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."
Right now, there are approximately 155,000 metric tons of 'above ground' gold in the world.
There are also roughtly $12.5 trillion dollars in physical and electronic currency reserves in existence.
If you divide this out, it means that gold bullion should have a value of approximately $2,500 per troy ounce - approximately a 50% premium over its value today. This isn't rocket science, people. This is an easy way to get yourself rich.
Very informative... at the very least mention this is FSF's viewpoint on the issue. Also, it's ok to write more than 3 sentences. Thank you.
Just ban U$A. Their legal system is beyond broken anyway. Their "patent" "system" make me lol more than comedy.
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
if they are such good programmers they shouldnt have to steal other peoples patented ideas
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.'
I wonder if all those people talking about software freedom use iPhones.
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/
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.
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.
Maybe we should let patents kill the Web. At least I'd waste a lot less time on it!
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.
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.
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 "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.
"No cure is likely to be simple"
Sounds like Microsoft excusing Internet Explorers security holes. Firefox came along, and suddenly long standing security holes in IE's Javascript got fixed.
I view such things as excuses. We need a fix, they haven't provided a fix, ergo something needs to be changed. If pharma patents are causing rent seeking, then we need to eliminate them.
The Italian study showing a major drop in new chemicals in Italy when patents were introduced, yet a sharp rise in profits, shows the negative effects it's having on innovation, even in Pharmaceuticals.
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.)
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!
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.