Slashdot Mirror
Prominent Pro-Patent Judge Issues Opinion Declaring All Software Patents Bad (techdirt.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: A lawsuit brought by the world's largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures, and handled on appeal (as are all patent cases), by the notoriously awful Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) may have actually killed off software patents. The ruling came from a judge that has ruled over patent cases since the 1980s, and it appears he's been born again into the anti-software patent world. Judge Mayer pointed out that the First Amendment says that "some" patents should not be allowed. The whole concurrence is worth reading, starting with the First Amendment argument -- which is kind of fascinating in that it goes well beyond what most people had talked about in the past concerning software patents. Judge Mayer makes the point that basically all software is unpatentable because software is "a form of language," which we don't patent: "All software implemented on a standard computer should be deemed categorically outside the bounds of Section 101. ("Section 101" is 35 U.S. Code; 101 is the part that governs patents.) The central problem with affording patent protection to generically-implemented software is that standard computers have long been ceded to the public domain .... Because generic computers are ubiquitous and indispensable, in effect the 'basic tool []' of modern life, they are not subject to the patent monopoly. In the section 101 calculus, adding software (which is as abstract as language) to a conventional computer (which rightfully resides in the public domain) results in a patent eligibility score of zero .... Software lies in the antechamber of patentable invention. Because generically-implemented software is an 'idea' insufficiently linked to any defining physical structure other than a standard computer, it is a precursor to technology rather than technology itself."
That actually aligns neatly with the current UK approach, where standalone software can not be patented but the combination of physical technology and the software needed to operate it can.
Next stop: Algorithms.
"software is "a form of language," which we don't patent: "
No, we copyright it. And copyrights last forever...
(so long as Disney has nickel to bribe congress to extend copyright laws)
No sig today...
Patents are bad for makers, copyrights are bad for users.
Copyrights aren't inherently bad for users because they can be turned into copylefts. They are what powers the GPL. The user needs Free Software — not mere Open Source, which only means you can see the source, and does not tell you what you can do with it. Without software patents, Free Software would only be more powerful, and capable of doing more of what the user needs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>Any half-assed hacker can reverse engineer your code
Reverse engineering is, in fact, one of the hardest forms of engineering and projects that reverse engineer are generally filled with some of the smartest brains we have- because it's very hard. You think the wine devs are idiots ? Yet it took them more than decade to get out of alpha !
>He can then replicate your software in 1/10th the time it took you to develop your software
If what my software does is so simple that somebody can replicate it in 1/10th the time it took me to do it - then he's the better programmer and he deserves to win in the market place. My best defense, in fact, is to use a free software license in the first place - so it's to his benefit to rather add his features to *my* product where we can both profit than to go and create his own. Even then, sooner or later even the greatest code gets replaced by better stuff. By your reasoning - it was a horrible thing that nginx was developed because apache came first ? The fact that nginx does the core jobs apache did with a far more elegant design and has become the dominant product by being better doesn't matter ?
You must be truly incompetent as a programmer if you are *this* afraid to compete on the merits of your product - that even with a first-to-market advantage you are this convinced any "half-assed-hacker" can make something better than you did... it sounds to me like, rather than wanting patents to put a dead-weight on the global software economy - you may be better off seeking a different career, one more suited to your particular talents - none of which, apparently, involve writing software.
>exactly the the reason patents exist
No. That is not at all why patents exist. The reason patents exist is right there in the law. To promote open disclosure of how an invention works. Quite the opposite of what you think - it's to make sure you will have MORE competitors than you otherwise would. The reward for letting the world copy your invention, is having a brief time where nobody is allowed to. One of the major problems with software patents it the absolute lack of disclosure actually - I've yet to read a software patent include full source for an implementation of the idea - and nothing less than a working source implementation can count as 'blueprints' for a software program.
>Software is not languages. Software uses languages
Novels are not languages. Novels *use* languages... so by your reckoning I'd best run off to the patent office really quick to patent "Romance novels. Soft-porn for housewives with sloppy plotlines and lots of sex scenes using vague euphemisms" before somebody else does ! If nothing else - I may be able to sue Barbara Cartland's estate to oblivion. Hey it's first-to-file - who gives a fuck that she died after spending 50 years 'inventing' romance novels before I got the patent right ?
> you can program software using 1s and 0s. Which language was used there?
That would be mathematics. Which is, in fact, a language - and unpatentable all by itself anyway. You may want to study computing theory - if you think software is anything but NOT pure and unadulterated mathematics on every level it's because you don't actually know what software is. Only what we try very hard to make it pretend to be.
> Technology often consists of processing steps, which are patentable
Having to disclose the steps involved in using a machine does not make the steps themselves patentable. Which is the most charitable way to interpret the complete bullshit you just spouted. No, 'technology' consists of real, physical things - machines and devices. Processing steps - a completely abstract set of ideas is not and has never been patentable, software was an abberation in this regard - and the Alice verdict was basically the supreme court telling you just that.
> and so should software.
So what are you ? Patent lawyer ? Patent troll ? Since those are the *only* people who have ever benefited from software patents. No prog
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Still not *nearly* as bad as patents though. Even a copyrightable API simply means you can stop me from building a software library that's a drop-in replacement for yours. It stifles competition, but not innovation. Google could have easily made Dalvik use a different, but functionally equivalent, standard function library, it would have just made it that much more difficult for Java programmers to adapt to using it.
Patents mean you can stop me from distributing software that's completely my own design and work, even if I never knew your software existed, or even if you never wrote any software at all, just because it uses ideas that you also had, and managed to get accepted by the patent office.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.