Slashdot Mirror
Nobelist Gary Becker Calls For an End To Software Patents
GigaOM notes that (excerpting) "Gary Becker, a Nobel-prize winning professor at the University of Chicago, stated this week that the U.S. patent system is ”too broad, too loose, and too expensive” and called for the end of software patents: 'Disputes over software patents are among the most common, expensive, and counterproductive. Their exclusion from the patent system would discourage some software innovations, but the saving from litigation costs over disputed patent rights would more than compensate the economy for that cost.'" Here are Becker's comments, from the always-fun Becker-Posner Blog.
Is it a mere algorithm? An algorithm with a specific realised implementation?
Since I'm not currently in a country where mathematics can be owned, it seems weird to me.
Does any software company actually indicate that they would stop work if it were not for software patents? I.e. is there any company which says that it relies on software patents to do business in software, rather than as a defensive/offensive mechanism?
That's a new one. I did a double-take and had to check to see if you weren't spelling novelist wrong.
The dangers of software patents are many and well-documented. They frequently serve little purpose except as legal ammunition in cases that do nothing but punish businesses for attempting to make a good product. Computer code is not an invention -- if it was we'd have patents on the programming language. What you can do is copyright your work as an act of expression, like a how-to book.
It boggles my mind that the Government expects that software developers will do patent searches as they write their code rather than simply implementing what is obvious at the time to implement. Software patents are written in such a way as to make them difficult to interpret and appear broad even when they aren't. It simply isn't practical for software developers were to do their "due diligence" as they write their code, and if they did no appreciable amount of code would be written.
It is quite likely that most if not all software written violates at least a small handful of patents (remember the XOR patent?) -- creating an unfair advantage for the companies who have enormous in-house legal councils who can pursue purported patent violations.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I agree and I say we also cut the absurd lifetime of copyright at the same time.
I'm thankful we are not governed by college professors.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Becker
Gary Stanley Becker (born December 2, 1930) is an American economist. He is a professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chicago and a professor at the Booth School of Business. He has important contributions to the family economics branch within the economics. Neoclassical analysis of family within the family economics is also called new home economics. He was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1992 and received the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007.[1] He is currently a Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson senior fellow at the conservative[2] Hoover Institution, located at Stanford University.
Beware of anything where 'Chicago' and 'economy' appear in the same article.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Their exclusion from the patent system would discourage some software innovations
Can anyone point to a single actual instance of a software innovation which wouldn't have become public without the benefit of patent protection?
You can apply his arguments to more than software. Patents discourage innovation. Under the current system small companies and individuals end up with a huge disadvantage. Huge companies have enough resources to try to patent everything hope a few are approved.
The problem is that international law covers software patents just like tangible product patents under the dubious basis that software is an "arrangement of matter" at the microscopic level. I never appreciated how bad they are for innovation. The big boys sit around accumulating patents on everything and sharpening their lawyer-axes. The little guys scurry in the shadows waiting for one to drop on them.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You put an end to software patents and your streets are going to be crawling with homeless guys in suits asking your for $100 an hour so they can get a cup of coffee, or a thousand bucks to clean your windscreen at the lights. Who wants to be the one responsible for that? Obviously this Becker bloke just hasn't thought this one through.
As more and more of society moves online, the combination of an end of patents and an end to copyright basically means that all property will be shared between all people, and there is nothing someone can produce that someone else cannot make use of. This is a bad thing as it removes a vital incentive for creation.
unfortunately, and let me elaborate, it is not: ..errr ... buildings. so you get money from the bank, which gets ... like a building.
the modern economy is based on fiat money, but altogether by itself
is based on NOTHING, but we use it to pay for SOMETHING.
thus the best way to "base" fiat money on "something" is not
to dig out more gold from the ground, but to charge for everything and then some.
afterall, more money has to be "created" because there are more and more people using it everyday.
it the simplest form, it means building
it from the people who make the money and then this virtual money becomes real because it is tide
to something you can touch
the above can also be applied to something as ridiculous as "software patents".
Why should firmware be any different?
All your approach would lead too is software that requires a peripheral with some firmware in it to run.
The funny part is that that's a specific algorithm and explicitly excluded. It's the trivial crap that's getting patented.
I would say the actual firmware should not be able to get patent protection, maybe the complete machine.
Also anything that can be put in an FPGA should not be able to get a patent. Seeing as those are just algorithms that you put in those.
Yes that would also exclude most electronic circuits, at least the digital ones.
Analogue circuits are maybe an exception, since those are perfect because of noise and inaccuracy. Therefor you may make an invention on how to use analogue circuits which is not a direct implementation of an algorithm.
It appears to have been Slashdotted to death
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I've always seen it this way. If there's a source code leak, have ways in place that pin it down to one person then sue their asses off and there's your money for damages. Otherwise, with the latest anti-decompiling methods, I doubt someone is getting your actual code manually. So that leaves the fact that if someone can look at your program running and figure out the code behind a certain function then write it themselves, it was too simple to be patented. If they can't figure it out, it's darn good valuable IP and then they can't use it because they don't have the code or an idea how to write it. It solves itself.
Even LZW compression is fairly obvious to a skilled programmer. I remember there were several similar compression algorithms around at the time it was patented. It's not an especially good algorithm, it's just more famous (mostly thanks to the patent wars that surrounded it).
If you want "non-obvious" you need to go to something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrows%E2%80%93Wheeler_transform
Radical thinking like that is worthy of a patent IMHO (although that algorithm wasn't patented...go figure)
No sig today...
Formula 1 has zero use for patents. If a team invents something useful they try to keep it secret. If a team were to apply for a patent for one of their inventions, the other teams would simply band together and change the rules to explicitly ban that patent from use in the race cars. Despite this, the teams spend tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) every year on the development of their cars. Top teams bring changes and innovations every two weeks (average time between races). Relax Corporate America, innovation will survive just fine without software patents.
Now if someone points out that what F1 does is employ Trade Secrets, and the idea behind patents is that they allow for the state of the art to be shared in the public domain, I have to agree. But the actual result of the patent system is that no one reads about patents (knowingly infringing a patent results in triple damages), so the patent system isn't even achieving that goal.
Though a few act trollish.
It is how you interpret the voltage levels that makes it digital. If a circuit operates between 0 and 1 v, then a voltage 0= v = 0.25 might be interpreted as a 0, and a voltage .75 v 1 could be interpreted as a 1.
If the voltage is between .75 and .25, then you don't know what it is.
There is no such thing as a discontinuous function in electronics. Not until you get into quantum physics do things seem to change.
Ok, let's be fundamental about this. Isn't it strange that we should consider "software" as different from other intellectual property? If X hours of work have been invested into the invention of a clever software routine, then, it would be strange if a patent could not be granted for that work while a patent would be granted for some physical apparatus that also took X hours to develop. (Don't think about the stupid "one-click-buy" software patents, but more along the lines of an ingenious differential-equation solver).
So, I don't think a law that says "patents are granted, but not for software" would be a good one. If we would abolish patents, we should do it in all fields.
Remember that the US has to rely on IP protection, for a substantial part of the work done in this country is intellectual. Therefore allowing software patents could in fact be beneficial.
As an aside: in the end, everything is mathematics. Software is mathematics; but also a physical apparatus, or even a medicine can be described mathematically. So, based on this argument, there should be no distinction in IP law.
What should happen, though, is that "stupid" patents should be rejected. I will explain how this could be accomplished.
First, split the patent-office in two parts. The first part, call it the "patent intake office", will *pay* an amount for each patent that they grant. The second member, call it the "evaluation office", will, after 5 years after issue of the patent, determine the societal impact of the patent. If the impact is large, an amount is paid to the intake-office.
(Note that the patent office will initially *pay* for patents that they grant. This is in contrast with the current situation, where the office receives money for each patent that is granted.)
This means that, under this model, the USPTO will not so easily approve simple things such as "one click shopping" because they might lose on it on account of a lack of social impact. Similarly, patent trolling will be actively barred by the patent office (no product means no social impact). However, a patent for a new medicine may be approved. And even software, if ingenious and useful, may be granted a patent.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
If software patents hadn't been so badly abused, often by some of the biggest, most powerful corporations, then there might have been a place for strictly limited patents. But we've learned in the past decades that you cannot trust corporations to behave well. Given the opportunity for fast profit, they will gladly abuse every aspect of the law. As a stockbroker friend of mine puts it, "They'll throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar". They say they want "free markets" and "competition" but not for themselves.
And this bad behavior by anyone with the last name of "Inc" is why we just cannot have nice things.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm trying to think of some examples of software innovations that would be discouraged by excluding them from the patent system.
If one wrote software that made some process more efficient, wouldn't one want that process to be more efficient anyway, regardless of the patent status?
I don't care what the character limit on the headline is, if I never see the word "Nobelist" again it will be too soon!
Even LZW compression is fairly obvious to a skilled programmer. I remember there were several similar compression algorithms around at the time it was patented. It's not an especially good algorithm, it's just more famous (mostly thanks to the patent wars that surrounded it).
Leaving aside the argument of whether LZW is obvious or not, that's not what the article is talking about. Basically, in an incredibly simplified nutshell, there are 4 separate and independent requirements you have to pass to get a patent, and failing any one of them will result in a rejection or invalid patent. They come from four different statutes:
35 USC 101: the invention must be a useful method, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter;
35 USC 102: the invention must be new - i.e. never done before;
35 USC 103: the invention must be non-obvious;
35 USC 112: the invention must be sufficiently described in the patent application to enable someone to make and use it.
You're saying that LZW fails the 103 requirement in that it was obvious... that's a different argument. What this argument is about is whether all software should be excluded from the definition of "method" under 35 USC 101: whether the most novel, most non-obvious, most freakin' revolutionary bit of software in the entire universe should still be ineligible for a patent, because it's software.
The GP post says that yes, maybe that revolutionary software alone should be unpatentable under 101, but if it's part of firmware for an EPROM, then maybe it should be allowed.
Isn't that a bit pedantic? It's commonly referred to as the Nobel prize in economics.
The current system doesn't discourage innovation, it actively prevents it. Any new product is guaranteed to violate some patent or other; if it happens to be successful, the trolls strike between there being enough money to be worth looting and enough to mount a defense.
Not to mention how "first to file" effectively hands the system (even more than before) over to organizations that can afford legal teams and lots of filing fees.
It is the great lie that patents encourage innovation. They do not.
-money (profits) encourage innovation
-the sheer joy of 'inventing' encourages innovation
Patents aid the first SOMETIME, but so do a thousand other business models. Companies use whatever is available. No patents, no problem.
Anyway, with software, there isn't even the slightest argument in favour of patents. XOR a bitmap onto the screen was patented. Having a zero at the end of a string was patented. Any 3D on a computer screen for gaming was patented (in Japan). Pure abuse by established players trying to lock out the competition.
Software patents are protected by giants like Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and Apple paying off politicians. Do YOU put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of key US politicians? Do YOU give key politicians insider-trading tips, so said US politician can use his/her immunity against insider-trading laws to earn millions from the speculation?
The fundamental WRONGNESS of software patents will never lead to reform. The system breaking actions of psychopathic patent trolls (mostly ex-Microsoft people funded by Bill Gates) will most likely cause some reform to happen.
A current patent settlement tends to earn major percentage points from the targeted project. Say 2%. But that losing project contains THOUSANDS of potential code targets. Even those of you with really weak maths skills know that 1000 x 2 >>> 100. You can't have more than 100% of anything. Current settlements effectively pretend a software product consists of little code beyond that which is being challenged.
So, unleash the full blown Bill Gates patent troll wars, and what happens? Commercial software becomes impossible to create. A 14-year-old, given a clean-room programming education, and exposed to knowledge about standard algorithms, could create a fairly substantial software product if sufficiently talented. That product would infringe literally tens of thousands of software patents. THINK ABOUT THIS. 99.999% of all software patents contain ZERO innovation that a reasonably talented programmer could not spontaneously deduce if exposed to current state-of-the-art IT teaching (the sort that actually encourages programmers to read books on algorithms and data structures in use since the 1950s).
Of course there are exceptions. How many ordinary programmers would have created the algorithms behind MP3? But MP3 is still just the mathematical theory behind sound compression. There is, in truth, not a lot of this useful maths research- so actually we should have a system where it is accepted that the university work that creates most of it is a gift to the world, and that governments fund there universities to make the world a better place.
It should ONLY be the exploitation of fundamental ideas that is a function of the capitalistic system. The fundamental ideas themselves should belong to everyone. For instance, the creation of MP3 as a standard helps the whole sound industry. Of course standards cost money to create, but when so many companies are going to benefit from the stability and growth standards bring, their costs are chicken feed. No-one should be making big money from 'owning' a standard.
Pure software patents should be dropped. However, when the software is a required piece of a hardware system (aka, Firmware) it should be allowed.
The other problem is for software that does something that really is a an invention, such as LZW compression, and not a "drop-down menu".
And how do you define Firmware when the worlds of Embedded and non-Embedded computing are mixing so well?
Would Android ROMs be considered embedded? Or would it be limited to the ROM uploaded to your wireless card? or CD/DVD/BD Burner? Where do you draw the line?
I currently work on a system that is for-all-intents an "embedded system" yet we load "normal" software onto it.
While IANAL, SCOTUS has ruled that a non-patentable compont can be part of a larger patentable component, but the sum of non-patentable components do not a patentable component make. That is, software for a rubber curing machine can be part of the patent for the rubber curing maching even if the software is otherwise unpatentable by itself; however, that also precludes someone from being able to sue for patent infringement when someone took that software and used it in another device entirely - f.e, a device to lay rubber on the road - should the software apply there too.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
...he'll just be called a socialist and that's that.
We are an era of NO debate. The pro-corporate lobby will smear him and there will be no discussion. Being a Nobel Laurette isn't going to matter much to knownothings in Congress.
There is in economics, but there shouldn't be.
Not sure how Patents relate to Copyright, but in the case of Copyright it *seems* removal of restrictions (such as Copyright) helps the market, instead of it being a hindrance to market development... http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html
.... counter productive for they violate the universally agreed upon things that cannot be patented. Natural Law, Physical Phenomenon, Abstract Ideas and from these Mathematical Algorithms. Where Software Patents go against all of these. See http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php
AC above is right. The so-called "Noble Prize in Economics" is actually the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. It was created in 1969 - over 70 years after the actual Noble Prizes. (Apparently the bankers felt left out.) I can create the Runeghost Prize in Absolute Awesomeness in Memory of Alfred Nobel, but even if I bribe the Nobel Committe with a few tens of millions I happen to have lying around to let me into the ceremony, that does not mean that there is actually a Nobel Prize in Awesomeness.
Even though it may be hard, we probably need to start by reforming the US Patent Office to reduce the number of poor patents. It is not impossible. The USPTO was mostly functional 30 years ago. We just need to recognize that we have made mistakes and address them. I have enumerated what I believe to be the major mistakes in a rant at: https://plus.google.com/b/101806809558932714222/101806809558932714222/about I sent my CongressCritters a letter describing the problem. Feel free to mine it for ideas. It is available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mCG_vwfHN8xPnVyGq46BfKKyRflQtVcebuT0rwrpTG0
The biggest problems with patent reform aren't understanding how to improve quality. They are:
I believe the major mistakes that create poor quality patents are:
That's the thing about copyrights; you're not allowed to copy somebody's story, but even though somebody else has written a detective novel doesn't mean that you can't.
Looking at your two code fragments, I see two implementations that are different enough to have been come up by two different coders given the same problem. Sure, they're very much alike, but it's for a really simple function. Consider how similar two horseshoes are probably going to be for the same horse(and tasking for said horse). Same with hammers used for the same purpose.
However, are you going to go through the entire code base for a major program and change stuff like this? Remember, it's still a copyright violation if you take something and simply change the names(to protect the innocent). Your work has to be substantially different lest the opposing party convince the judge.
Besides, something very similar was ruled legal way back in the day concerning BIOS. They duplicated the BIOS by essentially testing the existing one through all it's functions, generating a massive spec book, then having their programmers build a duplicate based on the spec book. Even improved performance in many ways.
I don't read AC A human right
The addiction started at IBM with one Marshall Phelps, who is a pusher. While at IBM he addicted them to a revenue stream of upwards of 2 billion from their IP portfolio. He actually shot them up directly in the arm and then continued to do so even as people within IBM warned against the dangers with drug usage and drug addiction.
\When Marshall Phelps, pusher, was done with IBM, he moved on to microsoft, again mainlining them with his junk and turning them into software patent junkies. The results were as predictable as they were ruinous, as miicrosoft's refocused its resources on pushing trivial patents at the USPTO and reoriented its strategy on preventing market competition rather than meeting it.
Rarely is something as destructive as software patents directly attributable to one individual, however in this case we can clearly and definitively identify the original carrier- Marshall Phelps.
Software patents kill people. The treatments that never see the light of day and the technology and advancement that never happens because some addicted CEO and some pusher- lawyer who makes money off the addicts have prevented life-saving progress from ever being realized, brought to market or, most often and most insidiously never attempted.
When lawyers like Marshall Phelps are permitted to operate freely in society , then people die. I can only imagine what the body count that is directly attributable to this one person's actions is. It must be into the hundreds of thousands.
Today Marshall Phelps continues to push software patents, still setting in motion a sequence of events that has dead people who would otherwise have been alive into motion.
Marshall Phelps is a monster and society must stop him.
Software patents kill people.