Slashdot Mirror
IEEE Supports Software Patents In Wake of Bilski
Mark Atwood points out this critical commentary on the IEEE's response to the outcome of In Re. Bilski, which points out the contrast between work done by IEEE luminaries like Donald Knuth and lobbying for software patents.
not happening til 5:30 pacific time
Do people still take Roy seriously? Have people really fallen for his lame rebranding of his site?
As an aside this was amusing quote:
The disparity between these views of Knuth (creator of LaTeX, which is Free software)
Sorry, buddy, but Knuth created TeX. LaTeX was created by Leslie Lamport.
Who writes that crap blog?
Here is the actual IEEE press release:
http://www.ieeeusa.org/communications/releases/2010/062910.asp
They basically complain that there's still no clear litmus test for patentability because the decision was to vague on the definition of what constitutes "too abstract".
-- Terry
Like so many large established organizations, the IEEE seemingly no longer exists to represent their individual members - but more to increase the need for its own existence. Quite a few years ago, I wrote them to relinquish my membership. One particular objection I stated (among a couple of others) is their heavy promotion of professional certification (the exams of which they would administer, naturally).
It seems to me that they want to become a guild or "engineering bar association". Even were they to grandfather existing members, I oppose such additional gates. They are nothing but protectionist - increasing barriers to entry without adding much societal value. It is clear to me that their support of software patents continues this trend.
(PS: Lest it seem like I'm frightened of "missing the academic boat", I have a Master's degree in Computer Science with many supporting courses in Electrical Engineering and Space Dynamics - along with 30 years experience in developing e.g. guidance systems & firmware).
I oppose patents, as currently implemented in the U.S., for the same reason I oppose our legal code: There are so many patents / laws, that no one can be confident that he's in full compliance.
This means that for all practical purposes, the patent system and the U.S. legal code are ex post facto systems: it's a big trap, just waiting for {well-funded patent attorney} / {prosecutor with an axe to grind} to come after you. In both systems this is compounded by the system permitting patent applications / laws to be so vaguely worded that they could easily cover implementations / situations never precisely anticipated by their author.
Also, in both systems, an innocent person can be bankrupted, or be forced to settle, simply because of the legal cost.
In summary, both of these systems are significant sources of injustice, enacted by a legislature with little self-control.
Make no mistake about it folks - Muller/Mueller is a shill.
This is the same lobbyist who helped delay the Oracle rescue of Sun. The delay cost 3,000 additional jobs over and above the 6,000 that were originally slated.
This is the same lobbyist who is trying to pull a Darl McBride on IBM for Turbo Hercules - and who "complained to the establishment" when slashdotters down-modded his bullsh*t.
This is the same lobbyist who is now threatening to "expose" groklaw because astroturfers got the boot.
His latest lie? He's now saying that I've claimed he's a Microsoft shill. I've never said anything one way or another on that topic. His tin-foil hat is too tight - or he can't keep his lies straight.
He's no friend of the community.
This court ruling was a win. To say this:
flies against reality.
So why does Mueller continue to lie and spread fud? It's what he does - he's a lobbyist. Not a programmer.
Here is the part that precedes your quote
"We are generally pleased that the Supreme Court did not introduce rules that would limit the scope of ideas available for patent protection in our current information age," IEEE-USA Intellectual Property Committee Chair Keith Grzelak said.