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.
Where is today's huge breakthrough announcement?
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
imagine donald, with all the work hes put into latex and the public opinions hes made related to open source and copyright law, will take this laying down.
the "if you dont follow the community we'll just do it ourselves" threat is very real.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It was kind of surprising to see on Twitter that not only open source advocates such as Steven Vaughan-Nichols and Brian Proffitt considered that list a good summary but also ACT, a lobby organization that supports software patents all the way (we lobbied against each other several times). But ACT pointed out that they didn't agree with all I wrote. That didn't surprise me.
It appears that the case is: No one won, No one lost. Which is good for our copyleft cause, because for the first time in USA patent history, the judge questions the whole nasty patent troll system, and who knows, maybe there will some positive change? Or with other words: I have a dream, a world, without war.......and software patents.
I wish I could agree that the ruling is at least a draw, but unfortunately I can't. It clearly favors an expansive patent system, assuming that new technologies must fall within the scope of patentable subject matter unless there's legislation that sets limits (mentioned in this analysis, for an example). Such legislation is a long shot to say the least, given the lobbying power of all those favoring software patents.
Through my work on the NoSoftwarePatents campaign (which I founded and managed until 2005) I spent a lot of time with patent experts and policy-makers, so when I read a reasoning like the one in the Bilski case, I can tell when an expansive view prevails over a restrictive one. There's really nothing in the ruling (apart from minority opinions that don't really matter for the future) suggesting in any way that the Supreme Court might do away with software patents. In fact, the ruling made it clear that even straightforward business method patents aren't an endangered species for the time being, unless they're just too abstract, such as the Bilski application.
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.
Donald Knuth, and many of the other top names from IEEE, have name-brand power comparable to the IEEE itself. A split is not entirely impossible. If that happens (and in all seriousness, I expect the announcement to be at least a threat of a split) and the rival has reasonable policies and ethics, it will likely capture a fair chunk of the income and PR of the IEEE. (Hell, I've seen arXiv mentioned more in the popular press than the IEEE.) That could cause a serious disturbance in the Force, not to mention a serious disturbance in boardrooms, where there's a heavy reliance on political leverage to get things done. It's extremely difficult to manipulate crusaders - it can be done, but the RIAA and MPAA don't have that kind of Machiavellian skill.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Any organization which is as openly against open access to scientific articles (journals, conference proceedings) yet continues to wave its clout as IEEE does deserves to die out in infamy.
-- Sig down
the original source may be biased, but the press release cited is real and states IEEE-USA is pleased that software patents have been upheld.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You forgot us normal programmers, free software guys or not. Who wants to come up with a neat design, get himself or his company into trouble for it, and be forced to go back and tear out that neat design again?
It might not be news to you personally but there still may be a few people out there that need clued in.
If the PTO worked as it was supposed to, software patents would be far less of a problem.
However, that isn't the case and we have to deal with the highly non-ideal PTO and courts
that we actually have.
This is a classic case of the disconnect between theory and practice.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Please quit spamming this forum about this not being news.
You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as a last straw, a tipping point. You seem to assume that everybody knows everything about IEEE's positions and history. You seem to believe that it's illogical for people to react to an organization doing something that they disagree with.
None of these are necessarily true. We're glad to hear that your opinion of IEEE was already so fully formed, but please let the rest of us react as we will.
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).
When they started publisinhg so many papers on watermarking and other forms of DRM I realized that the IEEE is no longer an institute of Engineers.
It has become now an institute of the electronics industry.
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.
As I understand it, there's someone saying there are so many patents / laws that no one can be sure not to break them; you're saying that everyone is free to read those patents / laws, so this is not an issue. I remember that some time ago there was a story about some contracts (some company and their customers) that were written so that normal people couldn't really read them, and a judge decided the contract was void because of this. And I don't see a reason why someone should own an idea, just because he had it first. so what? subsequent discoveries of the same idea are still because someone worked for it. Today you can't claim patents help because someone steals ideas to claim as their own; there's arxiv for proving that you did what you did. My personal belief is that we are passed the point in human history where the concept of "intellectual property" is of any use. The thing is that today, if someone proves their worth as an inventor / programmer / artist / whatever, they will most likely be able to find at least a decently paid job, if not grants or something similar. It might take time, it might be problematic, but the only stable solution to the fact that information is so cheap will be to give up the idea of ownership of information.
new sig
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.
If she's only had a falling out with 3 people in 7 years, that's not that bad.
This is an old story, from since 2004:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_S/threadview?m=te&bn=2942&tid=181845&mid=-1&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
The "I've verified this via proxies" is really a non-issue - other people have since pointed out that other content management systems have similar capabilities. I'll be writing a HOW-TO so that anyone can implement it, because it's a good "circuit breaker" or "fire break" for some use cases. Let everyone take a breather and reflect a bit ...
That being said, I'm willing to look at the evidence - but it has to be in context.
You said it yourself - "potentially libelous". It's the same here on slashdot - for example: if you make a death threat to the president, it WILL be removed (it's been done in the past) and any post pointing that out will also be removed. slashdot has no choice - there's a specific law just for dealing with death threats to the president.
Maybe you should get better forum software :-) Okay, that was a bit of a joke ... but seriously, sometimes it's better for EVERYONE if the post is totally removed. For example, what do you think would happen if, instead of removing 10 of your posts, someone were to write "This post has been deleted because it conflicts with the site's policies"? People seeing that would think "troll" or "spammer". At that point, you'd probably wish they had just silently deleted them.
All I'm saying is that there's no ideal solution.
No need for a lawyer to tell her it's okay - it is. You might own your post, but you don't have a contractual or other right to require that someone else provide a platform for you to disseminate it. To the contrary. the only right you have is to use your own resources to get your message out.
Now, if you had signed a contract that said "posts written by $X will be hosted on site $Y for a period of $Z time in return for the following consid
You can read my submissions supporting Groklaw in the past (I have, what? Maybe 10 accepted SCO stories with Groklaw as a source? I don't remember any more.). I have trumpeted her site quite loudly for several years and cheered SCO's slow demise. I hope you're not going to lump me in with shills & astro-turfers. I honestly question how many of those there are, because PJ lumps *anyone* who disagrees with her in with them, or so it seems. I've also fought against Microsoft on OOXML and the rest and supported IBM's Rob Weir when discussing how much OOXML sucks ass (seriously, he's a good guy, his blog also has some information on wine making, if you're into that). If I'm some kind of shill who hates Groklaw or IBM for no reason, well, I must have been replaced by a doppleganger recently. Here are a few links that go allllll the way back to 2004, when hardly anybody knew who the hell Groklaw was and show me agreeing with and promoting the site. I've read her site daily since the RU days and remember when she had a hard time surviving a Slashdotting, before she moved to iBiblio. I think I contributed one or two of those early, hard-to-survive Slashdottings, for that matter.
That support is in the past, I'm afraid. PJ is a huge jerk, mostly in private, and you'll probably only see that if you disagree with her. I can give you her real email (it's close to the public email, pj@groklaw.net, which has more filtering), if you want me to prove that I've been in contact. I don't think it's a big deal to put that out here because she's more than capable of switching it if the spammers get hold of it.
She's had way more than three fallings-out, incidentally. But most of the people feel like they're the only ones. AllParadox is a good example because he wrote stories for Groklaw once upon a time. It's not like he's some nobody who lurked for a little while. It's more like almost anyone who worked with her closely got driven out. Except for Mathfox, I guess.
There are quite a few people she's parted ways with. Heck, ESR may be next on that list for saying that she "jumped the shark" when she attacked his friend, Jay Maynard (who got booted from Groklaw, even though he has nothing to do with TurboHercules the company; even if he's a friend of some of the founders thereof). His crime? Saying he felt threatened when IBM called the QPL-licensed Hercules emulator an "infringing platform." He's not Darl McBride. He's not a party to the EU complaint. He's a guy who dresses up in a Tron outfit and writes an emulator, for crying out loud. We're not talking "conspirator" here. But PJ sees "conspiracy" everywhere these days. I can't blame her, after SCO, but I won't agree, either.
You can read AllParadox's account of his departure here, incidentally.