improve, software back then. When Microsoft was started most software was shared, Bill Gates was one of the first in demanding people not share his Altair BASIC interpretor. Before then, and now, a lot of software was and is being created without any patent protection.
FalconShould there be a Law?
However, since only one company was successful (better product, better marketing, better luck, whatever reason), the successful company was sued.
I don't know of an actual product the "unsuccessful" company released to the public. DO you have a link to it?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Abolition of Software Patents is just plainly nonsense.
What's nonsense is software patents. As shown by Linux and other FOSS projects has shown they are not needed.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's pretty easy to "re-implement" newly developed pharmaceutical drugs as well...
But it costs a lot to get FDA approval for a drug. All of the testing needed to win approval can cost millions of dollars. What's ironic is that pharmaceutical companies spend more money on advertising and marketing than they do on drug research.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm torn when it comes to software patents. Inventors need to have a LIMITED amount of time in which they can exclusively profit on their ideas.
Software can already enjoy two protections, copyrights and trade secrets.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So the legal fees to research whether a line of code infringes on a patent are far greater in terms of proportion, compared to some multi-million pound drug company or manufacturing company.
* Software seems to be more likely to be built on previous innovations.
Ah but drug research is usually based on prior research or old knowledge. "The Pill", Progesterone, used to prevent pregnancy was based on the southern Mexican plant yam. The American Indians living there used the plant for this reason, to prevent pregnancy. Ethnobotany is the study of how different ethnic groups use plants for health or otherwise. And there are different ethnic groups throughout the world fighting against those who take the knowledge as their own for profit and are fighting against biopiracy.
FalconShould there be a Law?
my worry with abolishment is that it will allow well funded companies to become bigger and there would be no incentive for small companies to start.
I see it just the opposite. Software patent drive up the price of starting and running a software business. If I were to use my free tyme to write a program to do something I wouldn't be able to afford to make sure I didn't infringe on anyone else's patents. That's not a problem when there are no software patents, but with them it is.
I think shortening both the application process
Shortening the tyme for patent applications will only make things worse. Patent examiners will basically be made to rubber stamp applications. This would increase costs because more money would be needed to dispute patents, whether because of prior art, the examiners not having enough tyme to check for it, or otherwise.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Software patens must continue to exist. Maybe in a better-defined way, but if they are abolished, software will be hindered severely.
If software patents are needed so much then how did all the software before patents were granted for them get written? And how is it FOOS projects exist now? Without patents the members of MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club were writing programs for the PDP1 then leaving them out for others to improve. A good read on it, and hackers, is Steven Levy's "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution".
FalconShould there be a Law?
Patenting IM would be even more retarded. No Jabber, no ICQ, no MSNM, just because AIM was first? Heck, I thought nothing could be more stupid than USA's current patent system. I was wrong.
I personally don't have a problem with the concept of patenting software. And by software, I mean a full application. The biggest problem with software patents and the patent system as a whole is that you can patent bits and pieces of code/components. I say patent the product, not the product's components.
So then a person can create a compeating product and be stopped from selling it?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Never heard of the Tech Model Railroad Club by name, but I have heard of the nature of the efforts. Of course, Bill Gates' story of BASIC interpreter is famous. So he came across a wrong business model -- charging people for software itself. Well, to be fair, a business model that was wrong if you wanted to produce quality software while making money. It's amazing how many people turn this into a causality argument. Let me give you an analogy. If we had no laws whatsoever, we would not all be dead because there are murderers in the world. So let's not have any laws. Doesn't sit right, does it? Well, that's because causality arguments don't work for situations which have many causes. The best you can hope for is the probability arguments. Which means you have to talk about what type of system would produce a more beneficial trend... how to nudge things in the right direction. Software was developed without patents. Sure. But to almost every mathematician to whom I speak about this argument, the programmers' position is just downright obnoxious. It amounts to saying that mathematicians' work must be given away freely (or for some nominal flat fee -- which is what grants are) so that programmers can make money off of it. A working patent system would eliminate need for (most) trade secrets. I agree that the system is broken. But I am pretty sure it is because business methods are patentable.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Don't forget that this also prevents large corporations with money to throw around from just wiping out a small start-up business by underpricing them, out-marketing them, and out branding them. The patent system exists to protect and encourage innovation, not to stifle it. This is why the system needs fixed, as it no longer performs this function. As it stands now, innovation is being stifled because it's difficult to innovate without stepping on someone else's obscure and overly vague patent.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
I haven't made up my mind on patents for hardware. If you go over my posts on patents over the past couple of years, while I've always opposed software patents, you can see I went from supporting them to opposing them to now when I don't what to think of them. There are good points as well as bad points to patents. The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, too wasn't sure about them. In the sense that they grant a government monopoly he opposed them however he also thought people would invent more if they could be sure they could benefit from a limited monopoly. Though I'm still thinking it through, I'm starting to lean towards a system where an inventor could get a patent for a few years, from the tyme they produce a product for the public but they have to release within a reasonable tyme period or they'll lose it, but in order to keep a monopoly afterwards they'd have to pay a premium on a sliding scale. Say the first year after the patent expires they may be required to pay 1% of sells as a royalty, then the fifth year, 10%, and 25% the 10th year. The longer they want to hold the patent the more they pay. Then the money generated can be used to hire enough expert patent examiners so they will have enough tyme to check for uniqueness and prior art.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ok, a number of people have been throwing the traditional slashdot arguments at me due to this comment. I said that I am tired. But it keeps bugging me. So I'll just try to be as clear as I can before I finally let it go. If people disagree, we'll all be worse off for it. But that's that.
Under the current ip regime there are certain winners and certain losers. There is a chain of source-to-market of innovation. Roughly it goes like this:
Someone works hard or happens to accidentally come across an innovative idea. They describe it in the most abstract terms (philosopher, pure mathematician, theoretical physicist, etc). Let's call this person A.
A explains their idea to a number of people who have some skills in using abstractly defined patterns to describing real-world objects (engineering researchers, historians, applied physicists, applied mathematicians, computer science researchers, biologists, etc.). Let's call these people B.
B describes their ideas to the people who are actually interested in manipulating real-world objects (engineers, government, reporters, artists, merchants, programmers, architects, doctors, lawyers, etc.). Let's call these people C.
Some of the C's can do their manipulation on their own, but some will need helpers because the tasks that are necessary to perform to achieve the manipulation are too strenuous or too time consuming or both. So they hire people with minimal skills and break up their task into smaller tasks that these people can perform (umm.. php programmers? jk). Let's call them D.
The reason this chain ever follows through is that the C's realize that they can improve the quality of what they do because of what B's have to say. Often enough B's say things which are of no use to C's. But currently they live off of a common pool of tips which C's throw their way in the hopes that the output of useful ideas continues.
Notice that teachers are not in this chain. Their function is to preserve existing knowledge in the society. And this is a chain of innovation. Actually, there are teachers in all 3 of B,C,D levels. They are the ones who train the next generation of aspiring members. Those who fail at the training generally end up one level lower, but I digress.
The historical confluence of events has put us at the point where the surplus of the benefits produced by the increased level of productivity is distributed as following:
B's desperately seek out A's and when they do find them the B's build castles in which the A's work undisturbed. Naturally that often leaves A's who are too far ahead undiscovered. But B's continued output depends on having occasional A's, so those able to become A's continue to have a chance to do so.
As I already said, B's live off the tips from C's. Often times they try to fool C's into thinking that what they have to say might be of potential use to C's down the line. They need the tips to survive, so they keep making often-unjustified promises to ensure that the pool of tips continues to exist.
And now we come to the player that makes it possible by doing the worst thing he can -- attempting to exploit both the B's and the D's... assuming he needs the D's for his task. The C has to keep B's well-enough-fed that they won't decide to wear the C hat as well as the B hat and refuse to share their information. The C's have to compete with each other for survival in their C position. They are the ones in control of what actually happens in the world. They have to constantly walk the fine line between being too slow to produce something and being outperformed by another C who got hold of more efficient information from some B. They draw from the pool of D's when they need them and the pool changes and adapts its basic skills to the needs of C's.
If you are still reading at this point, you have probably come up with a number of examples of people who fit two consecutive categories. They exist. They just happen to wear two hats. Sometimes they
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
This will be my final response.
Because of your idiocy this is my last response.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I believe it was in its first edition when I read it (in '93?), so it's been a while.
Yea, I read it when it first came out in '84. Back then I loved reading the magazine "Byte". My fav columns were Steve Ciarcia's "Circuit Cellar" who now has his own magazine "Circuit Cellar" and Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor".
I might not quite remember the details like the name of Tech Model Railroad Club.
Because of an injury my memory is weird, I recall some things easy while other things I can't recall. A few years ago this proved to be a difficulty I had when I was taking Java classes. I'd do alright in the first class but then I could only recall a little bit for the second class so I'd start behind. I reread the book last year though, from where I am now all I have to do to get it is stand up and grab it from my book shelf.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Don't forget that this also prevents large corporations with money to throw around from just wiping out a small start-up business by underpricing them, out-marketing them, and out branding them.
Like Microsoft has never done any of this? Fact is is large corporations can and do get away with it because they can afford an army of lawyers to drag patent infringement lawsuits until the plaintiff is broke. Or if they eventually lose what they end up paying is chump change.
The patent system exists to protect and encourage innovation, not to stifle it. This is why the system needs fixed, as it no longer performs this function. As it stands now, innovation is being stifled because it's difficult to innovate without stepping on someone else's obscure and overly vague patent.
And how do you fix it?
Actually I have an idea I got from another /.er. Maybe what could be done is to have the patent term last only a few years, from when a product is released on the market and to stop patent trolls they'd have to release a product within a reasonable tyme period. Say make the term 5 years, then if the patent holder wants to extend it another year they would then pay a 1% royalty on sales. After 5 years the royalty would be 10% and in 10 year it would be 25%. The money paid could then be used to hire enough expert patent examiners to make sure it isn't obvious or in the public domain, there's no prior art.
However this would only apply to hardware and not to software. Software already has protection, it's called copyright.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
I still believe there needs to be some form of patent protection for software, but certainly not for the code or methods themselves.
If software patents don't protect the code, which is what copyright should do, or the methods then what do they protect?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Then why don't you provide studies or other evidence saying software needs patents for software to be created?
FalconShould there be a Law?