Slashdot Mirror
Save the Web From Software Patents
TheNextCorner writes "PersonalWeb's software patent suit against Github and others threatens the freedom of the Web. In order to make sure that the Web can remain a free and accessible space for everyone, we need to rid ourselves of all the patents that threaten its viability. We need to end software patents."
Very informative... at the very least mention this is FSF's viewpoint on the issue. Also, it's ok to write more than 3 sentences. Thank you.
Remember that quite a few powerful companies have built their fortune on abusing the patent system.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
and judges are all lawyers so.... yeah.
I completely agree with reforming / abolishing software patents... but really Slashdot? This is horrendous reporting.
Realistically, how? The notion that an idea can be property is firmly ensconced in the Zeitgeist, and billions of dollars of wealth depend on it staying that way.
Who or what has the kind of realpolitik oomph to go up against that? I don't see it.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
I was convinced they were needed, if only for Pharmaceuticals, where the testing time is long but the time to copy short, but now I'm having doubts even there:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
The test for me is the cure for aids vs the cure for limp penis. Patents simply haven't delivered a cure for a major disease in 30 years, they have however invented many ways to get a penis erect and a seemingly endless way to cure headaches.
US is stagnating, down from 1st to 3rd with China taking second spot on the exporters list. This I think is a direct result of strong IP laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
Yes, because lawyers can raise the rights of others on their own. They're not hired by patent holders at all. Any person is able to represent themselves 'pro se.'
Hi PersonalWeb employee.
You shouldn't be able to patent ideas. That's the problem.
I wonder if all those people talking about software freedom use iPhones.
Programming is math, algorithms, nothing more. It's idiotic that you can patent an idea or algorithm. What's next, patenting + and - ? Or maybe Pi?
Believe it or not, it is possible to build creative, novel, innovative, non-obvious solutions using only math and algorithms.
that no one mentioned the very well written article posted on ArsTechnica yesterday about the patent system and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As expected, a very US-centric view on the problem, but it does raise some obvious issues. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appeals-court-wrecked-the-patent-system/
Absolutely but since it still is math, it should be available to all and everyone.
Any person is able to represent themselves 'pro se.'
And only a moron does in a patent case. The law is written to be byzantine and incomprehensible as a make work project for the lawyers, by the lawyers.
This is like saying that in order to stop climate change we need to get rid of all humans. In both cases, there are surely less drastic solutions to the problem.
It's worse than that. The federal politicians are also mostly lawyers. Obama and Romney both have a J.D.
It's a monoculture, and I don't care how much you like lawyers, a monoculture is not good for the country.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The prevailing philosophy holds that Mathematics is discovered, not invented. This is especially true when referring to reality; if you can choose arbitrary axioms you might be able to invent things. Otherwise, your solution is dictated by your choices.
Even if what you say is true, though, that is not an argument for patents. Empirical studies suggest that patents are used mostly to stifle competition, and their mechanism is fairly anti-capitalist.
Therefore to the degree to which you support patents, you're mostly a douche.
Some humans really love getting more than they give, having lots of power over others and abusing it for the sake of abusing it, and so on.
The overwhelming majority of the rest of humanity likes being as lazy as possible in order to achieve their mediocre existence, never putting themselves out to change things that don't seem like they will make a really huge difference in their own lives. It is *so* much easier to let other people fight the important battles while watching TV and feeling smug after having voted.
The tiny remainder who actually care about justice, and about helping humanity achieve its full potential, are completely outnumbered (by the slothful) and outgunned (by the powerful).
Maybe we will grow out of this someday. Until then, expect widespread failure.
If only that was the case. However, if it comes to something like math, well yes, that also belongs to me. Just like language and air. The good news is, I am in Europe. Software-patents don't exist here, for precisely that reason. It's math :-)
Programming is math, algorithms, nothing more. It's idiotic that you can patent an idea or algorithm. What's next, patenting + and - ? Or maybe Pi?
+ and -? No. Pi? No. A new algorithm for calculation of Pi? Perhaps. Not all software patents are bad but the bar is set WAY too low. At least 95% of all software patents should never have been granted.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Maybe we should let patents kill the Web. At least I'd waste a lot less time on it!
Except that some forms of software patents do exist in Europe.
From Wikipedia:
"One interpretation, which is followed by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, is that an invention is patentable if it provides a new and non-obvious "technical" solution to a technical problem. The problem, and the solution, may be entirely resident within a computer such as a way of making a computer run faster or more efficiently in a novel and inventive way[citation needed]. Alternatively, the problem may be how to make the computer easier to use, such as in T928/03, Konami, Video Game System.'
We need to end software patents
I seem to recall that back in the day it was pretty fucking obvious what would happen if we allowed them in the first place. Fat lot of fucking good that did, however...
That's because Pharma is a few players, and all of them make big money from keeping cancer patients and aids patients alive. For a cure, you'd need a smaller player without that vested interest.
As it is now, the only thing they're doing is researching and patenting around any possible cures to prevent that cash cow being taken away.
But other people feel entitled to create little monopolies for themselves using the government's power. That's okay, though.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/suit_2
suit
Definition
â a set of clothes made of the same material and usually consisting of a jacket and pants or skirt
â A suit is also a set of clothes or a piece of clothing to be worn in a particular situation or for a particular activity:
a bathing suit
â slang A suit is also someone in business, esp. when compared with an artist or ordinary worker:
The network suits donâ(TM)t care about the fans who show up at the ballpark.
I think you mean lawsuit.
Burn the suits. That'll take care of all problems.
I thought we didn't had them here?
Sounds like a US problem.
Doubt it would kill the web globally.
FUD ;)
Programming is not math.
Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so.
A mathematician is not a programmer and vice versa.
I've seen plenty of programmers who were horrible at math.
And plenty of mathematicians who were horrible at programming.
I would make the observation that the set of mathematicians is quite distinct from that of programmers.
Programming uses math. And can be described mathematically,
That doesn't make it math.
Physics, chemistry and all sorts of engineering topics use math. And can be described mathematically.
That doesn't make them math either.
If software were math, it would indeed be easier for you to make the argument that software should not be patentable.
But software should not be considered math just so your argument can be made easier.
Perhaps if you could show that you can distinguish reality from wishful thinking,
it might make your arguments against patents more credible.
Nevertheless, this is Slashdot, and logic has no place here.
Where credibility seems to be correlated to repetition...
The lack of cures is simply down to the fact that most of the 'low hanging fruit' in terms of pharmaceutical treatments has already been discovered.
Also the costs of getting a drug approved has gone up and up. It is probable that some drugs such as paracetamol would not be approved nowadays either, at least not as available OTC (over the counter) without prescription.
AIDs is an extremely complex disease which shows some ability to adapt itself when under attack. No cure is likely to be simple
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
A patent in this case is rather specific and
is unlikely to have been implemented and not grafted into
a real product.
Rummage about your old notes and old email and find
where this "invention" was first discussed and published.
Note that git was developed as a reaction to someone stepping on ....
the cash flow of bitkeeper and friends. A Git2 that works differently
is possible
To me this is a normal and obvious extension of a unique hash lookup
table. It can be done at the end of a network link a fiber channel
or any local or long distance data link including voice.
Hello Bob, get me the file 123456BobIsYourUncle and send it via FedX, USP, USPS ... taxi,
pneumatic tube. i.e. Lookup a unique ID and deliver it.
I have the bad feeling in the pit of my gut that trolls are applying for patents
after reading journals, listening to convention talks, procedings of, mining text books
and even fraternity file cabinets full of class notes.
If my gut feeling is founded, this is theft, plagerism and fraud. It is compounded
by the misuse of the law.... and when it can be shown true the bad boys need
to be cleaned out and flushed into a dark hole with no cell reception.
Universities that have not allowed the likes of Google to digitize their
thesis files and more as needed to establish the truth.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
What a pandora's-box of a comment! Through my own ontological lens, there seem very few exceptions in this world that are not the direct result of ideas. Surely that which exists independently of humanity (most of "nature") may be considered exempt, but the boundaries are a beastly , contested median. I imagine a hypothetical situation where thoughts are transparent and their content is broadcast through a universal medium accessible by all -- kind of like what could theoretically happen if our current surveillance paradigm continues unchecked; a situation where communications are subject to a one-way open protocol directed by a select-few. In such a strange situation, many would scarcely have acknowledged the value of their own concept before another more-clever observer either expounded on, or executed the idea. This, of course, would be a fascinating reality, albeit one we are debatably on the brink of.
....imperfect marriage? While there are omens abound suggesting that such practices are flawed and due a strong dose of evolutionary tweaking, they have not yet become entirely without merit. Entirely eradicating a system which (fallibly & overly) protects ideas, may lead to problems that would in no harmonious way fit into the presently arranged jigsaw of humanity's concord.
The protection of one's schema is an ancient practice, from the epic, to the daily affairs of an
At heart, I agree that ideas should not be patented, especially after they've been debuted, thus exposed to the collective. The patent system is flawed beyond the reach of refutation; but so could be argued for many other no-less-significant aspects of society. The system of currency itself appears diseased, enough to receive a prognosis of demise. In a world where every person must compete for Survival Tokens in order to remain endowed with the basic elements of continuity, entire complex systems of equally diseased adaptation develop around it. Whether from conditioning or tenet, so seldom do we question such systems, that what seems to me great Empires of Sociopathy are built upon them.
The effects of success-in-life motivated not by passion or character, but by fear of the harsh and dreary pit of economic failure (running out of Survival Tokens amongst cannibals), are arguably closer to the rotting root of woe than patents. With so many patents upholding the antiquated, stale methods of a distant yesterday, while booting the face of tomorrow's innovation, fear seems the culprit. I do not think many butcher innovation for sentimental hesitation of the future, nor for mere cruelty. More likely, they fear losing a stronghold on precarious commodities, and seek to secure them through whatever means connivable. Why do they fear? If the answer is as simple as "greed", we should be ashamed that the remedy is yet obscure. If we are to dive naked into the larger swamp of social stagnation, the patent is a fine place to start, but I fear it is just beneath the surface. I'll definitely take a dive myself, though in doubt of hitting the bottom.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
The oldest patent in the case is for de-duplication in storage using a cryptographic hash. Most web sites don't do that, although some caching systems do.
The prevailing philosophy holds that Mathematics is discovered, not invented.
That philosophy prevailed before the MP3 came along.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The "one-click" patent shows the key absurdity: almost every interaction on the internet (except for text entry) requires a response to a click on a link/hyperlink. (text entry requires a response to a letter one at a time which occurs on the user's browser on the user's computer.)
So effectively, every single mouse-click results in a complex response on the server-side based on the context of the data entered, perhaps with a "POST". So the request for a "one-click" purchase which agglomerates looking up previously retained data from a database such as name, prior purchase delivery address, prior purchase payment information, et cetera, is really no more than a post requesting a response from the server side.
Why should a server response that says "buy it now, using my previously saved settings as name address payment option + longer explanation" be allowed to be patented just because it's put on a clickable button that says just the "buy it now" part? That's my rant.
Your logic sucks. Mostly you repeat your premise. You are also as factually wrong as it is possible to be.
Physics, chemistry, and engineering can be modeled using math. The map is not the territory, however: we cannot make mathematically provable statements about reality using these models. For a more detailed view on determinism in quantum mechanics, and uncertainty principle, see elsewhere.
Computer languages are an extension of lambda calculus. Lisp syntax is extremely similar to lambda calculus. Algorithms are straight math. So is binary arithmetic -- which, buried under layers of abstraction, is all your computer really does. It's a pain in the ass, but computer programs can be mathematically proved to be correct (this is not quite equivalent to being bug-free).
What could an algorithm be if not mathematics?
Slashdot may repeat this concept because it is as fundamental to computing as evolution is to biology. In a few simple words you have revealed oceans of profound ignorance. You can either choose to accept reality and grow in knowledge, or deny it and grow in bitterness. But, fyi, this one is sillier than most attempts to tilt at windmills.
If it's isomorphic to a mathematical operation, or sequence of them, then its bad.
That would be... oh.... all of them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Everything in MP3 is either a storage format (C structs), or is based upon the orthogonality property of linear algebra.
You can describe any invention in a similar way.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Show the US government that software patents hurt innovation so much that it causes migration of innovative firms.
The problem is how?
That's stupid. If I say: "I can Levitate with my Mind", you don't just believe me because there's no evidence I can't levitate. No, you tell me to prove my claims. We don't need to show that patents hurt innovation, we need PROOF that they're actually good for us! We have none! They're saying: "Patents are Good for us" -- We shouldn't believe them because there's no evidence they're bad. No, we tell them to PROVE IT!
All you have to do is this: Demand Evidence. Any time anyone says patents are beneficial, point out that there is NO PROOF that patents are beneficial. To show the Government they might be bad, point a fat finger at the big empty void where there is NO proof that they are good!
Point to the Automotive and Fashion industries, which have neither design patents or copyrights, and say: "See! Patents AREN'T ESSENTIAL for innovation." Discredit that damn myth!
We need to ban all patents because to keep them on the books is insane. We can't afford the possibility that Patents are severely harmful -- If we don't abolish them, other countries will. If the patents are harmful we need to find out before we're left in the dust by the countries that don't foster patents and copyrights. Do you want your kids to be China's bitches because those other countries gave the finger to Artificial Scarcity of Ideas before We Did? It's a matter of National Security!
We need Hard Proof NOW that the patent system is actually beneficial in the Information Age! The ONLY way to get that evidence is to run the experiment and test the hypothesis: Ban All Patents; Observe the Results. Otherwise, we're all just sitting around ignorantly eating lead paint chips, bathing in pesticide under the sun, and burning ourselves with radium without caring to find out if any of it might be killing us all off. We test drugs,paint, pesticide, the Sun, EVERYTHING for harmful effects. We need to test the Patent System.
Call them on the carpet. Demand Evidence that "I.P." isn't harmful. Hold them to the findings.
(Protip: No evidence food isn't harmful == Can't be Sold. No evidence patents aren't harmful == NO PATENTS.)
I have "invented" many things as have most people, but since I did them at work my employer is the only one who could patent them ,,,
Does this inspire me to innovate? Do I reap the benefits ...?
More to the point did the lack of patents stop people innovating before they were invented?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
than do the work.
However, what we DO have are companies being shut down because of patents rasied against them. We have companies having to pay millions to defend against them.
We have no evidence of any benefit to the progress of the useful arts from patents in the past 30 years.
Remember, you don't DESERVE patents, you MAY get one. There's no "right to claim a patent" in law or the constitutions of countries. Prove you need one.
Really? This is insightful? You people just really be high to think that back in 1787 everybody was just sitting around being like "heheheheh yes Mr. Burns, we'll write all these laws so that the plebeians can't understand it and will have to hire us lawyers! We'll all be rich!" Lawyers are there to help people when their legal rights are threatened.
Your response would be more appropriate if the law was still as it was in 1787. As it is, things have changed a bit since then.
Please Please Please, just leave the union already!
Believe it or not, it is possible to build creative, novel, innovative, non-obvious solutions using only math and algorithms.
Unfortunately, a lot of these patents are not even close to being creative, novel, or innovative. There's a lot of obvious solutions that any expert in the software field would develop the same way, or at least an infringing way, if tasked with a similar problem. The language used seems to be aimed at maximizing the potential that someone will infringe on the patent in some way.
Fear is the mind killer.
It still does prevail, but many parties aren't fully aware of what mathematics entails
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Programming is math, algorithms, nothing more. It's idiotic that you can patent an idea or algorithm. What's next, patenting + and - ? Or maybe Pi?
I, as of this moment, have a patent pending on the following:
"A mechanism of issuing a lawsuit against another party who claims to have invented an idea, stating in the lawsuit that the issuer of the lawsuit is the first that came up with that idea and/or mechanism."
We need to end software patents
I seem to recall that back in the day it was pretty fucking obvious what would happen if we allowed them in the first place. Fat lot of fucking good that did, however...
Oh yes, I remember well the fear of software patents back in the day, and the big relief felt by most programmers when it appeared the issue was dead. Software was not patentable, the issue was settled, and the nascent PC software writing community heaved a sigh of relief went on about its business. It's worth noting that that was an era of absolutely stunning innovation, with new software ideas cropping up everywhere, seemingly overnight. Nobody worried about patents, and the industry flourished. And yet, somewhere along the way, the idea of software patents refused to die, and eventually managed to rise from the grave, bringing about the mess we currently find ourselves in. I know of no better argument against software patents then to look at the amount of innovation and success to be found in the IT field, especially amongst newly emerging small businesses, back in the '70s and '80s, as compared with what you find today. It's like the whole industry now labors under a crushing weight of fear, fear of the inevitable but often unforeseeable patent lawsuit. It's crazy that anyone could think software patents are a good idea. I firmly believe that the whole personal computing revolution would never have happened under the current restrictive IP rights regime. It just couldn't have survived. And yes, to this day, I don't quite understand how a seemingly settled legal argument could reemerge from the grave like that, complete with unholy powers and an unquenchable appetite for gobbling up the nation's brains. Indeed, I do despair sometimes, because clearly, the zombies are winning.
Furthermore, OP is wrong, as well. An algorithm is an *arbitrary* expression of a *creative* method of solving a problem. Your choice of the *expression* of that method is what is arbitrary; it's only necessary that it be comprehensible to the patent examiner, so that he or she may then understand the originality of your method. It is the method which is original. That method *is* an invention and you *did* build it, out of singular mathematical primitives instantiated as specific constructs of physical information directives, also known as software codes. That is why algorithms should be patentable -- NOT merely copyrightable.
To make an analogy with copyright, let's put it like this: letters representing specific sounds are our common property. Arbitrary strings of those letters -- commonly known as words -- are generally considered the common property of all of us -- but not *necessarily*: thus the rise of trademarks (which *may*, like the now-common concept 'xerox' as a synonym for "copy" pass into the common language. Note /.'s notation at the bottom of this list: "Trademarks property of their respective owners."). Arbitrary conjunctions of those strings are considered copyrightable, and, since 1976 [in U.S. law, at least], are considered "instantly" copyrighted by their creator upon formation -- thus /.'s notation at the bottom of this list: "Comments owned by the poster". However, there is nothing to stop people from designating their personal "creative expression" as 'in the public domain': free for unlimited use by other humans, with neither reference nor payment to the original creator.
Now let's look at software patents: original methods which *do* things to information *utilizing* information in the form of software codes. Parent makes the salient point: Mathematics is the birthright of every human. I would state it as "mathematical operations are our common property". Operations *do* things: mapping one thing to another, or transforming one thing into another. Arbitrary strings of those operations -- commonly known as functions -- are generally considered the common property of all of us. (Example: the Newton-Raphson method to find the zeros of an arbitrary equation.) Functions *do* things, using information to operate on information. A "mathematical operation" can be represented as a single software code: say, 0x40 == "add" ; arbitrary combinations of *those* operations -- software functions -- *could be* considered the common property of all of us -- but not *necessarily*: consider the JPEG and MPEG algorithms (proprietary). [But see here for the furor surrounding patent issues about JPEG.] Arbitrary conjunctions of those functions *could* be considered eligible for software patenting, if their operations *do* "non-obvious things. (However, there is nothing to stop people from designating their personal "methodical expressions of operations" as 'in the public domain': free for unlimited use by other humans, with neither reference nor payment to the original creator (think *some forms of* 'open source software').)
The essential difference between copyrightable property and patentable property is that patents cover methods which *do* things; copyrights cover expressions which *say* things. Methods which merely attempt to cover the transformation of codes from one form to another (say, a patent which covers ASCII-to-UNICODE: too obvious) or are clearly invalidated by prior art (like JPEG eventually was) are not eligible for patent coverage. But what if someone applied for a patent which, as one of its methods, asserted the solution to an as-yet unproved mathe
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
My argument is as follows:
A patent for "Doing some process the same way you did it before but using a computer" - Bad patent
A patent for "Doing some process on a computer which isn't blatantly obvious on how one would use a computer in the process" or "Performing a process that would not be possible without the use of a computer" - potentially not bad patent.
Even "Process for enhancing an existing process by using a computer' might potentially be patent worthy if it is in fact a novel approach and not simply adding a computer to an existing process. (in other words, do the same work as a human, only faster.)
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
I have no problem with patents on processes that, by the mere act of performing that process, some effect upon the real world is produced.
I have a problem with patents on processes, no matter how obscure they are, or innovative they might seem to be, which do not exhibit any causal interaction with the world around us. Usefulness doesn't mean it is real. (Morality is a good example of this... "good" isn't a real physical substance, but behaving in a morally acceptable way still has a very useful function for a majority of people).
Finally, if the only innovation on something is "do it with a computer", I would argue that this should not *EVER* make an otherwise non-patentable concept into a patentable one.
A process for curing rubber is an acceptable patent. A process for data compression should not be (I know many are, it's my position that those are bad patents).
If a process has causal components, which means that it affects the universe or world in some real way, but it is possible to identify a subset of the process which does not have any causal component, I would argue that while it may be acceptable to patent the whole process, other processes which might incorporate a causality-independent subset of that process, but which do not utilize a number of the same causal components as it should not infringe on that patent. So, for example, a process for controlling elevators could be a patentable process. However, an identical core algorithm could also be used to control how a disk drive head is moved when queuing reads and writes, and such an application of an otherwise identical process should not infringe on that patent.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'