IBM's Supreme Court Brief Says That Patents Drive Free Software

H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "For the Supreme Court's upcoming review of the Bilski decision, IBM has submitted an amicus brief claiming that software patents 'fueled the explosive growth of open source software development' (!) (p38 of linked PDF). EndSoftwarePatents, for its own amicus brief, is looking for help building a list of free software harmed by software patents, and a list of companies that distribute free software and are taxed by patent royalties."

Comments

Easy enough

[T Murphy]

Spore, Crysis and Bioshock are all free, but got all kinds of bad press because some illegitimately-sold non-free copies included patented DRM software. If this DRM had nothing to do with these games I'd bet they would be a lot more popular.

Re:Easy enough

[Entropius]

Pirate it.

Piracy is not theft.

If you want to say "a legal copy", then sure.

Re:Easy enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Now now, he could have shoplifted the copies. Don't take away too much credit from the grandparent.

Re:Easy enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this one of those "Whooosh!" things?

Re:Easy enough

[commodore64_love]

>>>Spore, Crysis and Bioshock are all free, but got all kinds of bad press because some illegitimately-sold non-free copies included patented DRM software.
>>>

This sentence confuses me. What are you talking about? Free? Non-free? DRM? Spore, Crysis, Bioshock? What do these things have to do with one another?

(crawls back under rock)

Re:Easy enough

[xouumalperxe]

But the shoplifted copy would have DRM.

Re:Easy enough

[T Murphy]

The games are pirated (free) and often hated here due to the DRM (assumed patented), so I was making a joke along those lines. I guess a mod that didn't get it found it before mods that do saw it (maybe it's not a good enough joke to mod up though). On-topic it is a commentary on how the patents and (related) DRM burden the very programs they are attached to, by some views, as opposed to the patented software only hurting free and non-patented software. I'll hold off on ranting how "I don't get it" doesn't make a comment offtopic.

Re:Easy enough

[poopdeville]

Maybe the GGGGP shoplifted it from a Chinese sidewalk DVD peddler, like they have in that China place.

Re:Easy enough

[Ash Vince]

Pirate it.

Piracy is not theft.

Bullshit. It is obtaining something that many people put many hours of work into without recompensing them for thier efforts. Even if it is not theft (which I believe it is) it is certainly freeloading and anti-social.

Or should everybody be forced into giving things away for free just because the cost of duplication is very low? Surely even with a nonexisitant cost of making an extra copy, someone has to pay for things, and if someone has to then why should you be an exception?

Or should everybody be forced into the software as a service model? In which case would people buy a copy of bioshock or whatever if it charged per hour of playtime.

Re:Easy enough

[lena_10326]

Read my sig. It's on-topic.

Re:Easy enough

[HungryHobo]

The point is that idiots always like to call it theft when it is a completely different offense.
Or when some kid steals from my store should I call it rape when talking about it.
If someone punches me should I refer to him as a murderer.

People who accept free copies of copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder are freeloaders not thieves.
People who steal from a shop, depriving the owner of their goods are thieves, not rapists.
People who distribute copies of copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder are infringing copyright law, they are not war criminals.

Anything else is just trying to distort the issue.
Call them what they are- freeloaders.
As they are not thieves.

Re:Easy enough

[commodore64_love]

Oh okay. Well now that I understand what you were trying to say, I can respond:

>>>Spore, Crysis and Bioshock are all free, but got all kinds of bad press because some illegitimately-sold non-free copies included patented DRM software.
>>>

Spore, Crysis and Bioshock were not illegitimately sold. The Supreme Law of the land grants to them a temporary right to develop, copy, and sell these products for profit. While you may not like the copy-protection, it is their right to protect their Constitutionally-granted exclusivity.

Put's the lie to their open source claims

[bitemykarma]

software patents 'fueled the explosive growth of open source software development

I guess we know which side IBM is on. Too bad.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Verdatum]

Big Blue has been a profit driven beast for over 50 years. They used to scold employees for not using garters to hold up their socks. I can't imagine any universe where IBM was on any other side.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[sconeu]

IBM is on IBM's side.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Razalhague]

Like all corporations.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[spazdor]

HP is not on IBM's side. This I promise you.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[HanzoSpam]

Anyone that hasn't figured out that IBM is just plain evil by this time probably never will. This is not a company you want to turn your back on.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

Anyone that hasn't figured out that IBM is just plain evil by this time probably never will. This is not a company you want to turn your back on.

Would you stop fucking using the word "evil" already? There's nothing of substance in such claims. No corporation is "evil", and "evil" is just a matter of what side you're on. What IBM just did is called trolling, and there is nothing "evil" about maximizing profit. There is no corporation on earth which wouldn't do the same thing, given the opportunity and given that it would actually be considered as truth, hence generate revenue. Also never turn your back on any corporation, no matter how many patents they have or charities they've handed out, for their end purpose is always one thing: generating maximum profit.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[I3Tacos]

I guess we know which side IBM is on. Too bad.

Anyone who has heard anything about IBM in the last 80 years has known what apparently you didn't know until today.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you stop fucking using the word "evil" already? There's nothing of substance in such claims. No corporation is "evil", and "evil" is just a matter of what side you're on.

So what, then, would you call an entity that is in general designed to remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible? Consider that the most effective corporation would limit the redistribution of wealth on both sides by having as low as possible costs (e.g. labour) and beneficiaries (e.g. owners, shareholders).

And yes - it is a matter of what side you're on. Taking a binary view, if you sit on the side that believes that wealth should be increasingly concentrated then you'd be correct in arguing that no corporation is evil. However, if you believe that wealth should be redistributed to an increasing number of people it would indeed hold that corporations are 'evil', since they'd be harmful to the 'greater good' by design.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[I3Tacos]

So what, then, would you call an entity that is in general designed to remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible?

A Linux corporate sponsor?

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a mod +1 tin foil hat ...

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Requiem18th]

I think most ethicists, behavioral psychologists and anthropologists would agree that evil means antisocial behavior.

Profit maximization at the expense of international civil rights and freedoms can easily be identified as evil.

Just for contrast, I don't anybody can honestly call the FSF or the EFF evil regardless of their position. Loonies? Innocent losers without a grasp of reality? I'm sure their enemies have many ways to rationalize it, but evil, nah. Corporations know evil intimately.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[omnix]

So what, then, would you call an entity that is in general designed to remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible?

The correct term is corporatism or fascism, which seems to be the direction of the Republican party. This is the fundamental argument against unregulated capitalism which has become prevalent in the US over the past 100 years.

Not that I believe the Democrats are any better, since they ultimately are a corporatist organization as well. The Dems just lack the organization...

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[mwvdlee]

Satan is a pretty nice guy if you happen to be a demon. For anybody else though, satan is evil.
And by similar reasoning, so is IBM.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

RedHat is a corporation. Do you put them in the same class as every corporation?

IMHO, IBM is not as bad as many people think. Many of their patents are in areas like Semiconductors where they spend lots of money on pure research. This is totally different class of business to Open source software.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Garridan]

So what, then, would you call an entity that is in general designed to remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible?

I dunno, maybe "open for business?" Those that are designed to remove wealth from as few hands as possible and put it into as many hands as possible usually don't make it very far.

How do you expect a company to work? People open a business for 2 reasons: (a) because they want to do something they enjoy, and (b) they want to make money. Type (a) generally stays pretty small and they quietly succeed or fail and nobody cares. Type (b) gets large, accumulates lots of customers, and pulls in a lot of profit -- and the people at the top make the most -- and the person (or people) at the very top want to give as little possible money to the people below them, because that's less in their pockets. Or in your terms, "remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible".

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[WaywardGeek]

Also, IBM has been a good friend to the open source community now for many years, just like Sun. They may have valid corporate-profit driven motives, but heck, who cares? They've been great for a lot of projects. They contribute their patents to the pool to defend open-source, rather than trying to kill Linux, like Microsoft.

Anyway, IBM is right. Software patents have been huge for open source. Open source projects only come about when the authors can't make any money selling the things. Software patents have made it far harder to actually sell a viable software product, resulting a huge boom on open source.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM is on IBM's side.

IBM used to use a form of contention management in the engineering so this is very much true, ironically.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

Satan is a pretty nice guy if you happen to be a demon. For anybody else though, satan is evil. And by similar reasoning, so is IBM.

Except Satan doesn't exist and dualism is fiction based on nonsensical stories believed by feeble minds. In reality people are simply organisms looking for personal gain, and not only in monetary means. We are egoistic by nature, though we often keep a straight face, and when we think we aren't -- we still are. Those we treat well we do simply because we expect them to treat us well in return. When the latter changes -- so does the former. These are your basic human functions and if they fail, you will eventually find yourself in trouble.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[jedidiah]

> and there is nothing "evil" about maximizing profit.

This sort of nonsense is EXACTLY why the modern corporation is evil.

We have this culture of robber baron hero worship where corporations
are expected to "screw everyone else" for the short term benefit of
stockholders.

Corporations are already problematic enough. They are mobs of people
with all moral awareness and accountability removed. Short of something
in the corporate charter, any corporation will be as evil as it can get
away with in this climate because that is how rewards and punishments are
structured.

Some corporations just have a more enlightened view of self-interest.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

I think most ethicists, behavioral psychologists and anthropologists would agree that evil means antisocial behavior.

Profit maximization at the expense of international civil rights and freedoms can easily be identified as evil.

Just for contrast, I don't anybody can honestly call the FSF or the EFF evil regardless of their position. Loonies? Innocent losers without a grasp of reality? I'm sure their enemies have many ways to rationalize it, but evil, nah. Corporations know evil intimately.

You couldn't be more wrong. No professional psychologist would ever use the word "evil" in a serious sense. It is a word, along with the nonsensical concept of dualism, which has cognitively been fed to you. Your "contrast" is absolutely worthless since neither FSF nor any corporation can be categorised as such. It is truly egocentric and foolish to think that people or organizations are "evil". Those that could fit closes (still very far) to this description would be e.g. sociopaths, and even they suffer from medical conditions leading to decisions which they cannot always be held accountable for. This is what a psychologist would say, what you're talking about is a 2 cent preacher, and I don't tend to listen to those.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

I wish there was a mod +1 tin foil hat ...

I wish you would have posted something of substance.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[HanzoSpam]

I understand that their goal is to maximize profit. That's the object of a corporation.

Hey, I'm as free-market as they get, but if you look at IBM's business practices, they aren't operating on free-market principals, they're practicing crony-capitalism, which isn't the same thing. Google their habit of accepting government subsidies to retain jobs, and then off-shoring those jobs anyway. You might be interested in knowing they've formed an entire division to capture stimulus (taxpayer) dollars, but the chances those dollars will actually be pumped back into US economy are slim to none. Basically, they're trying to play both ends against the middle. Yes, they are evil, and treacherous bastards as well. I didn't make that comment based on this incident alone. This is just another, and rather minor, example of their duplicity.

 

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[mwvdlee]

Tell me this; what is the difference in meaning between the words "evil" and "good"? Humans use these words for a reason, perhaps it's just our perception instead of reality, nonetheless within the domain of human interaction there IS a distinction or humans would not use these words as antonyms. Regardless of what the true intentions behind certain behaviour is, we humans DO make distinction between different kinds of behaviour. Why would making such a distinction be incorrect if it is made within the domain of human interaction?

Should we judge IBM by biological/evolutionary standards or by the standards of our society? If by the latter then, yes, I think calling IBM "evil" in the context of TFA is not beyond reason.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

"So what, then, would you call an entity that is in general designed to remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible?"

A government.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Spewns]

Well done on exemplifying the disaster that is capitalism.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

I understand that their goal is to maximize profit. That's the object of a corporation.

Hey, I'm as free-market as they get, but if you look at IBM's business practices, they aren't operating on free-market principals, they're practicing crony-capitalism, which isn't the same thing. Google their habit of accepting government subsidies to retain jobs, and then off-shoring those jobs anyway. You might be interested in knowing they've formed an entire division to capture stimulus (taxpayer) dollars, but the chances those dollars will actually be pumped back into US economy are slim to none. Basically, they're trying to play both ends against the middle. Yes, they are evil, and treacherous bastards as well. I didn't make that comment based on this incident alone. This is just another, and rather minor, example of their duplicity.

Except I never said I was for a free market, actually I never mentioned anything about free market. I'm simply explaining the difference between fiction and reality. Calling something "evil" is lazy and not more useful than pointing fingers. Look you have to realise that your morals are worthless in a global scale. There is no human on earth whom completely shares your morals, and the further you move from your environment and culture the less similarities you'll find. You truly lower yourself when using such expressions, since ultimately the word "evil", just as the word "morals" are individually defined. So you see your "evil" does not equal the next guys "evil", thus there is no solid definition. What is the point of calling someone "evil" when it can virtually mean anything that you don't agree with? How is a listener or a reader supposed to receive this information when it is all filtered through your morals? No my friend, children use words such as "evil", for they don't yet understand the chain of events, but adults should. We all fight for ourselves, and there is nothing strange about an organism doing this. By denying this you deny your very own existance and the chain of events which brought you here, from single cell organism to the child of your parents. Don't be naive, and don't try to paint the world black and white with this nonsensical dualism. There is so much more behind every action than just "good" or "evil", and to simplify them in that sense is merely a method of compressing and processing data into your mind, done only by the lazy. Lossless data is always preferred, for the decisions you make based on this will always have a better outcome than the former.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Requiem18th]

Are you saying that a psychologist would not use the word "evil" himself or that he would deny that people use the word "evil"? Because that's what you are implying.

Of course corporations cannot be objectively a sociopath, what I say is that there is a common sense approach to interpret the statement "Corporation X is evil". But then against I understand why you can't understand this, you lack common sense.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Dishevel]

If you want more money EARN IT. Don't go crying about how other people are making more money than you. It just makes you look like a lazy fucking bum.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

...So, you're telling me you've never maximized your profits? You've never asked your employer for more money, or bought cheaper goods?

Listen. Everyone is engaged in trying to improve their outcomes, whether it be towards money ends, or social ends, or leisurly ends. The point at which it's bad is when those ends involve means which are focused on stealing from or subjugating other humans. In this case, IBM is advocating more patents. Patents are a very big excuse used in the subjugation of smaller companies, and theft of private property. Thus, IBM is advocating more violence against innovative companies. This is wrong. Not because of the corporation following it's profit-maximization motive, but because the corporation wants to use violence to achieve their ends.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

... and dualism is fiction based on nonsensical stories believed by feeble minds. In reality people are simply organisms looking for personal gain, and not only in monetary means. We are egoistic by nature, though we often keep a straight face, and when we think we aren't -- we still are.

I could just as well say that psychological egoism (what you are preaching) is fiction based on nonsense believed by feeble minds. There's plenty of criticism to throw at psychological egoism and examples of people acting in a way that isn't explained by that theory. For instance, taking a bullet for someone when it will obviously kill you.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[profplump]

But you can't use patented methods even in free (in either sense) software either, so I don't see how making it hard to make for-profit software has anything to do creating more not-for-profit software.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[zetazentra]

We all fight for ourselves, and there is nothing strange about an organism doing this. By denying this you deny your very own existance [sic] and the chain of events which brought you here, from single cell organism to the child of your parents. Don't be naive, and don't try to paint the world black and white with this nonsensical dualism.

Don't try to paint the world black and white with this nonsensical psychological egoism. It's a theory open to argument, and has seen criticism from multiple fronts for hundreds of years.

Also, there's no need to call your opponents lazy or naive--that's just rude.

I'm simply explaining the difference between fiction and reality.

This is a joke, right? Someone who hates dualism just said that?

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

Tell me this; what is the difference in meaning between the words "evil" and "good"? Humans use these words for a reason, perhaps it's just our perception instead of reality, nonetheless within the domain of human interaction there IS a distinction or humans would not use these words as antonyms. Regardless of what the true intentions behind certain behaviour is, we humans DO make distinction between different kinds of behaviour. Why would making such a distinction be incorrect if it is made within the domain of human interaction?

Should we judge IBM by biological/evolutionary standards or by the standards of our society? If by the latter then, yes, I think calling IBM "evil" in the context of TFA is not beyond reason.

I'll be patient with you. The difference between good and evil are only found and explained in dualism, a concept which does not reflect reality. The reason why humans use these words are to relate to events in low detail. Humans have always categorised their environments in order to process them. Humans also use the words God and Satan (or other words representing the same essence), which are mere personifications of these two forces. God which was the first of two has not always represented the good, as you probably know, but rather the creator -- nor good nor evil, but simply the creator. Sometime closely prior to 300 BCE there has been findings of the word s'tn. This would later translate to Satan, which litteraly means "to oppose." Around this era the concept of duality was born, the theory that the creator was no longer responsible for all events, but instead only for those considered positive and rewarding. Naturally such silly simple logic lead to the creation of the opposite, the one responsible for everything considered negative and troublesome. Not what one would call a well developed theory, if you may. So you see humans do a lot of thing, and have done throughout the ages, and will do for ages to come, which lack substance. Your argument "Humans use these words for a reason" is true, Humans do everthing for a reason, though we sometimes cannot understand our own complexity, but it is not true that the reason is because the concept is true. You see by that logic anything that was ever said in the news, any gossip that passed, any lie that was ever told -- would also be true. Humans do it, but that doesn't make it the truth.

You are correct in that we do make distinction between different kinds of behaviour, and I would never claim otherwise, however you fail to show why this proves the concept of duality being true. We make these distinctions in order to relate to others, and we make our judgements based on our empirical data. But only the egocentric consideres his empirical data to be de facto. You can judge IBM for what it is, but calling it evil will get you nowhere, but if it makes you process the information easier then so be it. But remember that less you simplify your empirical data -- the more likely you are to reach your desired outcome.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want more money EARN IT. Don't go crying about how other people are making more money than you. It just makes you look like a lazy fucking bum.

Again:

If you sit on the side that believes that wealth should be increasingly concentrated

Do you see the problem there? If wealth continues to concentrate (we're now very similar to just prior to the great depression in terms of income inequality) it won't make much difference whether you are a lazy bum or the hardest of workers, you won't have access to it.

You're under the mistaken impression that you are somehow entitled to be a 'have' with just a little effort. While that may have been mostly true over the last 50 or so years, there's no guarantees that it will continue. And with corporatism and individualism in overdrive of late it looks extremely unlikely that it will last very long at all.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

Don't try to paint the world black and white with this nonsensical psychological egoism. It's a theory open to argument, and has seen criticism from multiple fronts for hundreds of years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is what I was doing.

Also, there's no need to call your opponents lazy or naive--that's just rude.

I'm sorry if you were offended, my intentions were most certainly not to be rude, but I don't think censoring arguments will lead to wisdom. However I stand by my arguments and I do believe that people can be naive and lazy, and I most certainly don't exclude myself from this rule.

This is a joke, right? Someone who hates dualism just said that?

Please, try to understand me. I don't "hate" dualism. Don't simplify it to that extent. I'm saying that dualism relies on the individual, and since individuals are vastly different so will the concept be. Thus the concept itself lack substance. Does this not make sense to you?

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Verdatum]

I want to make a specifically evil corporation now, just to prove you wrong. I'd put it in my mission statement on the incorporation papers and everything. What's a $200 fee, when it means I can put "Founded and lead a ministry for the promulgation of evil" on my resume? I bet I could get people to buy stock just so they could stay they have stock in evil!

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

Are you saying that a psychologist would not use the word "evil" himself or that he would deny that people use the word "evil"? Because that's what you are implying.

Hmm -- that's odd. I seem to recall me implying that no professional psychologist would ever use the word "evil" in a serious sense. This isn't the Bible and my sentences aren't meant to be open for interpretation. I write what I write and that is what I mean. I can't be held accountable for what you think I'm implying.

Of course corporations cannot be objectively a sociopath, what I say is that there is a common sense approach to interpret the statement "Corporation X is evil". But then against I understand why you can't understand this, you lack common sense.

I don't consider using terms such as "evil" nor "good" as common sense. But please, feel free to explain to me why you do. And before you do, please don't say "because everybody else does it." This I'm asking as a favor.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[phoenixwade]

For someone who thinks of themselves very intelligent and well educated, you seem to have missed a very basic point.

That is:
Language exists to express concepts the use of the term "evil" expresses a concept that is well understood by the listener. The choice of using that word was perfect, in that it expressed a concept the writer was trying to convey in a single sentence.

In contrast, You've managed to write quite a bit more, and with all that, you still not have not expressed your point very well. I wonder if it would serve any purpose to point out that a fanatical belief in any Philosophy, including one that is Anti-Philosophy, like yours is still a fanatical belief, and blinds the fanatic the exact same way as any other system.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[mokus000]

Actually, I'd say he described (not exemplified) the disaster that is humanity.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish you would have posted something of substance.

Says the guy who posted just to say that...

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Requiem18th]

Now you are asking me to explain a cultural phenomenon in isolation of its source culture? Are you even trying to make sense?

Let me guess, you refuse to change a broken light bulb because there is no formal rule set to disambiguate which one is broken whether the bulb or the light?

There I go again feeding the trolls.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

software patents 'fueled the explosive growth of open source software development

I guess we know which side IBM is on. Too bad.

Faces on stun.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

... and dualism is fiction based on nonsensical stories believed by feeble minds. In reality people are simply organisms looking for personal gain, and not only in monetary means. We are egoistic by nature, though we often keep a straight face, and when we think we aren't -- we still are.

I could just as well say that psychological egoism (what you are preaching) is fiction based on nonsense believed by feeble minds. There's plenty of criticism to throw at psychological egoism and examples of people acting in a way that isn't explained by that theory. For instance, taking a bullet for someone when it will obviously kill you.

You make an excellent point! Though I already posted an answer to your question, but I will quote it:

Those we treat well we do simply because we expect them to treat us well in return. When the latter changes -- so does the former. These are your basic human functions and if they fail, you will eventually find yourself in trouble.

I would categorise being dead as "being in trouble", at least the dying part up until the moment of death. Your argument would hold water if humans always rationalize their choices, but we don't.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

Now you are asking me to explain a cultural phenomenon in isolation of its source culture? Are you even trying to make sense?

I'm sorry but there is no point in me writing when you interpret my texts so freely. I never asked you to explain a cultural phenomenon in isolation of its source culture. I asked you why you consider the concept of good and evil as common sense, and I was looking for an answer which you don't seem to have. You can't say that it's such an obvious element of common sense, and then not being able to explain why. If you cannot explain why then it is not proven to be an element of common sense. Impossible or not, you put yourself in that corner, and it is not wrong of me to demand an explanation before accepting your claim. This is my last post to you as I'm getting nothing out of this.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[emilper]

you're mixing terms: fascist "corporatism" was very regulated capitalism: Mussolini fantasized about planned economy before long before Stalin ... "corporation" in US means something very different from "corporation" in 1930's Europe. Mussolini's "corporatism" was "planned economy with privately owned companies" ... quite different from "unregulated capitalism".

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[emilper]

How many times did IBM use software patents against a small company ? ... I have no idea, that's why I'm asking ...

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[WaywardGeek]

Not entirely true... First, IBM and several other companies have contributed their patents to a "patent commons", which can be used to defend open-source projects, in much the same way companies cross-sue each other over patents. This gives little FOSS guys a big portfolio for defending himself. Second, IBM and many other FOSS friendly companies have pledged not to sue FOSS developers or projects. Finally, patent violation lawsuits generally are filed against two kinds of entities: companies with money, like Microsoft, or small companies that are taking sales away from a big company (which few FOSS projects do).

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[DMUTPeregrine]

Amorality and sociopathic behavior IS evil. The ends (maximizing profit) do not justify the means (evil).

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[tacarat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation

From IBM's perspective, software patents are good if used right. From a big (blue) brother perspective, if I patent something and then share with it with people who share their work with me, life is good. If another company does the same thing, but uses the patent offensively, my contributing network of OSS coders is negatively impacted. More importantly, IBM could be forced to withdraw their own products due to somebody else getting the patent first. Don't forget relatively recent adventures with MS and FAT32 or any number of patent trolls sitting in their submarines.

It's easy to make this into a patent/no-patent argument, but that's a big change on how things are done now. IBM's acting on the idea that things are how they are and have to be dealt with as such for the time being. Granted, they do have a lot to lose if the patent system on such things change, so it's not done only in the interest of the OSS community (even if parts of the community disagree with how IBM's "protecting" them).

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Shark]

"What kind of a society isn't structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm."
-- Milton Friedman

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[hairyfeet]

Sorry to Godwin the thread, but yes, IBM is evil and should have been shut down decades ago and their war profiteering given to the survivors of their evil deeds. Frankly after they continued to do business with the Germans after Dec 1941 they should have been convicted for treason and the leaders shot or at the very least enjoyed long prison sentences.

But if there is ANY corporation in the world that deserves the tag evil then IBM would be it. You would be hard pressed to get more evil than genocide.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

In contrast, You've managed to write quite a bit more, and with all that, you still not have not expressed your point very well. I wonder if it would serve any purpose to point out that a fanatical belief in any Philosophy, including one that is Anti-Philosophy, like yours is still a fanatical belief, and blinds the fanatic the exact same way as any other system.

Well I can counter claiming that failing to understand me lies in the eye of the beholder, you not understanding doesn't mean I am to blame, but of course it doesn't mean I'm not. We can throw stones all day or we can just leave it at that. You can agree or disagree, it isn't really my concern. Prove me wrong and I'll win the argument, for the one whom convinces the other leaves the argumentation no wiser, only the other does. Unfortunately I feel that I have learned nothing.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[noundi]

Sorry to Godwin the thread, but yes, IBM is evil and should have been shut down decades ago and their war profiteering given to the survivors of their evil deeds. Frankly after they continued to do business with the Germans after Dec 1941 they should have been convicted for treason and the leaders shot or at the very least enjoyed long prison sentences.

But if there is ANY corporation in the world that deserves the tag evil then IBM would be it. You would be hard pressed to get more evil than genocide.

Ah yes the nazi speach, Americans never killed any native Americans, nor any black people, and the English never killed any Aboriginies or Indians, and the Spanish never killed any jews and the Portugese never killed any muslims. How long until history is rendered irrelevant? Is there a single employee left in IBM whom has been working there since 1941? Do you think anybody in IBM relates to these people from the early 40's? Do you relate to the murders of native Americans? Given that you are a US citizen that is. It is very easy to point fingers, isn't it? Before speaking about nazis, please do some research. I'm most certainly not promoting national socialism, but I am demoting your school for teaching you this nonsense about "axis of evil". Do you think they are satanic nazi blood drinking child molesting animal rapists? Or are they humans made from the same elements as you, with families and hopes and problems, much like yours? Think about it.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[smoker2]

So it's only a word but don't use it ?
Get a grip. Your whole justification speech winds up saying corporations are evil. Have you never seen the devil in a movie ? He spends most of the first hour showing people how to do shitty things and get away with it. Maybe you fell asleep but THAT NEVER WORKS OUT !

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[smoker2]

I can't prove gravity ergo it doesn't exist, knobhead.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[smoker2]

??

So even though you just lost that argument, the mere fact you lost means you win ? Get a life. Big words and pidgin grammar don't prove anything. You seem to belong the the same school who believe words only mean what you want them to mean when you accidentally misspell them instead of something else. "Language changes" you cry, but just coz you say it, doesn't make it so. You should work for an advertising agency.

BTW, this has got to be my new sig :

Prove me wrong and I'll win the argument, for the one whom convinces the other leaves the argumentation no wiser, only the other does. Unfortunately I feel that I have learned nothing.

ROLF

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[zetazentra]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is what I was doing.

I don't think what I meant came across:

You accuse people of the over-simplified viewpoint "good vs. evil" (of course, I agree that this is over-simplified), and you also just accused me of over-simplifying by using the word "hate." Yet you yourself resort to what is just as arguably an over-simplification: psychological egoism (the belief that humans are only motivated by self-interest). You present it as "reality," resorting to it in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1357269&cid=29304575 ("We all fight for ourselves, and there is nothing strange about an organism doing this. By denying this you deny your very own existance and the chain of events which brought you here, from single cell organism to the child of your parents.") and in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1357269&cid=29303997 ("In reality people are simply organisms looking for personal gain, and not only in monetary means. We are egoistic by nature, though we often keep a straight face, and when we think we aren't -- we still are."), and possibly others.

Claiming that ego is the only explanation for the full array of human behavior is just as hackneyed and over-simple (and naive and lazy?) as calling a corporation "evil," if you ask me. I hope you get what I'm saying.

I'm saying that dualism relies on the individual, and since individuals are vastly different so will the concept be. Thus the concept itself lack substance. Does this not make sense to you?

No problem there.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[smoker2]

BTW, ROLF is the state of ROFL when you upchuck and catch it before it leaves your person.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[smoker2]

fumble
straw man
?
???

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[smoker2]

Hear, hear.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[hairyfeet]

They were doing business with an empire we were at war with (The Axis) so I honestly don't see how you could call that anything BUT treason. I mean if I set up a corporation that sold tech to Al Qaida that allowed them to make more efficient IEDs to kill our servicemen you would stand here and argue my company is just "Or are they humans made from the same elements as you, with families and hopes and problems, much like yours? Think about it."?

Here are the facts. FACT- The IBM corporation not only did business with the Nazi regime before WW2, but they CONTINUED to do business with them after they declared war on us. That is treason. FACT- Because IBM tabulators were leased and not sold IBM employees HAD to go into the camps where their machines were being used. if you read the book I linked to you would see what was going on was known by the highest levels of the company and they did NOTHING but continue to profit. FACT- they redesigned their cards and had meeting with Nazi officials to customize the cards for the Nazi regime, helping them to murder millions by making it easy to process the census data based on racial criteria so they could hunt down and kill innocent families. This level of evil would have been considerably harder had IBM not helped by designing cards for THIS VERY TASK.

At the least the company should have been forced to pay out their illegal gains from 1941-45 PLUS interest to the survivors of the murdered. I would argue that by collaborating with the enemy the company should have been disbanded and their assets sold, and all those at the highest levels that continued to help the Nazi regime after Dec 1941 should have been tried on war crimes. Finally my paternal grandfather was Comanche and my great grandmother was Creek, so yes what was done to my ancestors was wrong. But we are NOT talking about Manifest Destiny or other things which were labeled atrocities years after they happened. We are talking about a company that collaborated with an empire that had declared war upon us, and who killed millions.

If you continue to collaborate with an enemy nation after they have declared war upon us you are a traitor, there is no other word for it. As hard as it is to believe in this era of bribery and corruption there are things that matter more than the almighty dollar. Giving aid to an enemy nation in a time of war is simply inexcusable, and the company should have been disbanded long ago. Or do you actually have an excuse for collaboration, other than it was "good for business"?

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[jedidiah]

Your attempt to conflate the expectation of moral action with communism is duly noted.

I merely bluntly stated the nature of the corporation and the
environment it is expected to function under. Making excuses
for IBM, P&G, Motorola, Monsanto, Microsoft or any of the rest
only serves to enable their worst behaviors.

Sugarcoating evil only serves to encourage it.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

RON PAUL!

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[voidphoenix]

Read "The Road Less Traveled" and "People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck, M.D. for a professional psychologist's definition of "evil", in a serious sense. He also discusses how organizations can be "evil".

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[HanzoSpam]

Except I never said I was for a free market, actually I never mentioned anything about free market. I'm simply explaining the difference between fiction and reality. Calling something "evil" is lazy and not more useful than pointing fingers.

Excuse me, I mistook you for someone who was contesting my point. If I'd realized I was getting into a pissing match over semantics with a sophomoric twit with aspirations of being the next Nietzsche, I wouldn't have bothered responding.

Please disregard!

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Dare nMc]

There is a big difference between protection for opensource developers and products that happen to be opensource. So I am not sure most of your post made any clear dispute with the GP, since I think their point was it is safer to release the source, than to release the application.
  What we learned from deCSS, and other projects, is that you may be safe releasing source code of a project that violates patents/DMCA. Even when you can't release the binarys and expect the same protection. Although it is not clear (to me) if those patent protection promises extend to applications themselves, let alone to what point these patents would be shared in issues like TIVO where everything isn't opensourced. (IE could they release the source under LGPL for only patent risky stuff, and not the rest of the code, then expect IBM's patents to come to their defense?)

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[hardwarefreak]

IBM is on IBM's side.

And thank $deity IBM finds Linux useful in making them money. IBM's contributions to Linux have been phenomenal, not just people, and code but dollars as well. I don't know what figure, but I'd guess IBM's $$ contribution to OSDL et al is sizable.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[hardwarefreak]

Anyone that hasn't figured out that IBM is just plain evil by this time probably never will. This is not a company you want to turn your back on.

IBM is not 'evil'. IBM is focused, driven, well managed, and profitable. Microsoft is 'evil'. IBM doesn't get in bed with a startup, then steal its ideas, incorporating them into Windows, then putting said startup out of business. IBM is one of the most ethical, if not THE most ethical large technology company on the planet, not to mention the oldest.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[metaforest]

I write what I write and that is what I mean. I can't be held accountable for what you think I'm implying.

"The meaning of the communication is the result you get."

That makes YOU the WRITER responsible for the impression you give the READER. Get with the fuxing program.

IT is truly arrogant to believe you are such a great communicator that nothing you write might be misunderstood.

You and many other fools assume that your ability to string words together in a coherent manner is flawless. This is not true.... and you need to come to terms with it.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[metaforest]

Ah but Evil spelled backwards is Live.... and we all want to Live don't we?

There is no Santa Clause, NO Tooth Fairy and NO MORE Mr. Mikey!!!!

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[m.ducharme]

None of that would be necessary if software patents were abolished.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[m.ducharme]

I guess America's corporatism would be "planned economy with privately owned governments."

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[m.ducharme]

That's hilarious that he said that, because his theories put into practice have done a great deal of unnecessary harm, in South America, Thatcher's Britain, and Reagan's America.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[shiftless]

Great, let's ban corporations then. I'm sure America will triple in wealth within a year.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[shiftless]

Actually, I'd say he described the reason why America is the richest and most prosperous country in the world.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[shiftless]

IT is truly arrogant to believe you are such a great communicator that nothing you write might be misunderstood.

Idiotic vitriol aside, what he wrote WAS pretty damn unambigious. There isn't really any way he could have worded it more clearly.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[shiftless]

Perhaps if you were actually capable of reading and processing what the GP was saying, instead of just making wild assumptions and ridiculing him, you would see that he did in fact win the argument--by forfeiture, since nobody else even bothered to show.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right about:

The correct term is corporatism or fascism,

It is the direction of BOTH parties. Here in the US we have a fascist government.

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[emilper]

+ 1 funny, -1 accurate

Friend or foe

[shutdown -p now]

So, is IBM still a "friend of Open Source" today - a sentiment that was very much popular on /. in the wake of SCO lawsuit? Or not anymore?

Re:Friend or foe

[Jawn98685]

So, is IBM still a "friend of Open Source" today - a sentiment that was very much popular on /. in the wake of SCO lawsuit? Or not anymore?

Depends. How is IBM's relationship with Microsoft this week? Enemy of my enemy, and all that.

Re:Friend or foe

[mwvdlee]

"friend of Open Source"

I'd rather use the term "parasite of Open Source"; they take what makes them profit and give back in return only what makes them more profit. As a bonus, they will destroy whatever makes them even more profit, even if it means destroying it's host. Sounds like a parasite to me.

proper use of the word "patent"

[presidenteloco]

The following phrases are among the few common uses of the word "patent"
as an adjective:

"That is patent nonsense."

"That is a patent lie."

Re:proper use of the word "patent"

[Anonymous Coward]

"I use the reflections off girls' patent leather shoes to look up their skirts."

Re:proper use of the word "patent"

[commodore64_love]

"This is patent leather."
"These are patent shoes."
"This is a polyester leisure suit."

"This is a disco where I score patent chicks."

Re:proper use of the word "patent"

[TeknoHog]

My patents say I have fat fingers.

Re:proper use of the word "patent"

[smoker2]

Which were both taken from the word - Patent, meaning, err, definitive.
When would you open source the mechanism you used to create the first anti-gravity device ?
immediately - or hold onto it as long as possible ?

Re:proper use of the word "patent"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometime when we go camping we have to pay tent fees *ducks*

WTF IBM

[Microlith]

Good to see that IBM has no clue what they're talking about. Patents most certainly have not fueled the explosive growth of open source software, the open nature of the licenses and community have. But go ahead and misrepresent the open source community IBM, for your own sake.

Patents sit as an ever present threat that threatens to push development outside of software patent permitting countries, and makes software that is known to violate them into seriously gray territory. I also don't see how a patent, something with the sole purpose of denying use of the described mechanism to others, could possibly aid open source.

Re:WTF IBM

[wizardforce]

IBM has a lot to gain from making the claim- that doesn't mean that they're stupid so much as acting in their own interests. They have roughly 10,000 patents in their nuclear arsenal to defend after all.

Re:WTF IBM

[Sloppy]

Patents most certainly have not fueled the explosive growth of open source software

Would libpng have been written, if not for the LZW patent? How about all of xiph's codecs? We wouldn't have Vorbis if it weren't for the MP3 patents.

All that's really left to debate is whether this project, that project, etc all add up to something that counts as "explosive growth." And at that point, it's just not an interesting question.

Saying patents fuel software development (both free and proprietary, since both types are actually harmed by patents) may be a distortion, because it (misleadingly) implies that the patents help the overall situation, but on its face, the statement is literally true. Patents force people to work around patents. It's economically inefficient (just as hurricanes fuel the construction industry) and therefore probably not desirable, but it really does happen.

Re:WTF IBM

[Microlith]

There could be aspects of the Vorbis codec that are patented, but no one knows as no one (for good reason) is looking. VP3 was written well before it became Theora, and unfortunately is in the bad position of being inefficient.

But let's consider what we don't have because of patents? How about wavelet compression, and the adoption of JPEG2000? Completely ground to a halt as one company holds a slew of patents over it.

Yes, patents force people to work around them. They're stuck reinventing the wheel, poorly, and remain at risk of patent suits. The problem with software patents is they're either so stupidly simple that everyone runs over them (and strive to remain ignorant of having done so, to lessen any possible damages) or are so vague that they cover huge swaths, denying entire fields and crippling compatibility.

Re:WTF IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting as AC in order not to undo my positive moderation) This is one of those posts that make Slashdot worthwhile to read. Thank you, sir.

Re:WTF IBM

[camperdave]

Patents force people to work around patents.

So a patent produces explosive growth in open source by encouraging the development of alternatives to what the patent covers? Nice. I think I'll use that line as a sig.

Re:WTF IBM

[flibuste]

Thanks for understanding the FA. Apparently many people here only read the misleading title...But I am not surprise.

Re:WTF IBM

[drinkypoo]

Well, your current sig has some of the same spirit... necessity is the mother!

Re:WTF IBM

[SanityInAnarchy]

We wouldn't have Vorbis if it weren't for the MP3 patents.

No, but we'd have AAC, which is arguably just as good, maybe even better.

And from what everyone is saying, Theora is far inferior to h.264. If patents weren't an issue, we'd all just declare mp4/m4v with h.264 and AAC as the new standard for the video tag, and there'd actually be cross-browser support.

At the moment, because of real patents, Opera and Firefox won't support h.264 (and thus, youtube.com/html5), and because of imagined patents, Safari won't support vorbis. Thus, it's not just open source projects, but open standards, which are neutered by software patents.

You may have a point with libpng, but then again, gif wasn't that bad. Indeed, gif supports things png doesn't -- animations, for one (there are two competing implementations, one of which has growing browser support (but nowhere near png), and one of which has practically no browser support.) I do prefer png, even with the gif patent expired, but at the end of the day, how big of an improvement was it?

Patents force people to work around patents. It's economically inefficient (just as hurricanes fuel the construction industry) and therefore probably not desirable, but it really does happen.

In other words, it's a broken window model.

Re:WTF IBM

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Thanks for understanding the FA. Apparently many people here only read the misleading title...But I am not surprise.

What other point do you think IBM has, except to mislead, by making that claim? This isn't a case of people not understanding the FA, its a case of them reacting to deliberately misleading wording that the FA is reporting on.

Re:WTF IBM

[T.E.D.]

They wouldn't need to be written if not for those software patents. Instead, those developers would have spent their time writing something new. Very good example of how patents have retarded growth.

Re:WTF IBM

[Abreu]

Isn't this reasoning similar to the Broken Window Fallacy?

If MP3 didn't have patents, we wouldn't have ogg, true. Which means the talent used to REINVENT THE WHEEL in the ogg codecs would have instead been used to improve the patent-free MP3 instead (or to work on other projects).

Re:WTF IBM

[Chris Mattern]

While I agree with your post, a patent is certainly *not* like a hurricane.
Hurricanes destroy value. Patents reallocate value to the inventor.

Patents destroy value because the tarriff exacted by the inventor makes uneconomic uses that would otherwise be practical. Part of the value that is not destroyed is then reallocated to the inventor.

If the value created by encouraging the inventor to make the invention in the first place outweighs the destroyed value, then the patent is still a good thing. But once the invention is in existence, patents unquestionable destroy value.

Re:WTF IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah. That's kind of how they are supposed to promote the sciences, i.e., by forcing design-arounds.

Re:WTF IBM

[Antiocheian]

IBM is correct, patent holders find it easier to "open the source" while preventing others from employing the idea. This is exactly what RMS wrote: Open Source and Free Software is not the same.

Read here http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

Re:WTF IBM

[dissy]

Good to see that IBM has no clue what they're talking about. Patents most certainly have not fueled the explosive growth of open source software, the open nature of the licenses and community have.

IBM never said that. The lies from the slashdot editor in the summary did say that, but they are just that, lies. (* A lie being different from 'being wrong' in that the editor knew IBM never said that. They read the article before we did after all. Knowingly giving false info is lying.)

What IBM said was that patents fueled the explosive growth of software under the patent holders terms.

That statement is less arguable, since it is basically true. That is the entire point of the patent system after all.

Re:WTF IBM

[Ant P.]

Free Software interprets patents as damage and routes around it.

Re:WTF IBM

[camperdave]

Uh, yeah. That's kind of how they are supposed to promote the sciences, i.e., by forcing design-arounds.

Not as far as I understand it. The idea is to give the inventor a limited time monopoly to profit from their invention. This profit is meant to sustain the inventor while he or she produces more inventions.

Re:WTF IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has discussed the issue with Xiphmont, I was told that Vobris came out of him not liking the sound quality of mp3, and being picky about his music.

Re:WTF IBM

[MrMr]

I love your reasoning. Let's also blame all crimes on the police while we're at it.
After all, if there was no law enforcement there would be no point in having laws, so no way to commit a crime.
Right?

Re:WTF IBM

[__aayurq3262]

Saying patents fuel software development (both free and proprietary, since both types are actually harmed by patents) may be a distortion, because it (misleadingly) implies that the patents help the overall situation, but on its face, the statement is literally true. Patents force people to work around patents. It's economically inefficient (just as hurricanes fuel the construction industry) and therefore probably not desirable, but it really does happen.

I regularly go to meetings where management asks the engineers for ideas to get around some competitor's patent. The company would just copy the competing product if possible, but the legal suits say it's too risky. The engineers absolutely love these meetings. Half the time, we come out with some fresh idea on how to make it better or cheaper. The next question the boss asks the suits is whether WE can get a patent. You can't convince me that management would ever have taken the risk to improve the product or do something new without the driving necessity of a competitor's patent.

Re:WTF IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

so you're counting all the attempts to reinvent wheels to avoid encumbrance as explosive growth? well to be honest you're asking if it counts as explosive growth.

patents have forced OSS developers to reinvent wheels instead of make new stuff. without patents LAME is legitimate, and instead of coding OGG, there is no perceived need to make another codec just to be on the safe side.

Re:WTF IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Would libpng have been written, if not for the LZW patent? How about all of xiph's codecs? We wouldn't have Vorbis if it weren't for the MP3 patents.

Exactly! It doesn't matter if The Community(tm) is reinventing the wheel or building something novel. All that matters is that it's building!

This is the same math that gives you GDP calculations that tell you that a chronically ill population creates the most wealth.

Re:WTF IBM

[maxwell demon]

Would libpng have been written, if not for the LZW patent?

Probably PNG would not have been invented. But that doesn't meen less free software was written. Instead of writing libpng, the authors might have written an improved GIF library. Or maybe an improved GIF would have come along which delivered everything PNG, but could be rendered as normal GIFs (omitting the improvements) by existing software (I don't know the GIF format, so I can't say if it would have been possible). Note that we have animated GIF but only static PNG; if the GIF format had been extended instead, we might have all the good stuff from PNG also available in animated GIFs. Of course, there would have been written free software for that as well.

And who knows how much unrelated free software was not written because the resources were instead used to invent a completely new image format just to circumvent patents? There might well be a broken window fallacy be hidden in your argument.

Re:WTF IBM

[alva_edison]

They also have the goal of requiring inventors to publish exactly how something works.  Allowing others to reproduce it and make improvements on it.  The thought was that without the limited-time monopoly, inventors would hoard their findings and never publish, preventing other people from improving existing inventions.

Re:WTF IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

woooooosh

Re:WTF IBM

[dgatwood]

Exactly. Patents only encourage innovation in free/open source software if you believe that open source developers wouldn't have bothered to improve and develop better alternatives without patents. Given a mountain of evidence to the contrary, such an argument is absurd. Such "innovation", a.k.a. reinventing the wheel, is a waste of energy that could have been spent inventing something more useful.

Talking about PNG replacing GIF is the wrong angle. You should be talking about PNG and TIFF. AFAIK, the TIFF format can do everything PNG can do (and then some), but was also encumbered by the LZW patent in a significant way at the time. PNG has no real reason to exist, and was a colossal waste of developer effort to create yet another image file format, all because of software patents.

Re:WTF IBM

[Virak]

PNG has better compression, support for proper RGBA and not just tiny palettes with a special 'completely transparent' entry, along with a few other types of channels, including palettes like GIF, all at various depths, better interlacing, support for gamma and colorspace information, and more. Yes, GIF really was "that bad", and PNG was a major improvement on it. And GIF's only "advantage" is mostly used for distracting annoyances, and it would be quite reasonable to consider it a disadvantage.

Re:WTF IBM

[huckamania]

The argument is like saying "Hitler sent men to the moon". If it weren't for the V1 and V2 rocket programs, the US and the USSR would not have experienced the explosive growth in their space capabilities after WWII.

A Hitler reference without violating Godwin, Yee Ha!

Re:WTF IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

If Vorbis was "reinventing the wheel" then so has been every advance in technology ever.

Re:WTF IBM

[clodney]

Talking about PNG replacing GIF is the wrong angle. You should be talking about PNG and TIFF. AFAIK, the TIFF format can do everything PNG can do (and then some), but was also encumbered by the LZW patent in a significant way at the time. PNG has no real reason to exist, and was a colossal waste of developer effort to create yet another image file format, all because of software patents.

Hmmm, so many things I disagree with in that paragraph. TIFF files can use LZW, but it is one of many supported compression methods, so it is easy to write TIFF codes that doesn't need LZW. TIFF files are limited to 4GB since positions in a TIFF files are 32 bit offsets from the start of the file. That also means that one piece of a multi image TIFF file can not be used without at a minimum knowing where it came from in the file, making it hard to split/join TIFF frames in a TIFF file. There is no restriction that the tags and data portion of a TIFF file be arranged in any particular way, so in general it is not possible to render a TIFF until you have the entire file in hand, making streaming difficult.

In contrast a PNG file is a block of chunks, each of which describes itself, and makes no reference to other locations within the file. It can be streamed easily, and the interpretation of the chunk does not depend on where in the file you find it. PNG files can be more than 4GB. The fact that PNG uses LZ77 rather than LZW is a footnote at best. In case you can't tell, having written software to work with both, I find PNG much more programmer friendly than TIFF.

Re:WTF IBM

[bosson]

Naaaa.. who really reads patents to work around them? Take what is known as the core mp3-patent, http://eupat.ffii.org/pikta/mupli/ep287578/index.en.html for instance. (its not valid anymore now)... Ogg infringed this. But most folks just assumes its clear by not looking at patents or not claiming them in open standards. The patents are still there like land mines scaring people off from publishing source or selling software. Thats a very powerful barrier against innovation. These patents survive because they are too darn invisible, if they would be more transparent we would have removed them from the software market a log time ago. Instead they create uncertainty and risks that make us invent less and stay friends with the giants that protect us.

Re:WTF IBM

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yes, GIF really was "that bad", and PNG was a major improvement on it.

Which does raise the question, would people really have never added these to GIF, or developed PNG, if it weren't for the GIF patent?

And GIF's only "advantage" is mostly used for distracting annoyances,

Yet is still used for, to take an obvious example, AJAX spinners.

it would be quite reasonable to consider it a disadvantage.

Having a feature vs not having a feature?

Re:WTF IBM

[Nerdfest]

You have to pay license fees to develop or deploy an AAC codec ... check the licensing.

Re:WTF IBM

[janwedekind]

This software is not providing additional functionality. Its development consumes lots of developer's time which rather should be spend on meaningful/productive work. The only real growth happens in the law firms.

Re:WTF IBM

[Sloppy]

In other words, it's a broken window model.

Almost. It's part of the broken window story.

The broken window story becomes a fallacy, at the end of the line of reasoning, where someone looks at how various parties have benefited, conveniently omits the fact that someone had to pay for the window, says the sum is positive, and therefore concludes that a good thing happened.

Saying that patents drive development, isn't quite the same thing. Saying that patents are good would be the same thing.

In the broken window story, the glassmaker really does come out ahead. I think IBM is saying that some programmers are glassmakers (or post-hurricane construction crews in my analogy, or astronauts or aerospace contractors in huckamania's delightful analogy). If they can keep the focus that narrow, on industry rather than the society that pays for it, they can win the argument.

Re:WTF IBM

[SanityInAnarchy]

You have to do this specifically because AAC is patented.

That is: Third-party AAC libraries do exist. But they infringe on AAC patents. If software patents didn't exist, or if patents had a shorter term, reverse engineering and reimplementing these formats would be legal, no matter what the licensing restrictions.

Now go back and read my comment, and the thread in general -- this is about what would happen if there were no software patents. On the one hand, this would mean vorbis and theora might never see the light of day, and certainly wouldn't have seen what success they have. On the other hand, we'd be able to use AAC and h.264 without those licensing restrictions.

Re:WTF IBM

[rtfa-troll]

Having a feature vs not having a feature?

That's one of the true determiners of quality software. For example the <blink> tag is just missing on several browsers which makes web page display annoyingly inconsistent.

(note my sig before moderating)

Re:WTF IBM

[Sloppy]

Hurricanes destroy value. Patents reallocate value to the inventor.

Reallocation is the ideal of patents. Since the patent holder very rarely has the resources to pursue all the applications of a patent (think about how small and penny-ante even IBM is, compared to the craft overall), the idea is that they can collect that value through licensing.

But in practice, that licensing is not always possible. Nobody has yet come up with a business model where the users of a patented method (implemented by their agent, the software) directly pay the licensing cost, so right now the developers are stuck with having to pay, and that's not viable in Free Software. Nobody's come up with a solution to that yet. Legally (ignoring projects that just go underground and violate the patent) the application just doesn't get created, unless someone finds a way around the patent. For static images and audio, that happened. And as some people have pointed out, for video, it didn't work out so well.

When it doesn't happen, the value isn't reallocated. It is destroyed. The world has to wait until the patents expire.

Patents .. are .. even positive if you believe that they incentivize innovation which leads to higher efficiencies.

I think that's what IBM is arguing. And they're right that they do incentivize innovation. But enough to balance out the cost? Well, my hurricane analogy kind of gave away what I think of that.

Re:WTF IBM

[rtfa-troll]

Let us count the ways patents destroy value

1. people don't develop software they would have otherwise done
2. people spend time developing needless worse alterative ways of doing things instead of just reusing the working code
3. people spend money on lawyers instead of gambling (or even something neutral or good)
4. inventors spend time in court instead of inventing

just because it doesn't kill people doesn't mean it isn't negative.

Re:WTF IBM

[mokus000]

The inconsistency is only annoying if you're one of the poor schmucks whose browser developers thought having a feature was invariably better than not having said feature. In fact, there's a whole slough of other "features" I've wished weren't in my browser throughout the years, too. Audio, for one.

Re:WTF IBM

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Maybe IBM filed their brief as a farce.

Re:WTF IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

how big of an improvement was it

Truecolour, vs maximum of 256 colours per frame?

Re:WTF IBM

[ignavus]

I shall buy a bulldozer and attack random houses.

With my bulldozer I will produce explosive growth in the construction industry.

And with the expanded numbers of homeless people that I will create, it will also cause explosive growth in the welfare industry.

So much economic stimulus in one idea. I should get an award for this.

Re:WTF IBM

[Virak]

Which does raise the question, would people really have never added these to GIF, or developed PNG,

GIF is AFAIK not really extensible in any way, and certainly not enough to incorporate those sorts of changes. You'd have to develop a new format, either way.

if it weren't for the GIF patent?

Irrelevant. I never said anything about patents, only that your technical assessment of GIF and PNG is horribly inaccurate, which it is.

Yet is still used for, to take an obvious example, AJAX spinners.

And you can use nukes for spacecraft propulsion. A couple of minor good uses doesn't balance out myriad terrible abuses.

Having a feature vs not having a feature?

There is such a thing as a bad feature. For example, consider two computers, completely identical, except that one randomly kicks you in the nuts, and the other does not. Clearly, the former has more features, but nobody sane would argue that it's better.

Re:WTF IBM

[HalAtWork]

You're just making the case that OSS has survived despite software patents, and not because of software patents. OSS was thriving before software patents and IP were an issue.

Re:WTF IBM

[gfim]

IBM most certainly did say that. You're very selectively quoting. The full quote is:

Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee's terms--which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.

The first part may arguably be true (although I don't believe so, since patentees never seem to actually reveal their patented source code). But the second part is the bullshit that the GP was referring to.

Re:WTF IBM

[dgatwood]

Yes, PNG has a few advantages over TIFF, but most of those advantages are largely esoteric and fall way outside of the 99.9% case where PNG and GIF images are used (specifically, web graphics and UI button icons). Having also worked with PNG, TIFF, JPEG, and GIF files, I find both PNG and TIFF to be equally programmer-friendly because that's what libraries are for. Write once, reuse often. :-)

Regarding the question of multiple frames in a TIFF versus a PNG, there's no reason someone couldn't have created a new animated TIFF format that wraps multiple consecutive TIFF files in a trivial wrapper. Doing so would have been a heck of a lot easier than creating a whole new file format, that's for sure. Regarding the 4GB limit, outside of very specialized medical imaging, 4GB images are a long way off for most people even today. (AFAIK, the largest camera RAW files on high end still cameras are still in the tens of megs.) And we're talking about whether the format really needed to be created more than a decade ago.... I just don't buy the 32-bit offset argument.

The point was not that TIFF is technically superior to PNG. It's something of a mess, really. The point was that the PNG format was in all ways unnecessary, and that we really haven't gained much as far as I can see from its existence other than to be able to thumb our noses at Compuserve, which is something we can't enjoy anymore anyway given that they disappeared years ago. It was a colossal effort that bifurcated web standards for the better part of a decade and made cross-platform compatibility of websites an absolute disaster for that entire period all because of a stupid software patent.

Software patents make interoperability a nightmare. That problem alone should be sufficient to convince people that they are fundamentally a bad idea.

Re:WTF IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly - it appears that one can argue that patents stimulate innovation, but only in that people find new ways to do things that can already be done. It stifles innovation when it comes to creating new functionality.

Re:WTF IBM

[maxume]

As yes, gif-ugly, where the new format is simply concatenated to the end of the gif file (yes, someone would propose this, and they would call it 'elegant').

Re:WTF IBM

[SanityInAnarchy]

If you'd bothered to Google it, you'd know that Gif can do true color, too.

Re:WTF IBM

[SanityInAnarchy]

Having a feature which can be disabled is much better than not having a feature, I would think.

For example, if my browser supports audio and video (at least through Flash), I can watch YouTube.

If it starts annoying me elsewhere, I can always use something like adblock, flashblock, etc, to disable it. But I'd much rather have the feature, if it has any good application at all, than not have the feature.

Re:WTF IBM

[SanityInAnarchy]

A couple of minor good uses doesn't balance out myriad terrible abuses.

I don't know... It sounds terrible, but if you think about it, would you rather have Hiroshima and space travel, or no Hiroshima and be forever earthbound?

There is such a thing as a bad feature. For example, consider two computers, completely identical, except that one randomly kicks you in the nuts, and the other does not.

Except that randomly kicking you in the nuts has no good applications. I can't think of a good application of <blink> offhand. I can, however, think of good applications of animated gifs -- pretty much anywhere I need a few frames of animation, for example, it's going to be less CPU-intensive than flipping through a set of PNGs with JavaScript.

Re:WTF IBM

[dangitman]

Patents sit as an ever present threat that threatens

Wow, a threat that threatens. Who woulda thunk it?

Is someone under the impression...

[Snotman]

that IBM is an altruistic company? Of course their comments will be self-serving as the number one patent submitter for years. They have mastered the game of patenting everything and they are not about to let that mountain of assets go.

But patends DO drive free software...

[nacturation]

Patents drive them straight into the ground.

Here's how it works:

[Tablizer]

1. Stupid patents piss off techies
2. Techies grow to despise corporate-produced software
3. Techies motivated to make open-source variants to take sales away from evil corporations
4. Profit! (Well, okay, I added this one out of habit.)

Re:Here's how it works:

[wizardforce]

you forgot the ????. in this case it's give the software code as OSS and make money off of support and what not.

Re:Here's how it works:

[Verdatum]

I love this idea. I propose a new slogan: "IBM, we're dicks so the good-guys can one-up us."

Re:Here's how it works:

[Rolgar]

Already posted this in another patent story today.

Instead of exclusively considering prior art, we should give the public a chance to respond to every patent application by being given a description of the device, and have an opportunity to develop an invention to the device. If the same or a very similar invention is developed by somebody within a year, then the patent is clearly obvious. If two people submit patent applications simultaneously (and it can be proven that they didn't copy each others' work), then neither person gets the patent. In these cases, we don't need the invention patented, because the point of the patent is give the knowledge of the patent to the public, after a period of time. If multiple people can develop the solution easily, then the device should be considered trivial. The patent examiners should be instructed that patents should only be given out in cases of clear innovation, if in doubt, the device should not be patented.

I really think we should only be handing out a few dozen (if that!!!) patents a year, and I think the above adjustments would move us a long way towards this.

Eric

Re:Here's how it works:

[ajs]

Instead of exclusively considering prior art, we should give the public a chance to respond to every patent application by being given a description of the device, and have an opportunity to develop an invention to the device.

This would break the patent system. The goal is not to reward people who solve seemingly intractable problems. The goal is to foster innovation by providing those who innovate with a lock in their inventions. Innovation is often accomplished in small steps. The paper clip was just a way of using wire to hold papers together. Given its description, you could make a paper clip, but the insight and innovation were rewarded with a patent.

When we discuss software patents, there's a new kind of problem. Software is, inherently, an expression of mathematics. Patenting math is tough to accept because you can't change the way math relates to the real world, so you're essentially patenting a piece of the known universe... which doesn't make a lot of sense.

Public key crypto is about the only thing I can see as a defense of patenting software. Here, you're patenting, not the math, but the application of the math to a specific problem domain to perform a task.

But the question is, how do you move from that to a patent system that can discern the difference and make the right call? Fundamentally, I think you need a review system which is populated by real academics and professionals or it simply can't work.

Re:Here's how it works:

[tecnico.hitos]

You are missing a step:

?. ???

Re:Here's how it works:

[arth1]

This would break the patent system. The goal is not to reward people who solve seemingly intractable problems. The goal is to foster innovation by providing those who innovate with a lock in their inventions. Innovation is often accomplished in small steps. The paper clip was just a way of using wire to hold papers together. Given its description, you could make a paper clip, but the insight and innovation were rewarded with a patent.

Actually, it wasn't. The paper clip (as we know it) was never patented.

However, a great number of unsuccessful paper clips were rushed through the patent office on the tails of the success of the Gem paper clip. None of them can be found today, and few of them made anyone but lawyers rich. The only "innovation" taking place was trying to come up with variants that could cash in on the original's success yet still pass the patent office.

I don't think we really need that kind of "innovation".

Re:Here's how it works:

[jedidiah]

> This would break the patent system. The goal is not to reward people who solve seemingly
> intractable problems. The goal is to foster innovation by providing those who innovate
> with a lock in their inventions.

Rubbish.

This would eliminate most of the negative aspects of patents while preserving their key redeeming feature.

People shouldn't have to waste money patenting every trivial little
thing that they do in the course of their work. If 3 companies can
"invent" the same thing, one of those companies should not be able
to interfere with the rest for merely filing a patent.

Patents are meant to ENCOURAGE innovation, not STIFLE it.

This is not 1870 anymore. We don't have 17 years to wait for patents to expire.

Re:Here's how it works:

[Anonymous Coward]

"IBM: Keeping window makers employed by breaking windows!"

Re:Here's how it works:

[gnupun]

1. Stupid patents piss off techies
2. Techies grow to despise corporate-produced software

Well, those stupid patents were invented by other techies, not PHBs, so stop banding all techies as patent-hating.

3. Techies motivated to make open-source variants to take sales away from evil corporations

LOL, so the evil corporation invents new stuff, but are somehow the villains. And the stupid open source copycats, who copy the technology of these evil corps, and bankrupt several small companies, are the true saviors of humanity. Copying successful technology is child's play compared to inventing it, designing it and selling it in the first time around. Any half-decent programmer can copy a product once he understands all the specs and how the product works.

Re:Here's how it works:

[ajs]

Actually, it wasn't. The paper clip (as we know it) was never patented.

Poor example, but a tiny section of my response. Perhaps the substance of what I said could be addressed as well?

Re:Here's how it works:

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of exclusively considering prior art, we should give the public a chance to respond to every patent application by being given a description of the device, and have an opportunity to develop an invention to the device.

This would break the patent system. The goal is not to reward people who solve seemingly intractable problems. The goal is to foster innovation by providing those who innovate with a lock in their inventions. Innovation is often accomplished in small steps. The paper clip was just a way of using wire to hold papers together. Given its description, you could make a paper clip, but the insight and innovation were rewarded with a patent.

When we discuss software patents, there's a new kind of problem. Software is, inherently, an expression of mathematics. Patenting math is tough to accept because you can't change the way math relates to the real world, so you're essentially patenting a piece of the known universe... which doesn't make a lot of sense.

Public key crypto is about the only thing I can see as a defense of patenting software. Here, you're patenting, not the math, but the application of the math to a specific problem domain to perform a task.

But the question is, how do you move from that to a patent system that can discern the difference and make the right call? Fundamentally, I think you need a review system which is populated by real academics and professionals or it simply can't work.

ROFLCOPTER

What you said: "Given its description, you could make a paper clip, but the insight and innovation were rewarded with a patent."

What the FACTS are: "The most common type of wire paper clip still in use was never patented"

Your entire argument is based around a fictional patent...P@WN

Re:Here's how it works:

[ajs]

Rubbish.

This would eliminate most of the negative aspects of patents while preserving their key redeeming feature.

People shouldn't have to waste money patenting every trivial little
thing that they do in the course of their work.

I have no problem with this statement, other than "Rubbish" which carries no semantic value, here.

If 3 companies can "invent" the same thing, one of those companies should not be able
to interfere with the rest for merely filing a patent.

By that measure, The telephone would not have been patented, and I will take great exception to anyone who makes the claim that the patent system wasn't designed to protect such inventions.

Patents are meant to ENCOURAGE innovation, not STIFLE it.

Quite true. However, not allowing someone to patent a revolutionary idea, even if, in retrospect it seems obvious, isn't the solution to that.

This is not 1870 anymore. We don't have 17 years to wait for patents to expire.

In some cases I think this is a valid statement. In some it's absurd. The problem is that the patent system was designed to cover one specific kind of industry (manufacturing) and today covers quite a lot more (pharma to software to manufacturing to materials to business process to services and so on).

Each has its own measure of what obsolescence means. In the drug world, for example, there's no such thing as obsolescence in the traditional sense, just a tapering off in marketability. What's more, you can just trivially modify a compound and the only hardship in re-patenting is going through FDA approval for the "new" drug. This is fundamentally broken.

In the software world, 3-10 years is the obsolescence window, so a span of 17-20 years for a patent is absurd.

In materials, obsolescence can be as fast as software or literally impossible. I've proposed an approach to copyright reform previously that I think applies with some changes to patents as well. A sliding window of renewals could be applied to patents (e.g. requiring them to be renewed every 5 years).

Along with that, yes, I agree we need stricter standards on what is patentable, but to suggest that only a handful of patents should be given out per year seems impossibly harsh, and impossible to reconcile with the original intent of the system.

Re:Here's how it works:

[Anonymous Coward]

The telephone itself would not have been patented. "Telephone" is an idea. Patents are not supposed to be on an idea, they are supposed to be on an implementation of an idea. So Bells patent(s) would have covered the particular way that he made it all work, eg, the microphone, the earpiece and so on. If you could go back in time to then, you could walk into the patent office the day after him and patent a completely different implementation, using say a piezo mike instead of the crude one he used. (two strips of steel wasn't it, I think the carbon granules came later)

So one of the conflicts in the patent system is that of course the lawyers try to make the claims as general as possible, to cover all possible implementations. But a claim that is generalised to the extent that it covers an implementation that the inventor did not actually think of should be invalid.

Another conflict is the point of obviousness. A patent is not supposed to be granted if the implementation is obvious to anyone "Skilled in the art". A classic example of a US patent that should not have been granted was a few years back when some genius got a patent for using a standard toothed belt drive to reduce the speed of a snowmobile engine to suit a propellor. Evidently the US patent office was not aware that the Wright Brothers had used bicycle chain for exactly the same purpose, and many aircraft since have used other meanssuch as gear drives to acheive the same thing. So reducing the speed is a standard function on an aircraft, and a toothed belt drive is a standard industry method for reducing (or increasing) speed, yet somehow the combination is so novel and non obvious as to deserve a patent?

Software patents are another example, since they are always patenting something that is inherently possible in the concept of a general purpose machine. They are made to process data after all. So somehow using them to process data become patentable? Now coming up with a new type of interface to enable the computer to control some type of process that it cannot currently control would be innovation, but just writing instructions for the machine to do something which it can inherently do would not.

Finally another thing that is broken is the idea of avoiding looking at patents in order to avoid increased damages. The whole idea of patents is to increase the pool of knowledge while allowing a reward to innovators....but if I daren't look at what has already been done I will do a lot of reinventing won't I.

Actaully the whole area needs the lawyers pushed to one side and the practitioners of the particular art to be pushed to the fore.

Re:Here's how it works:

[Alsee]

You are hereby ordered to cease and desist using our trademarked phrase: "We're dicks so the good-guys can one-up us".

  -- The SCO legal team

-

Re:Here's how it works:

[jedidiah]

>> If 3 companies can "invent" the same thing, one of those companies should not be able
>> to interfere with the rest for merely filing a patent.
>
> By that measure, The telephone would not have been patented, and I will take great exception
> to anyone who makes the claim that the patent system wasn't designed to protect such inventions.

Whether or not the given invention will be featured on a future edition of Schoolhouse Rock is not the point.

The legal justification for patents is the improvement of the state of the art, not the "protection of inventions".

The system may be designed to do any number of hairbrained things that aren't a part of the original requirements.

Re:Here's how it works:

[ajs]

By that measure, The telephone would not have been patented, and I will take great exception to anyone who makes the claim that the patent system wasn't designed to protect such inventions.

Whether or not the given invention will be featured on a future edition of Schoolhouse Rock is not the point.

Way to strawman...?

The legal justification for patents is the improvement of the state of the art, not the "protection of inventions".

You're conflating justification and method. Protecting inventions is how we fulfill the requirements of said justification.

That is, we protect the patent-holder's ability to make money from their invention and in return they have incentive to make the invention's workings public. Heinlein spent some time twiddling with the idea of inventions that shouldn't be patented in his story about Shipstones. Good stuff, by the way. If all you do is grant patents to inventions that can't be reproduced, then no one is ever going to apply because there's never an up-side.

If you allow EVERYTHING to be patented, then you have a different problem, where innovation is roadblocked by trivial patents.

There's a middle ground, it turns out. Reforming the review process is really all that NEEDS to happen (though dealing with patent durations and new industries would help a lot).

Re:Here's how it works:

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting a patent should be more complicated.

And a REAL obviousness test should be implemented. For example like this:

* The patent applicant shows his invention to a patent clerk.
* The clerk and the applicant together describe the problem which is solved by the invention.
* This problem description is published for half a year, the invention has to be kept secret meanwhile.
* Everybody can send Ideas, how this problem can be solved, to the patent office during a 3 month review period.
* If the invention is reinvented during this review period, the invention is declared obvious, no patent is granted.

Additionally I would impose the following boundary conditions:

* Getting a patent is GRATIS (if you actually get it).
* Having applied for a patent, and getting it declared invalid because of obviousness or prior art costs you the income of one month (for corporations: the revenue of one month).

I bet that shallow patent applications and sloppy prior art research would immediately stop. Then the PTO would have enough manpower to REALLY look at the patent applications.

Of course IBM would say that

[Stumbles]

they have one of the largest patent portfolios of anyone. But their contention patents has fueled such growth in the land of open source is complete bullshit... and they know it.

Multimedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to patents, there are numerous alternatives to the MP3 format.

Thanks to that GIF patent (now expired), there is PNG.

So yes, patents drive development by "encouraging" people to re-invent a different, maybe better, wheel.

Re:Multimedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to patents, there are numerous alternatives to the MP3 format.

Thanks to that GIF patent (now expired), there is PNG.

So yes, patents drive development by "encouraging" people to re-invent a different, maybe better, wheel.

Why is my porn on MP3? There may be other formats, but no one is using them.

Re:Multimedia

[marcansoft]

It worked for the better for MP3 (Vorbis) and GIF (PNG), but we're still struggling to get Theora up to h.264's level. I'm personally not sure it's ever going to *quite* happen if they restrict themselves from using patented h.264 features. Nevermind that Theora might infringe on some patents (in fact, it almost certainly does). You can only be sure that something infringes on a patent once you find it, but you'll never know whether there are any patents that cover a portion of your algorithm until they show up trying to sue you.

The only reason why patents "drive" development is by forcing people to develop a non-infringing alternative, and they tend to improve upon it to drive users away from the patented version. A lot less time would be wasted if the open source community could just improve upon existing standards without having to reinvent everything from scratch.

Re:Multimedia

[0x537461746943]

The problem becomes when good free open alternatives are available but the major players do not use them. For years I used to rip all my CDs to flac format and ogg format. I use the flac for my home entertainment playing through the PS3 and ogg I used for mobile/laptop playing. But of course I also had to start storing a third mp3 copy for devices that don't support ogg(which is most). I finally stopped using ogg because I need the mp3s more often. I now just keep flac and mp3.

PNG did catch on though. The proprietary police seemed to have let that slip through some how.

If Apple and Microsoft added ogg support I would convert back to it in a heartbeat. Since microsoft and apple want to encourage their own formats though they will never end up doing that. The only reason they allow mp3 is because it is the majority format right now. They would not want to give users yet another non-DRM alternative.

Re:Multimedia

[mmaniaci]

Try to think about what all the developers would have done instead of reinventing the wheel. And if GIF/MP3 were never patented, those alternatives could still exist. Stagnation, not progress, is the result of IP law. Progress should always, always, always be put before profits. I know thats a naive statement, but one day I believe we Humans, as a whole, will grow up.

Re:Multimedia

[msclrhd]

I use both flac and ogg. I also only use devices that support these formats - currently the Cowon S9 (a very nice device). Cowon are very good at supporting these formats and have for several years.

Re:Multimedia

[Hurricane78]

As said: Broken window fallacy:

Without patents, we could have used those resources to *not* reinvent the wheel at all, but to make it better right away. Even more so than when you first have to re-invent that wheel! Because there would be more resources.

OGG would have been called MP4/AAC

PNG would perhaps been called GIF2000+

etc.

Re:Multimedia

[blackraven14250]

If there were no competitors keeping companies from having a monopoly over technologies, there would be no reason for them to innovate to begin with. Open source happens to be the best way to keep a stable competitor at all times to a given standard.

Re:Multimedia

[Anonymous Coward]

So yes, patents drive development by "encouraging" people to re-invent a different, maybe better, wheel

Free software doesn't need external encouragement to reinvent wheels. No patents were involved in getting a dozen different sound systems for Linux, for instance.

Junk patents

[Joce640k]

I'm not against *all* patents. Some algorithms have a serious amount of R&D and ingenuity behind them.

The problem is the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS and TRIVIAL things that are being awarded patents.

Examples:

A special comparison operator for pointers: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

Encoding of floating point numbers as non-negative integers: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050023524%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20050023524&RS=DN/20050023524

Policy change notification: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,269,853.PN.&OS=PN/7,269,853&RS=PN/7,269,853

There's zillions of them and I'm pretty sure that every line of code being written today violates at least one. It's the equivalent of allowing copyright of individual English words.

Re:Junk patents

[mayko]

The same problem is happening in the biotech industry. Patents are being given out for individual proteins, which is not only stupid, but there is no pressure for these patent holders to actually DO something with them. This kind of shit only helps to hold back legitimate progress.

Re:Junk patents

[nine-times]

I'm not against *all* patents. Some algorithms have a serious amount of R&D and ingenuity behind them.

I actually find it a bit tough to come up with a good answer to the problem of patents. The first thing that popped into my head when I read about "free software harmed by software patents" is the whole thing about H264/Theora and the HTML 5 "video" tag.

Now I don't really know what's patented in H264, but I could imagine that it may well be some algorithms with a serious amount of R&D behind them. On the other hand, free software can't legally implement those codecs, and so Firefox can't support it. Free software also can't technically (AFAIK) implement MP3 or AAC encoders/decoders without paying a patent fee.

Now I suppose you could say, "so what?" Fair enough. Still, I have it stuck in my head somewhere that these are important standards that we need to be able to use freely in order to promote the arts and sciences (which is the whole point of patents, isn't it?).

Re:Junk patents

[Twinbee]

Wow, someone who recognizes that not all algorithms/software have an equal amount of work/insight put into them.

Re:Junk patents

[marcansoft]

Oh, and not just software ones. I randomly stumbled upon a patent for connecting invidual buttons to microcontroller pins (that is, without matrixing them) to allow any arbitrary combination of buttons to be pressed without the need for isolation diodes. In other words, it's a patent for not using a technique. I should patent "a display device containing an individual connection for each display element" and sue everyone who makes a device with one or two discrete non-matrixed LEDs. Or maybe patent "a digital communications technique involving the use of an individual electric current transport device for each individual bit of data to be transferred" and sue everyone who doesn't use some form of serial encoding to transfer data.,

Re:Junk patents

[flymolo]

Sadly, I think the answer may be government intervention. I was at the aviation museum in Seattle, and I learned something interesting.

The government had to nationalize a bunch of patents, set the license fees reasonably and pay back the original inventors to get more people working on planes.

It may be that something similar has to happen to get us the web we want.

Re:Junk patents

[RazorSharp]

I think the main problem is that the policy makers don't understand technology the way they understand linguistics. I would never be able to copyright "The sky is blue" (I could trademark it though :) ), because it's an obvious statement and is cumbersome to state in any other way (everyone else would have to sound like Yoda, "Blue is the sky").

To someone who knows nothing of technology, an algorithm which paints a blue sky on a monitor seems to be incomprehensibly complex. From a logical standpoint it isn't. We just understand grammar so well we never think about the complexities of a basic sentence. The is an article, sky is a noun, is is a verb, and blue is a noun. The article specifies the subject noun, the is verb links the predicate noun to modify it. S is P. No one thinks about the inner workings of a sentence because it's the statement that matters.

When policy makers come to realize that algorithms are mathematical sentences rather than technological voodoo I think we'll see a lot less patent abuse. Like it's commonly understood that just because a song I wrote and copyrighted says "the sky is blue," doesn't mean I have exclusive rights to the sentence; it will be understood that basic algorithms aren't patentable. I know a lot of Slashdotters and all doom and gloom concerning the patent system, but I think the current abuse of the system is just a result of the immaturity of technology. I'm confident time will resolve the major issues. It does suck for right now, but for those being threatened by patent trolls I would recommend using Decartes and Newton and the like to your defense.

Re:Junk patents

[Grishnakh]

Yes, there's definitely a big difference between the h264 patents with all the complicated video encoding they use, and the "one click" patent. I think there'd be a lot less complaining about software patents if they at least didn't allow the latter.

Re:Junk patents

[bzipitidoo]

We shouldn't hand out monopolies, no matter how much research went into an idea. We should value and compensate worthy efforts in other ways.

Squashing everyone else who might somehow possibly infringe is a very negative and expensive way to operate. Remember that the courts actually considered shutting down the Blackberry, before settling on a ridiculously huge monetary judgment. They went even further with Vonage, and for a while actually ordered them not to sign up any new customers! This was all "punishment" of businesses who did not set out to do wrong and who weren't doing wrong, and it damaged us all. All those people who rely on Blackberries would have been seriously inconvenienced by a shutdown order. When Vonage isn't signing up new customers, they aren't paying taxes on that lost revenue. And we lose a choice, and consequently see higher prices.

The chilling effects extend very far. The entire system has become another weapon in the arsenals of big companies for squashing uppity little startup competitors, or troublesome researchers. True, sometimes the little guy scores a victory, but that's the exception. More common is the proxy battle where a little guy serves as a puppet, for the big corporation wary of being too blatant about their anti-competitive maneuvering, as Microsoft did with SCO. This outcome was not the intent of patent law.

There are also the inherent problems with patents, their adversarial, exclusive quality. It's a horrifying example of how to turn the noblest of occupations into a sorry cock fight. We have people fighting over whose candle was first to light. As to the other problems, where is the line between obvious and not obvious? While some ideas are clearly too weak and obvious to be deserving, the problem is that in general there is no way to tell. Even after the fact, years after some device and the entire area has vanished into the oblivion of obsolescence, it is still hard to tell. Then there's novelty. Can't tell that either. Scope? Another area to contend over. We shouldn't hand out punitive tools, make such divisive, confining decisions, especially when it is so very hard to tell who, if anyone, is deserving of punishment. The deterrent effect does not stop bad behavior but instead inhibits the exploration and adventurism that is so crucial to advancement because none of the principles can tell either what will lead to punishment, or to vicious bloody internecine fights that end with no winners.

Re:Junk patents

[smartr]

Much of mathematics and law both have serious amounts of R&D devoted to them. Why shouldn't legal defenses be patentable? or literature... Why shouldn't we patent novel plot devices? Yes, plenty of software has incredible amounts of R&D behind it. Software patents seem to mean that all permutations of all heuristic algorithms and non perfect algorithms that are "new" are patentable. Heck, if you made a large enough mathematical discovery, you could patent a patent discovery "machine" that makes novel patentable software. I'm not saying those who put large amounts of time into R&D shouldn't be rewarded, but the market will reward these things without government interference in the name of patents... If patents are really out there to encourage individual inventors from larger entities with large production capacities (not a limitation in software), why are we letting companies own patents at all? Shouldn't the human inventor be the one holding the patent? Is it ever beneficial to let an exclusive deal involving patents be enforceable?

Re:Junk patents

[StormReaver]

Some algorithms have a serious amount of R&D and ingenuity behind them.

And the Theory of Relativity is perhaps the most ingenious "invention" in human history. If it had been allowed to be patented, our understanding of the universe would have been seriously crippled -- the very thing that has happened to the software industry.

Re:Junk patents

[Anonymous Coward]

comparison operator: don't use a BASIC-style language, or call the operator AintSameAs or even Isnt.

Re:Junk patents

[Phantom of the Opera]

Excellent point.

I think it works like this. You have people in the patent office who's job it is to issue patents. They issue the patent if the patent application is filled out in a certain way and is either well written or so boring that they'd be embarrassed to admit that they don't understand it. If they've heard of the place who's written it, that ads credibility from the name recognition.

On the other side of the coin, you have people in companies who are experts at writing patents. They know the verbage (ugh, I hate that word) to use and the hoops to jump through.

Long story short - the people involved with the patents are experts in patents, not experts in whatever the patent is about.

Re:Junk patents

[Zigbigadoorlue]

Actually I think the answer is government non-intervention. The problem is rooted in the government granting these ridiculous patents and subsequently intervening with software development and progress by enforcing them. What is needed is to reduce government involvement by not allowing these patents.

Re:Junk patents

[Hurricane78]

So it's like law for people: Every one violates at least one of them.

And that is the point!

Re:Junk patents

[bosson]

Patents where never meant for abstract matters. Presenting information and doing calculations can be new in so many ways, easily. There are no heat problems in organizing digits as such. The problem here is that patents are only obvious if there are other patents very like them in the eyes of (US)PTO:s. This makes software patents stupid by default. They are too easy to make "un-obvious" by design.

Re:Junk patents

[flymolo]

Agreed, I think less than 1% of the patents accepted now should be, but I believe there may be valid patents that have unfair terms and are stifling new development.

Ultimately the only entity that can force a sale is the government. The government made a mess; they need to clean it up. But even if they clean up the mess, they need to solve the corner cases.

Re:Junk patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents *are* government intervention.

motivation

[bugi]

I think they must be speaking to the motivation that patents on abstractions give us freedom-loving persons. So "fueled" with rage, I suppose?

After all, IBM would never dare oppose the Movement on this.

Slick Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Without even reading the brief, you can tell how slick of an argument that is.

Basically, if software "inventions" were only ever covered by Copyright, then IBM and others would never release source code, because it would be too hard to police infringement when rivals companies release compiled products. Plus, Copyright protections would just be too narrow.

But Patents are more broad (though that's too simple terminology), and ostensibly allow you to uncover infringement without first gaining access to the private source code of the competitor, nor do Patents allow you to simply read the source code, then re-write from scratch in a modified manner, as mere Copyright protections would allow.

Of course, IBM is making many assumptions. But you could see how appealing such an argument would to someone already predisposed to accepting Software Patents.

Just a thought...

[humphrm]

Aren't open source license agreements also enforced by patent law?

I'm just sayin'....

Re:Just a thought...

[H0p313ss]

Aren't open source license agreements also enforced by patent law?

Your task today it to look up the words "patent" and "copyright" and when you are done give us 100 words on why that was a stupid comment.

Re:Just a thought...

[tecnico.hitos]

Aren't open source license agreements also enforced by patent law?

Your task today it to look up the words "patent" and "copyright" and when you are done give us 100 words on why that was a stupid comment.

And make them available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives.

How?

[Errol backfiring]

Forgive for being stupid, but exactly how could a patent help free software? A patent is by its very definition an "unfreedom": a restriction imposed by the holder. If I patent (part of) my software, I cannot call it free software without "disabling" that patent. And then again, I am only putting an unfreedom for somebody else to patent the same idea.

Re:How?

[JSBiff]

Aren't very real improvements sometimes the results of someone needing to 'get around' patents, to find another way to do something? Don't get me wrong, because I think that patents cause more problems then good, but I'm just sayin', sometimes, forcing people to find a different way to do things leads them to discover a better way to do it, yes?

IF

[DaMattster]

IBM seriously expects me to believe the twisted logic that Software Patents help free software, then they need to hire another marketing team. The only way software patents could possibly help free software is if the Free Software Foundation and others like it patent software to ensure that it stays free. Guarranteed any patents sought by IBM are not altruistic. This is just one more example of greed, avarice, and lies from corporate America. IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and indeed any other corporations are friends to two things: money and investors. Anyone believing otherwise is naive and ignorant.

Re:IF

[flaming error]

IBM seriously expects me to believe the twisted logic that Software Patents help free software

No, IBM seriously expects the Supreme Court will believe the twisted logic.

Misleading quote in TFA

[OhHellWithIt]

TFA says:

patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code [...] which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.

Here's the quoted footnote from the Amicus brief:

See, e.g., In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Newman, J., concurring). Given the reality that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered, it is difficult for software developers to resort to secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives to innovate in the field of software are significantly reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee's terms -- which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.

The emphasis on "on a patentee's terms" is mine, and the phrase omitted from TFA is vital to the meaning of the sentence as a whole. I believe Adobe's release of the Portable Document Format specification is a case in point. Adobe made the specification available with the stipulation that it not be used to develop products that compete with Adobe's products. The open specification allowed the development of all kinds of open source tools (as well as closed-source tools) that make PDF much more useful to everyone, yet Adobe is protected from having its development investment and future business stolen.

Re:Misleading quote in TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The open specification allowed the development of all kinds of open source tools (as well as closed-source tools) that make PDF much more useful to everyone, yet Adobe is protected from having its development investment and future business stolen.

If by having its business stolen you mean having to compete on the stregth of its products in a free market.

Re:Misleading quote in TFA

[OhHellWithIt]

The open specification allowed the development of all kinds of open source tools (as well as closed-source tools) that make PDF much more useful to everyone, yet Adobe is protected from having its development investment and future business stolen.

If by having its business stolen you mean having to compete on the stre[n]gth of its products in a free market.

What I mean by "having its business stolen" is having someone else market or give away the idea that has cost the firm or individual(s) time and trouble to develop.

Take Robert Kearns, who invented the windshield wiper delay, for example. He came up with the idea of how to solve an annoyance that most of us experience from time to time. He went to the considerable time and expense of developing, perfecting, and patenting his idea, then approached the large auto manufacturers, asking them if they'd like to license his patent. They rebuffed him and proceeded to use his invention to make millions of dollars. It took him decades to get any compensation for his initial R&D. As far as competing on the strength of his products in a "free market", he could hardly have been able to start his own automobile manufacturer so he could sell his invention; would you argue, however, that Detroit was entitled to make money from his idea without compensating him?

Just call it jazz

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the non-musicians patent the notes and symbols. If the instruments and software allow me to blend what I want, the non-musicians can spend all the time and money trying to find copycat patterns and sue. .....While I enjoy my jazz music!

How Free Software is 'Weaponized'

[mpapet]

Classic example of how economic interests take an inherently good thing (Free software) and weaponize it.

IBM couldn't beat Microsoft, so they regrouped around Free software. Everyone still benefits. So far so good.

IBM is still evil though. Anyone old enough to remember when IBM PC *was* a personal computer can back me up on this.

I would argue that IBM is setting themselves up to be able to litigate competitors using Free software on the basis of patented processes inside the code. Sure, the software can be freely distributed, but if you eat into IBM's business, they will litigate the process patents.

Hence the need to conflate Patents and Free software.

Someone please provide some contrary arguments.

Re:How Free Software is 'Weaponized'

[i.r.id10t]

IBM also "opened" the specs and info on the PC so that clones could be made...

Re:How Free Software is 'Weaponized'

[Draek]

IBM is still evil though. Anyone old enough to remember when IBM PC *was* a personal computer can back me up on this.

I'm old enough to remember that time, and until yesterday I would've disagreed with you and pointed at all the Open Source projects IBM collaborates with, if not created them outright.

Today, however...

Re:How Free Software is 'Weaponized'

[I3Tacos]

Because, you know, until today IBM never filed for a patent, never held a patent, and never filed a lawsuit against someone else for patent infringement. Oh and they never once created proprietary hardware or software. No, until today, they were the most GNU believing corporation on the face of the earth and let anyone and everyone have specs to all their hardware and released the source to ever program they ever wrote.

Re:How Free Software is 'Weaponized'

[david_thornley]

Actually, the IBM PC was done on the cheap, being one of those little projects that IBM kinda hoped might pay off sometime. This meant using off-the-shelf components and a quickly hacked together 16K BIOS ROM. IBM did try to stop clones from being made, but the BIOS was soon duplicated in functionality (I think by clean-room processes), and the occasional patent threats IBM made didn't stop the clone makers.

I never saw any sign that IBM wanted to encourage clone makers, as opposed to signs that IBM wanted people to design new hardware and software to fit into the box.

Re:How Free Software is 'Weaponized'

[Draek]

They filed for plenty of patents but donated many of them to OSS-related causes, and I'm not aware of any patent lawsuit they had initiated (they countersued a couple times, though, but that's perfectly acceptable IMO). Propietary software, sure, but standards-compliant so no worse than Opera et al, and IIRC the PPC architecture was as open as the x86 one though I could be wrong on that.

So essentially, post-MS IBM wasn't Red Hat, but it was also no worse than your average corporation and in some ways even better. Pity they just *had* to change that and go back to Big Blue's old ways.

does IBM even know their lawyers did this?

[poetmatt]

They actively employ people to use open source, and foster it's development, and yet they are supporting patents? Am I missing something in that general concept?

I mean what about employing people to support open office and lotus symphony and all that, which is all expressly supported by IBM?

Re:does IBM even know their lawyers did this?

[I3Tacos]

They actively employ people to use open source, and foster it's development, and yet they are supporting patents? Am I missing something in that general concept?

Yes, you are missing something. They only employ people to work on Linux and other open source software so that it can be used as a means to sell more of their own proprietary hardware and software platforms. It's so cute that you actually thought they were contributing to open source programs out of altruism or because they were believers in the GNU manifesto rather than purely for their own profit gain. You do realize that probably 80% of their revenue, if not more, comes from proprietary hardware and software and the support of said platforms right?

I mean what about employing people to support open office and lotus symphony and all that, which is all expressly supported by IBM?

Because that provides them profit. If they didn't get any profit out of it they wouldn't employ anyone to work on open source software or to support it. IBM doesn't give two shits about the four freedoms or any other ideals of the FOSS movement.

Re:does IBM even know their lawyers did this?

[Ant P.]

They actively employ people to use open source, and foster it's development, and yet they are supporting patents? Am I missing something in that general concept?

Lotus Notes! The biggest cause of internal miscommunication since the Berlin Wall.

Re:does IBM even know their lawyers did this?

[poetmatt]

well I never said I like it, but I do humorously agree. I'd mod you funny if I could :)

Re:does IBM even know their lawyers did this?

[poetmatt]

Oh, no, I know they're basically putting a proprietary program on linux, which is a piece of garbage sold to corporations for it's forms of DRM/copy control. But I mean it's like right hand, left hand. I did understand that.

I have seen some employees (in small numbers, no doubt) that do contribute to open source for altruism such as for open office most notably. I do understand the business interest behind that.

I never meant they are pragmatic, but lobbying for patents does conflict with what they are doing, which was what I failed to express. However, I do agree with everything you say.

over-the-top exaggeration

[prgrmr]

Software is the means by which we use ourcomputers to do word processing, send email and surf the Web; it enables our cellphones to connect to wireless networks; it allows air traffic controllers to safely schedule the arrival and departure of flights; and it permits physicians to diagnose and treat illnesses. Software is, in short, a fundamental, and increasingly indispensable, technological innovation.

Not quite. Software may assist, expedite, or allow, but it certainly does not "permit" a physician to do his job, as he already had that permission prior to the use of any software-driven medical device. Also, if my cell phone bricks, it may be an inconvenience, but it's not indispensable, as I still have other means and methods of communication available to me.

And that's just from the introduction. The rest of it is just a slanted and over-blown, and ultimately, misleading.

In the months since the Federal Circuit issued its opinion, and to IBMâ(TM)s great concern, a number of administrative and judicial decisions have rigidly applied the âoemachine or transformationâ test to questionâ"in some cases explicitlyâ"the patentability of software per se. Software technology is vital in addressing societyâ(TM)s most pressing challenges. IBM is committed to ensuring that such technology is and remains patentable.

(emphasis mine)

This is IBM's only real agenda here.

So where are all the examples then?

[TopherC]

Obviously EndSoftwarePatents needs specific examples of how companies are being hurt. So far I don't see any examples posted here. It depends on what is meant by "harmed". Does this mean they have lost a court case? Perhaps the best example is IBM's own court expenses in the case brought against them by SCO. No, that was alleged copyright infringement, not patents. I guess a proper example is how the vfat filesystem in Linux has to dance around with short and long filenames. That's not on the list yet.

With copyrights, people loose productivity all the time by having to actively avoid looking at certain pieces of code for examples or ideas of good implementation. But with patents it's more of a sinister fear that any idea you come up with might be illegal to distribute, or "speak", because someone else might have patented it. You can't do anything about that other than live in fear, since there's no process in place to automatically avoid patent infringement. Maybe existing patent law could be argued as impinging on free speech! Okay I've rambled enough already.

Re:So where are all the examples then?

[PineHall]

Desktop Linux has been hurt by not being able to produce distributions that have patented audio and video codecs. Patents have prevented desktop Linux from just working. The average Joe wants to watch video and listen to music without having to install software that tells him this may be illegal.

Sickness drives medical breakthroughs

[pembo13]

I'd argue that doesn't make sickness good or okay.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ohh, oh, just thought of an example

[JSBiff]

A moment after posting my previous comment, I remembered PNG. PNG was developed, in large part, as a way to get around the patent claims on the GIF image format. Although, I suppose in that case, PNG might have been developed *anyhow*, because GIF had other drawbacks as well (one being, it was limited to 256 indexed colors). I suspect the (eventual) popularity of PNG had more to do with it being a *better* format than GIF, but the point still remains that part of the impetus for developing it in the first place, was a patent on GIF.

Re:Ohh, oh, just thought of an example

[I!heartU]

And how many patents does the implementation of PNG infringe on? That is the problem with patents.

Re:Ohh, oh, just thought of an example

[hasdikarlsam]

I know of one.

And no, I'm not telling you. I don't think the patent holder has noticed, and it expires in two years; there's no need to tempt fate.

Nerd Language and Lawyer Language

[MarkvW]

IBM's brief does not define "open source." The open source references in the brief are not supported by much in the way of reasoning or argument.

Here's what I think IBM is saying:

If we get a patent, we don't have to keep our source code secret any more--we can now disclose our code to everybody. That's open source!! The source becomes open when we put it in our patent materials! We still have a monopoly (because of the patent), and we can sell our monopoly product any way we want. But now the stuff is OPEN!! That's good for development . . ..

IBM is technically correct in using the term "open source" in this manner. "Open source" means different things to different people. It obviously means one thing to IBM and its lawyers and a different thing another to Stallman and the FreeBSD crowd.

IBM wants a world where it can lock up the use of its software completely (via patent), except for when it CHOOSES to open source it.

This bugs me. It seems to me that if I buy a computer, I ought to be able to freely express myself via algorithms that I independently discover. For example, if I discover a unique algorithm that enables me to very effectively conduct political speech with my computer, IBM shouldn't be able to foreclose me from using my computer (a communication device) in that manner.

Re:Nerd Language and Lawyer Language

[JSBiff]

Oh, by the way, one additional point. Richard Stallman hates the term Open Source. He thinks it minimizes the importance of Software Freedom.

Re:Nerd Language and Lawyer Language

[mwvdlee]

Knowing RMS, he'd probably like the term "Open Source" better if we changed it to "GNU/Open Source". The guy has done some good for FOSS, but in general, he's just a gnutcase.

Re:Nerd Language and Lawyer Language

[david_thornley]

Stallman also thinks the phrase "Open Source" is more subject to twisting than "Free Software". He claims that there are two reasonable meanings for "Free Software", and they're easy to clarify, but multiple meanings for "Open Source" that are easier to abuse. I have ideological differences with Stallman, but he's very often absolutely correct on issues like this.

Ever tried reading a patent

[guysmilee]

Ever tried reading a patent ... the written in a way that helps no one!!!

Re:Ever tried reading a patent

[hockeyschtick]

...except lawyers. I can't even understand the patents I've got my name on.

Wrong: "Open Source" is well-defined

[JSBiff]

So wrong. The Term Open Source is not ambiguous. It was well defined when it was first used/coined, by the Open Source Initiative, a non-profit who is responsible for beginning the use of the term open source, and who maintains The Definition of Open Source.

The way you are claiming the term "Open Source" is being used is in clear contradiction to the definition. In fact, THE VERY FIRST LINE of the definition is:

"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"

Re:Wrong: "Open Source" is well-defined

[MarkvW]

Just because one person defined a term doesn't mean that all people have to use the term in that way--especially lawyers writing legal briefs. Lawyers twist meaning. That's what's going on here. IBM wants to enlist the cachet of "open source" in aid of its argument. It's as simple as that.

Think about who the IBM lawyer is writing for: The lawyer is writing for the US Supreme Court. Do you think that the Supreme Court will accept the doctrine that the Slashdot meaning of "open source" is the meaning that the Supreme Court must adopt? The definition of "open source" is flat-out fair game right now, and if you assume otherwise you're just a zealot or fanboi.

I'm suggesting that IBM is using the term in a manner different from that used by the FSF/FreeBSD people. The FSF/FreeBSD people need to take that context into account when they frame their argument against IBM's argument.

Re:Wrong: "Open Source" is well-defined

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I heard this came, I posted a link to a USENET article using the term "open source" before the creation of the Open Source Initiative. I'm too lazy too look it up for someone who silly enough to make the came that OSI came before "open source".

Re:Wrong: "Open Source" is well-defined

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't change the fact that there is a widely used technical definition of the term that is not only well defined but useful to a large number of people including IBM. Of course like Humpty Dumpty, people are free to use any term for any concept they like, and if they make their definitions clear, then others can make the effort to understand them. It doesn't mean that redefining existing terms isn't a bad idea in most situations.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The Patent...

[Carnivore24]

The Patent Is A Lie.

Re:The Patent...

[idontgno]

But...but... IBM said that the patent was moist and delicious!

Wrong way of going about it...

[Theaetetus]

EndSoftwarePatents, for its own amicus brief, is looking for help building a list of free software harmed by software patents, and a list of companies that distribute free software and are taxed by patent royalties."

Essentially, their argument hinges on the preamble of Art. 1, sec 8, clause 8 - "To promote the Progress of... useful Arts," and the claim that if software patents stifle innovation, then they're unconstitutional. Problem is, we're not dealing with a fundamental right or an equal protection argument, so the Court will use a rational basis test - could Congress have had a rational basis for passing 35 USC 101 and not excluding software patents? If so, it's constitutional. And the Court always defers to Congress on stuff like that. Asking the Supreme Court to add a software exclusion into Title 35 on a constitutionality argument would be asking them to be "activist judges". And that just isn't going to work.

Want to change the patent statute? Lobby Congress. They have full authority to do anything. There's not even a Constitutional requirement that patents exist - the clause merely gives Congress the power to enact patents, if they want to. But they don't have to. They could outlaw all patents tomorrow and that would be Constitutional (caveat - may have a due process issue for the next 20 years over people who filed for patents already, but that's a separate issue).

Re:Wrong way of going about it...

[russotto]

Want to change the patent statute? Lobby Congress.

Thank you Marie Antoinette.

Re:Wrong way of going about it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Asking the Supreme Court to add a software exclusion into Title 35 on a constitutionality argument would be asking them to be "activist judges". And that just isn't going to work.

Ummm, no. The courts are responsible to INTERPRET the law, and considering a constitutionally based challenge is right and proper. The whole "activist judges" BS is the result of the right wing extremists being upset about some of the courts decisions not aligning with their radical beliefs.

Title was truncated

[surmak]

IBM's Supreme Court Brief Says That Patents Drive Free Software developers crazy

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Too many lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make a camp, a "fun camp" and "happy camp" (citing Southpark movie) for all of these lawyers and America will be happy place again.

Those patents weren't overbroad

[Anonymous Coward]

The trend now is to file as many patents, and make them as broad, as possible. These days, someone would not patent the MP3 format, but instead something like "a method of representing music in an electronic file." In fact, I am surprised that some texas-based patent troll company isn't doing this right now.

So, in that case, it would not be possible to simply invent a different file format that does the same thing...because the thing it does is what was patented (often by several different companies).

Besides...if the formats you listed weren't patented, we wouldn't need the open-source alternatives...and we probably would have got the open-source alternatives anyway because geeks are like that.

patents are like hurricanes

[someone1234]

That's so true, gotta steal it :) Hope you give me license to use this IP.

Anybody remember GIF?

[northernboy]

I seem to remember in the early days of the web, there was a graphics format called GIF. Somebody like Unisys held a patent on the format, but initially didn't seem to care that most Web users didn't realize there was a patent. Then, one day, Unisys woke up, changed their attitude and announced that licenses would be needed from now on - several thousand dollars? Almost overnight, PNG was born. So, I guess in a sense, IBM has a point - patents lead to open source development. However, they neglect to mention that in cases like ReportLab (makes a Free/Paid Support PDF generator library in Python) a sudden change in licensing policy might result in innovation at the expense of existing innovators.

Patents are a valuable part of a thriving commercial system, and there are obvious benefits from patent law. But I think there are also significant benefits from patent-free zones. The trick is to figure out how to maintain the balance to ensure fairness, and enable benefits from both patented innovation and patent-free innovation.

The other IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

The other half of IBM's split personality should file an opposing amicus brief. Really. If they have any cajones, they should not let this stand unchallenged. Unless having a soul doesn't mean anything...

Open source not really the thrust of the brief

[phillipsjk256]

I found the footnote where they invoke the name of the W3C to justify patents interesting:

Software interoperability standards such as those promulgated by the World Wide Web Consortium (w3c) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) are necessary to enable the important uses of software, supra at 18-23, which require acquisition and assimilation of data from numerous heterogeneous sources. With the advent of patent protection for software, firms are able to selectively license innovations on favorable terms to the community of standards users, thus encouraging other firms to participate in and adopt standards.

Emphasis in original (page 29, 42 in pdf). I don't think that is the purpose of the W3C's patent policy, which states that any patented methods described in w3c standards must be freely licensed. The W3C makes recommendations based on common industry practice. IBM's interpretation implies that Patents must be used to rigorously impose standards as is done by: 3D-3C, LLC, DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corporation, 4C Entity, Digital Content Protection LLC, and Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator.

The main point of the Brief seems to be that the test for patentability should not rely on an arbitrary method of implementation. The Brief explicitly states that it relies on the US constitution that says that advances in the "useful arts" (technology) are patentable. As such, many of the claims may not apply in other jurisdictions such as my own. From the brief:

Patenting technological inventions promotes innovation. No sound patent policy supports protection for non-technological processes, including non-technological business methods.

- Page 7.8 of Brief (pages 20,21 of pdf)

I supposed if the scope of software patents is limited enough such that entire fields of innovation are not cut-off (a patent on Morse code was used as an example), I suppose they can't do to much harm.

Patents have fuel'd IBM's surge in open source

[Anonymous Coward]

The primary license they use is the Apache License which is the product of Lawerence Rosen (also AFL, OSL). Rosen's licenses are asymetric with regard to patent clauses -- they permit infringement cases by the holder / developer unless the software is used exactly as intended. He brags about this being approved by the OSL (he sees this as a corporate coup over the clueless people on the OSI board) if you ever get him on the phone and prod him a bit. In effect, IBM's commitment to Apache is founded based on this belief that they got a "open source" license through the gate that opens up tons of revenue options for IBM. Absolutely Patents are critical to IBM's open source strategy and their investment. It's no lie or mis-representation.

Scientists Discover:

[AtomicDevice]

After getting totally wasted the other night, scientists discover that dynamite can cause explosions of living things, also cars and old washing machines!

misplaced arguments

[macraig]

"Would libpng have been written, if not for the LZW patent? How about all of xiph's codecs? We wouldn't have Vorbis if it weren't for the MP3 patents.

Lemme fix that for ya:

If not for the LZW patent, libpng would never have been needed to be developed. Were it not for the MP3 patents, we wouldn't have needed Vorbis.

Necessity might be the mother of all invention, but in this case it was artificial necessity. The inventions were only necessary to get around the brick walls created by the patents. Tear down the unnatural brick walls, and the innovation could have focused on incrementally improving those existing techniques instead rather than essentially reinventing the wheel just to bypass them.

Re:misplaced arguments

[dangitman]

Tear down the unnatural brick walls

That's a curious phrase. How is a brick wall unnatural? It's made from ingredients sourced from nature. Likewise, how is a patent any more unnatural than software, as neither occur naturally, or both occur naturally as byproducts of humans?

"Open Source" is well-defined by USG.

[dwheeler]

Sure, some lawyers twist the meaning of words... so let's call them on it. But the U.S. government (USG) already has an official definition of "open source software", and it is NOT "you can read it". Office of Management and Budget (OMB) M-04-16 defines the term "open source software", saying that "Open Source Softwareâ(TM)s source code is widely available so it may be used, copied, modified, and redistributed". It's really the "Free Software Definition", but the OSI definition and the Free Software Definition are very, very, very close in practice. And that OMB memo is an official document.

IBM makes piles of money from patents, so no one should be surprised that IBM is for getting more money. But that does not mean it is good for the country. What's more, the Supreme Court has NEVER held that software algorithms are patentable, and the U.S. experiment into software patents has shown that the Supremes were wiser than the patent lawyers. Whether they're willing to make that stick now or not is the big question.

It's not clear that the odds are great, but it would be great if someday the U.S. eliminated the madness of software patents.

Re:explosive

[TaoPhoenix]

More like the anger from patents fuels the manufacture and use of explosives.

Re: poster above you, I REALLY have to get around to my logical fallacy studies project, because this is another one.
Call it 25 technologies produced in anger working around patents, vs 2500 technologies if there was no patent in the way. I don't know the name for that one yet.

Patents are like Go stones. It only takes about 5 brilliantly spaced items to sink 360 squares of attempted growth.

Open Source projects IBM created/contributed:

[Anonymous Coward]

(source)

Abstract Machine Test Utility for Linux Common Criteria Certificate
Abstract Machine Test Utility (AMTU) is an administrative utility to check whether the underlying protection mechanism of the hardware are still being enforced.

AIX Toolbox for Linux Applications
AIX Toolbox for Linux Applications contains a collection of open source and GNU software built for AIX 5L for IBM pSeries systems and IBM RS/6000.

Ami - Korean Input Method
Korean IMS (Input Method System) Ami.

Anaconda
Anaconda is the installation program for Red Hat distributions.

Apache
Home of the Apache Web server and several dozen related projects.

Apache Ant
Apache Ant is a Java-based build tool.

Apache APR
Apache Portable Runtime

Apache Cocoon
A Web development framework built around the concepts of separation of concerns and component-based Web development.

Apache DB project
Open source database solutions

Apache Directory
The Apache Directory project aims to produce a high-performance and production-quality LDAP server written in Java.

Apache Excalibur
Excalibur's primary product is a lightweight, embeddable Inversion of control container named Fortress that is written in Java code.

Apache Forrest
Apache Forrest is an XML standards-oriented documentation framework based upon Apache Cocoon, providing XSLT stylesheets and schemas, images, and other resources.

Apache Geronimo
Apache Geronimo is the J2EE server project of the Apache Software Foundation. The aim of the project is to produce a large and healthy community of J2EE developers tasked with the development of an open-source, certified J2EE server that: is licensed under the Apache License, passes Sun's TCK for J2EE 1.4, and reuses the best ASF/BSD licensed code available today, with new ASF code to complete the J2EE stack.

Apache Gump
Apache's continuous integration tool

Apache HTTP Server
The Apache project develops and maintains an open-source HTTP server for various modern desktop and server operating systems.

Apache Jakarta
A diverse set of open source Java solutions

Apache James
The Apache Java Enterprise Mail Server (Apache James) is a 100% pure Java SMTP and POP3 Mail server and NNTP News server. James was designed to be a complete and portable enterprise mail engine solution based on currently available open protocols.

Apache Lenya
Apache Lenya is an Open Source Java/XML Content Management System and comes with revision control, site management, scheduling, search, WYSIWYG editors, and workflow.

Apache Logging Services
Cross-language logging services for purposes of application debugging and auditing.

Apache Maven
Maven is a software project management and comprehension tool. Based on the concept of a project object model (POM), Maven can manage a project's build, reporting and documentation from a central piece of information.

Apache mod_Perl
mod_perl brings together the full power of the Perl programming language and the Apache HTTP server

Apache Portals
Apache Portals is a collaborative software development project dedicated to providing robust, full-featured, commercial-quality, and freely available portal-related software on a variety of platforms and programming languages.

Apache SpamAssassin
SpamAssassin uses a wide variety of local and network tests to identify spam signatures.

Apache Struts
The goal of the Apache Struts project is to encourage application architectures based on the "Model 2" approach, a variation of the classic Model-View-Controller (MVC) design paradigm. Under Model 2, a servlet (or equivalent) manages business logic execution, and presentation logic resides mainly in server pages.

Patents and copyright should not exist

[Tabris777]

I for one would love to know how the inexistence of patents and copyrights would affect the world. I actually believe that in such a hypothetical world, the absense of such things would only help foster innovation and welfare, while research and development would ofcourse still remain profitable. Even with the absense of a copyright law, the creator would still be able to monetize his or her efforts (whilst taking the necessary precautions inorder to be recognized as the creator, as all creators of art cherish first that their works of art be appreciated by as many as possible, and second in taking pride for being recognized for their work, as it should be). After all, socialized economics is the only truth. By the same token that I must be taxed for income that I make online, I can argue that all things currently copyrightable and patentable are derived from my input, given that we live in a socialized nation. Let art be art, for art's sake. And let a nation not be dictated by capitalism and the pursuit of meaningless wealth, when to lead a healthy life one does not need to probably be worth more than 5-10 mln dollars (not that being super rich / >10mln usd needs to be prohibited - let's just tax them much, much more than now).

The taxation system needs to be fixed. Let's close the offshore loopholes, tax the high class and corporations much more effectively and much more heavily (since when do they need to be subsidized? I don't see how subsidizing them helps the middle and lower class - I infact see a return to the fifties, when taxation was much more balanced), lower taxes for the middle and low class, make taxation more transparent and more elegant, destroy lobbies, and streamline gov't expenditure. Military expenditure can be reduced by colluding and merging with similar countries, e.g. North America and the European Union.

Not that I doubt that all of what I said is going to be reality, by the end of this century. Logic (what is just and what is wrong - beauty, the infinite, or God) is linear and leads to only one truth (beauty, the infinite, or God), not several. For now though, I have high hopes in the Obama administration.

Re:Patents and copyright should not exist

[SubjectiveObjection]

It's funny how people that are against patents and copyrights are usually not inventors. They are not very rich, thus have absolutely no reason to look at the issue from the perspective of a patent holder. Do you want to slave 10 years on an invention, only to have your work "foster innovation and welfare" instead of giving you rewards? One of the reasons technology is the way it is today is because of patents. Do you think people 150 years ago would have worked on technology had there been no decent monetary gains? Wake up and take your head out of the overly idealistic hippy view. Let art be for art's sake. Hah. Do you think Beethoven would have composed as much music if not for kings supporting him financially? What about Mozart? All the great artists would have been living on the street not being able to afford tools if it weren't for the kings' support. It is human nature to be as competitive as possible. You say you want more taxation now but I'd like to see how your opinion would be if YOU were earning 1m or more per year. I'm tired of this hypocritical idealistic view that is so common on Slashdot and I had to post this.

Patents on software dont work.

[miffo.swe]

The problem is that software patents are just to simple to get and to many simple patents have been given already. Like, take old tech A. and do B. wich is A., but on the internet! There seems to be zero demand for orginality in granting patents. Most arent really a way of solving a specific task but rather doing that specifik task. Instead of getting a patent on one way of doing some stuff you get a patent on doing some stuff regardless of how you do it.

The possibility to patent API and protocols are also insane since it isnt a tool against someone stealing knowledge but rather a tool against any competition.

All in all if its one thing software patents has done its halting software development to a complete halt. While hardware gets better each iteration software seems to be in stasis and improve in glacier speed.

As to"free sharing" patented source != open source

[g01d4]

And their conclusion is invalid. TFA-IFD (is fscking devious).

TomTom is a free software distributor?

[harlows_monkeys]

That list of free software distributors is stretching quite a bit to include companies like TomTom. TomTom makes proprietary software, and just uses free software for some of the components, or as the host upon which to run their proprietary software.

Re:TomTom is a free software distributor?

[harlows_monkeys]

They are also being pretty ridiculous on their list of free software projects harmed by patents. They list Fedora as being harmed for not being able to include Moonlight due to patents. Note that both Debian and Ubuntu have not had this problem. Fedora is being harmed not by patents, but by their reliance on inexpert legal advice (Groklaw and SFLC).

p38?

[harlows_monkeys]

I'm having trouble finding page 38 of the 36 page brief.

Stop FUD, the Amicus brief isn't anti OS/OSI/FSF

[Anonymous Coward]

It was being accurate just as copyleft in a back-assward copyright society. If dictatorship is the norm then I'll agree with my neighbor that we each acknowledge oneanother as dictator over our own property and not eachother's. IBM is just puting for the truth, that if this was a free society then the predatory patent system would be utilized by good and bad to convert public domain material into non-derivitive securities that would threaten the original inspiration. We don't need U.S.P.T.O to support patents because they begin at the postmark, and you can quote me.

A fine example is how 2/3 of all books in the Library of Congress are not enumerated, perhaps that is a good purpose because such would allow the Library of Congress to claim them as their own; the books would be looked moreso as manuscripts if not fiction; the patenting that exists today only recognizes work that has a reservation of rights, whereby most of the material in the Library of Congress only has a name or original estate and township or territory alongside the dated (Year of Our Lord) author and printer or publisher. As far as I know, those books in the Library of Congress are in a completly better and different country than the sh1thole U.S. Congress that passes it's pederasty on their superiour binding and character.

There is still 400 years of America-Republics among the non-federal Several States long before there ever was a United States and that's the original/better/foreign country that my heart is on.

It drives Free software... away...

[flyingfsck]

Software patents definitely drives Free software - out of the USA and into other countries like Canada, Europe and Asia.

Jez Slashdot. What sloppy reporting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jez Slashdot. What sloppy reporting. TELL US what their argument is. Are you really that lazy? Do you expect every single Slashdot reader to sift through the report and find their argument for why that's true, or are you REALLY aiming to spur some lazy knee-jerk reactions from Slashdot readers who just want to cry "yeah right!" I swear Slashdot is really just becoming the FOX News of tech journalism - just looking to trigger knee-jerk ignorant opinions and reinforce people's pre-existing beliefs.

mod parent informative

[BitHive]

Mod parent up. A lot of people on /. need to read and consider it.

What is this...

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN?

Well, true, sort of

[jandersen]

software patents 'fueled the explosive growth of open source software development'

It is true, in a way, that intellectual property rights were the direct cause for the growths and indeed the very existence of open source - if proprietary systems and SW hadn't been so obscenely expensive and restrictive, Stallman would most likely not have started on what he did etc etc. I know, this is probably not what IBM were thinking of in their statement, but it's true none the less.

GPLv3

[Anonymous Coward]

Then IBM can probably explain why one major change in GPLv3 compared to GPLv2 is about just patents.

In other news...

[adh0c]

A cult of arsonists has recently published an outstanding brief saying that fires drive forest growth.

Plagues are great?!They fuel progress of medicine!

[D4C5CE]

Would libpng have been written, if not for the LZW patent? How about all of xiph's codecs? We wouldn't have Vorbis if it weren't for the MP3 patents. [...]

Saying patents fuel software development (both free and proprietary, since both types are actually harmed by patents) may be a distortion, because it (misleadingly) implies that the patents help the overall situation, but on its face, the statement is literally true.

...but only in the same twisted sense as calling plagues a good thing just because they are a challenge to bring medicine forward.

That kind of spin quite deservedly gets chided (as by your own hurricane allusion), for it flies in the face of all research demonstrating the harmful effects of an overzealous patent system in particular on small scale and open source development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Papers