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
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.
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)
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?
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.