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
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
From his wiki page:
"At the TUG 2010 Conference, Knuth announced an XML-based successor to TeX, titled "iTeX", which would support features such as arbitrarily scaled irrational units, 3D printing, animation, and stereographic sound."