But there's such a fine line between the statement of an algorithm in mathematical symbols and the statement of an algorithm in computer language that for all intents and purposes the algorithm itself has been patented. 100 years ago, nobody would have seriously considered a patent for an algorithm's "implementation with pencil and paper", but the USPTO now regularly accepts patents for algorithms "implemented with an electronic digital device".
You may think this distinction is trivial, but in the case of patent law it is very important. Since you are patenting an apparatus, or implementation of the algorithm, but not the algorithm you are only granted coverage of the implementation. Under patent law if I make an improvement on a patented invention I may not be able to practice the invention because I am still practicing the art you have patented. However, since you have only a patent on the implementation, and not the algorithm, I am free to make an improvement in the algorithm, and then use it in any way I wish - and thus escape your patent.
As for your example of a software implementation of the LZW algorithm that does not infringe the Unisys patent, the LZW basic patent includes in claim 1 a requirement for a storage device for the data. This means that it is quite possible to avoid the LZW patent with an implementation that accepts the data uncompressed, and then transmits it compressed, so long as the data is not stored in the compression apparatus. It may be inefficient to do so - but there it is.
Ultimately software on these machines is in fact an implementation of an algorithm, not the algorithm itself. It is implemented in a very specific form of translation, and on stored-program electronic computing hardware - the importance and wide applicability of which has nothing to do with the fact that the algorithm is still an abstract concept that can be described free of any hardware context and that can be implemented on an abacus, by pencil and paper, on a Babbage machine, or any other of many possible instrumentalities. The fact that a digital computer is currently the favorite of these choices is an objection that does not overcome this fundamental, non-fungible distinction.
Was there ever a forum anywhere that had less of a clue regarding patents than Slashdot? I doubt it. I wish Rob Malda and friends would implement some reasonable standard of journalism to weed out these speculative and clue-less stories.
Let's look at this story from a factual basis (I know it's a bit much to expect from slashdot, but we can try):
Apparently, he has applied for a patent for this approximation.
Apparently is the key word here. The author is engaging in rank speculation and rumor-mongering.
Unfortunately there is no actual text to the application to review, only a speculative statement and a journal publication. What can we say about this from known law?
The first is:
1. YOU CANNOT PATENT A MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHM.
Yes Virginia, despite the wild statements by many contributors to this forum, US Patent law contains a specific provision that includes a ban on patents of mathematical laws and algorithms. There are in fact no valid patents of mathematical algorithms in existance.
This rules out the speculation of the article statement.
2. IT IS POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN A PATENT ON PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHMS
Such cases are well know, such as RSA for encryption applications, and LZW for image compression. THESE ARE NOT PATENTS OF ALGORITHMS, MERELY AN APPLICIATION OF THE ALGORITHM you are perfectly free to use RSA or LZW algorithms in non-patented applications for the algorithms themselves are not the subject of the patent.
If in fact the author is filing an application as speculated by the article author on the approximation, it will be quickly rejected by the USPTO. HOWEVER, if the author is filing on an application of the algorithm to some common problem, say deconvolution of Fourier Transfor Infrared Spectra, then I think there is a good chance that the application will become a patent.
Time will of course show what is the actual case here.
Wasn't the first key obtained from an Xing player that didn't encrypt it? If that's the case, it doesn't sound like they made reasonable efforts at all - or even if it's entirely Xing's fault, the DVD folks didn't do anything to the company to attempt to salvage what had happened.
The fact that the CSS was weak 40 bit encryption is defensible given the US export controls on stronger methods. The consortium can justifiably argue they used the strongest legalally allowed method. The business with Xing is a real problem for the DVD consortium.
I wasn't aware that we could convict on circumstantial evidence.
Many if not most legal cases are decided on 'circumstantial' evidence. All it means is that there were no direct witnesses to the crime. DNA evidence, for example, is 'circumstantial' even though it is far more reliable than an eye witness.
If the court does not immediately enjoin the posting of this proprietary information, the plaintiff's right to protect this information as secret will surely be lost, given the current power of the Internet to disseminate information and the Defendants' stated determination to do so.
This is where the judge fell flat on his face. The injunction is too late, and has no power to control an entity like the internet. AS a result it should not have been issued. I am sure the judge had some reason for issuing the order, but I hope he realizes that it is not likely to have any real effect.
Any self-respecting computer export will tell you that 40-bit encryption is pathetically weak, but clearly the judge doesn't realise this.
I think that the judge does realize that this is weak encryption - he certainly makes note of this. The DCA counter argument is that they could not use strong encryption because of export restrictions, and the 40 bit system was the best they could legally use.
How about a review of a good book?
on
Childhood's End
·
· Score: 2
I never particularly admired Clarke's long works. However his short stories including Tales From the White Hart and of course the famous Sentinel are terrific.
If you want a really good classic sci-fi novel of the same era you should read Clifford Simak's City. It is far more worthy than Childhood's End.
Furthermore, commercially available DVD writers will not allow you to write to that sector.
So you modify the recorder.
The cost of media and recorders makes home copying unattractive to the man in the street. A completely different picture emerges if you are going to sell 100,000 pirate copies. Such pirates will have the resources to buy or modify recorders to make bit-clone copies.
Don't know if Palm patented it then, but it certainly was out before 1995 (when the Xerox patent was first applied for).
If you read the patent, you will see that it is a continuation of a filing that occurred in 1993. This means the invention had to occur some time before 1993, perhaps a year or two. It is the time of invention that determines when prior art becomes applicable.
Any semblance of a clue about patent law:-). The key date that determines establishes priority over prior art is when the invention was made. NOT when the patent issued!
The original filing was 1993. The invention obviously has to occur some time before that, probably 1990 or so.
This could be argued to be an "evolution" to the existing patent, and thus, not in violation of the patent as written.
OoooOOOooh. I would LOVE to take you into court on that. I'd end up owning your ass, your wife's ass, and all your material possesions, plus a lien on everything you will make in the future, and your kids.
Ever hear of stuff like 'doctrine of equivalents'? It's a specific part of patent law that clearly gives the patent owner rights over trivial variations like having ONE character out of 100 or so be two strokes.
The Palm and related devices has been out for how long? And this suit is just now coming up? Ok, I might be missing something, but it really irks me when a company waits several years to push a patent...just when the supposed infringement is making money.
Why are/. people so STUPID about patents? Read the patent, and the article. The patent issued in 1997. Xerox filed their law suit in 1997.
There was NO delay, NO attempt to sabotage the Palm IPO.
The REAL question is if it's KOREAN newspaper pages, or American! That tricky Korean alphabet stacks characters vertically in one space to 'overload' sounds and increase information density.
Us folks with Cablevision are screwed as far as cablemodems go, and DSL hasn't made it to my area yet. It pisses me off to no end that Cablevision is trying to buy up sports teams here for $$$$$$$, and runs crappy MSG channels on their cable, but is still working it's way through NY and CT with their broadband internet services. Meanwhile Comcast has had cable internet access for a year or two in towns not 10 miles away.
DSL will probably be here in about 6-12 months, but I bet it will be crappy. Bell Atlantis does not have a good record so far. And they keep sending me notes in the mail - switch to us as your ISP. Yeah, right - at $20/mo for LIMITED service with reliability and service guaranteed to be lower than my nice local provider.
If this is how they think, this is a very bad sign.
I agree, however the rollout of these technologies is depressingly slow. Some companies like Lucent have been hit in their stock prices partly due to slower than expected movement by the phone companies to get this stuff out.
I know it all too well. I live in the middle of the most densely populated state in the country (NJ) and can't get either a cable modem or consumer DSL services. I could get business DSL if I was willing to pay $100+ month.
One of the things that bothers me quite a bit about the issue of high tech education in the US is that industry and government like to whine about the insufficiency of US engineering and programmer graduates. This buffaloes congress into passing special measures allowing large numbers of immigrants to fill these postions. Now I have nothing against immigrants - in fact I married one. Best move I ever made.
But it seems to me that by issuing large numbers of visas in this fashion supply and demand is not going to be balanced internally. This external supply will inevatably reduce the wages of such workers, resulting in insufficient incentives to attract top students who go into more lucrative professional tracks such as medicine, law and business schools.
Now we get complaints about the number of non-US citizens working in 'critical' computer areas. Well, DUH!!
Fresh from a successful salvage effort of somewhat torched space probe recently shot down by the Mars Air Force over the South Pole, Mr. Pthehq3 has recently decoded the software designed to control a concealed listening device attached to the probe. This concealed listening device is thought to be part of the well known Earth Spy Agency Project "Echelon".
On examination of the software, Mr. Pthehq3 has filed a trademark application with the NMSPTO for the term Linux, and has additionally registered several domain names including linux.mars and linux.venus. Mr. Pthehq3 has stated that he will soon establish a web site for the free dissemination of the software under the MPL, Mars Public License.
Besides the fact that Congress has made "business processes" patentable, in violation of the spirit of patent law.
Well, not to pick nits, but this was a court decision - current patent law does forbid business process patents, however courts have streached the conventional process patent criterea to cover business processes.
Submarine patents are obvious abuses, and should not be valid.
Submarine patents are bogeymen. There have been very few actual cases of 'submarine patents'.
If two people independantly come up with an idea, obviously it wasn't patentable to begin with.
I think that is nonsense. Two great mathematicians, Leibnitz and Newton came up with the idea of calculus independently. One of the greatest intellectual achievements in history. If this is a criterea of rejection, there is a good chance that NO invention will be patentable.
You may think that intellectual property is a dubious notion, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a new concept, and has been around since the Magna Carta, at least. It is a well entrenched aspect of our society that has accepted social benefits.
As I said before, if you are going to start reducing the term of a patent, you are going to end up making patents worthless. Inventors will then just keep their work secret. When that happens there will be great damage to technological progress.
I read Mr. Trudel's article in Analog about a month ago; I must say that I thought at the very least it was filled with a lot of historical distortions and inaccuracies.
For example, he credited the authors of the Constitution with developing the first useful patent system, and that this system was responsible for the genesis of rapid technical progress and technology world leadership in the US.
Well, there are some very severe problems with this account. One is that the first effective patent system was devised in England, not the US. A second is that up until at least 1850 or so the US was hardly a world technological power.
Another problem I have with Mr. Trudell is his rant about the US patent system becoming like the Japanese system. In one respect I agree with him - the Japanese system is terrible. It is in fact a corrupt arm of the Keiretsu that use it to maintain their grip on the Japanese economy. HOWEVER, most of the changes that are working their way through the US patent system are actually inspired by standardization that occurred in Europe with the WPO and EPO. These changes, from my point of view are generally beneficial, and solve a number of problems with the US system.
Many people feel that the problems with the Japanese patent system are very detrimental to their development of new technologies. One thing is certain; basic research in Japan is a mess.
If you compare the three systems, you will find that the historical tendency has been in Japan to grant a patent for very small inventions - things I have seen patented there would not make it through the US Patent Office. There are other problems as well; for example the company filing a patent has control of the examining process, and can delay examination for many years.
On the other hand, European patents are generally tougher to get, and require demonstration of a larger step in innovation - something I would like to see in the US process.
I have not read HR 1907 in detail, but if it is directed towards making the US system more compatable with the WPO (and the WPO does publish 18 months after filing) I am all in favor of it.
Since software has just recently become patentable, it should have a short-lived patent system, say a 3 year patent on all software innovations. Later, say in 10 years, congress could then extend the length of patents for longer. This is because software is a new and quickly emerging field, without 17-year business cycles.
The purpose of a patent is to encourage the inventor to disclose the details of his invention in exchange for a grant of exclusive use from the government. The alternative is to maintain the inventions as a trade secret; that is no disclosure. If you drastically shorten the effective period of a patent, few inventors will be interested in such a worthless bargain - they get nothing in exchange for their making their work public. In addition it will be very difficult to attract capital for commercial development of inventions that have only a three year exclusivity period.
I think that the result of your proposal will be a significant decrease in the rate of innovation in fields where the highest potential for growth exists - exactly the wrong economic result. People will not fund research in these fields, nor will they invest capital in whatever inventions do occur, and the tendency will be to try to keep the inventions as secret as possible.
As far as Microsoft goes, I really doubt that any of its OS monopoly is derived from a patent position. If you recal, Microsoft purchased MS-DOS from another company, and they did not have an exclusive license to sell it. There were at least two other unlimited licenses. MS-DOS is a copyrighted product, which is a completely different area of law from patents.
That's just FUD. Everyone knows that the serious, giant web sites and ISPs use BSD, not Linux. There's no end of documentation on this.
Interesting and perhaps shoot-from-the-hips reactions to my comments. First, I do not believe that you can flat out say that "serious giant web sites use BSD, not Linux" any more. For example, eToys was is the 3rd largest ecommerce site on the web in Q4 this year. eToys runs on Linux. Google, which is an extrodinarily large site with something like 2000 servers runs Linux. BSD advocates need a reality check here - the use of Linux in large sites is there, and is increasing.
The second point is that people are completely forgetting to examine the thread before flaming. The original question was:
"If OS X delivers on the features it promises, what incentive do I have for choosing Linux over OS X?"
The reason that Linux will be better than OS X has NOTHING to do with the BSD vs. Linux holy war/debate. The reason is the OS X is being positioned as a desktop OS, as a companion to OS X Server by Apple. As such OS X is unlikely to have support for large numbers of users and may contain a variety of cripplings so as to not encroach on the OS X Server 'market space'. This sort of castration is likely to make Linux a better choice (per the original question) than Mac OS X for server applications.
How the various *BSD PPC versions will compare to Linux on Mac hardware I don't have a clue. However I will say that they too will probably be better choices for server applications than Mac OS X for the same reasons.
Finally, one person commented that IT departments like to choose servers that run the same OS as their clients. This is true IN SOME CASES. It has never been true when the Macintosh has been the client. There are far more UNIX + variant and NT servers in Mac client environments than Mac servers. Macs have historically been crappy servers for a variety of reasons, AND I DO NOT EXPECT THIS TO CHANGE. While Apple may be selling this nice fancy BSD derived server, Apple sure as shit does offer a fault tolerant redundant power supply multi CPU hot swappable drive box to run this software on.
Guys, next time do engage the brain before starting the typing.
Slashdot Mirror
But there's such a fine line between the statement of an algorithm in mathematical symbols and the statement of an algorithm in computer language that for all intents and purposes the algorithm itself has been patented. 100 years ago, nobody would have seriously considered a patent for an algorithm's "implementation with pencil and paper", but the USPTO now regularly accepts patents for algorithms "implemented with an electronic digital device".
You may think this distinction is trivial, but in the case of patent law it is very important. Since you are patenting an apparatus, or implementation of the algorithm, but not the algorithm you are only granted coverage of the implementation. Under patent law if I make an improvement on a patented invention I may not be able to practice the invention because I am still practicing the art you have patented. However, since you have only a patent on the implementation, and not the algorithm, I am free to make an improvement in the algorithm, and then use it in any way I wish - and thus escape your patent.
As for your example of a software implementation of the LZW algorithm that does not infringe the Unisys patent, the LZW basic patent includes in claim 1 a requirement for a storage device for the data. This means that it is quite possible to avoid the LZW patent with an implementation that accepts the data uncompressed, and then transmits it compressed, so long as the data is not stored in the compression apparatus. It may be inefficient to do so - but there it is.
Ultimately software on these machines is in fact an implementation of an algorithm, not the algorithm itself. It is implemented in a very specific form of translation, and on stored-program electronic computing hardware - the importance and wide applicability of which has nothing to do with the fact that the algorithm is still an abstract concept that can be described free of any hardware context and that can be implemented on an abacus, by pencil and paper, on a Babbage machine, or any other of many possible instrumentalities. The fact that a digital computer is currently the favorite of these choices is an objection that does not overcome this fundamental, non-fungible distinction.
Was there ever a forum anywhere that had less of a clue regarding patents than Slashdot? I doubt it. I wish Rob Malda and friends would implement some reasonable standard of journalism to weed out these speculative and clue-less stories.
Let's look at this story from a factual basis (I know it's a bit much to expect from slashdot, but we can try):
Apparently, he has applied for a patent for this approximation.
Apparently is the key word here. The author is engaging in rank speculation and rumor-mongering.
Unfortunately there is no actual text to the application to review, only a speculative statement and a journal publication. What can we say about this from known law?
The first is:
1. YOU CANNOT PATENT A MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHM.
Yes Virginia, despite the wild statements by many contributors to this forum, US Patent law contains a specific provision that includes a ban on patents of mathematical laws and algorithms. There are in fact no valid patents of mathematical algorithms in existance.
This rules out the speculation of the article statement.
2. IT IS POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN A PATENT ON PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHMS
Such cases are well know, such as RSA for encryption applications, and LZW for image compression. THESE ARE NOT PATENTS OF ALGORITHMS, MERELY AN APPLICIATION OF THE ALGORITHM you are perfectly free to use RSA or LZW algorithms in non-patented applications for the algorithms themselves are not the subject of the patent.
If in fact the author is filing an application as speculated by the article author on the approximation, it will be quickly rejected by the USPTO. HOWEVER, if the author is filing on an application of the algorithm to some common problem, say deconvolution of Fourier Transfor Infrared Spectra, then I think there is a good chance that the application will become a patent.
Time will of course show what is the actual case here.
Wasn't the first key obtained from an Xing player that didn't encrypt it? If that's the case, it doesn't sound like they made reasonable efforts at all - or even if it's entirely Xing's fault, the DVD folks didn't do anything to the company to attempt to salvage what had happened.
The fact that the CSS was weak 40 bit encryption is defensible given the US export controls on stronger methods. The consortium can justifiably argue they used the strongest legalally allowed method. The business with Xing is a real problem for the DVD consortium.
I wasn't aware that we could convict on circumstantial evidence.
Many if not most legal cases are decided on 'circumstantial' evidence. All it means is that there were no direct witnesses to the crime. DNA evidence, for example, is 'circumstantial' even though it is far more reliable than an eye witness.
If the court does not immediately enjoin the posting of this proprietary information, the plaintiff's right to protect this information as secret will surely be lost, given the current power of the Internet to disseminate information and the Defendants' stated determination to do so.
This is where the judge fell flat on his face. The injunction is too late, and has no power to control an entity like the internet. AS a result it should not have been issued. I am sure the judge had some reason for issuing the order, but I hope he realizes that it is not likely to have any real effect.
Any self-respecting computer export will tell you that 40-bit encryption is pathetically weak, but clearly the judge doesn't realise this.
I think that the judge does realize that this is weak encryption - he certainly makes note of this. The DCA counter argument is that they could not use strong encryption because of export restrictions, and the 40 bit system was the best they could legally use.
I never particularly admired Clarke's long works. However his short stories including Tales From the White Hart and of course the famous Sentinel are terrific.
If you want a really good classic sci-fi novel of the same era you should read Clifford Simak's City. It is far more worthy than Childhood's End.
Furthermore, commercially available DVD writers will not allow you to write to that sector.
So you modify the recorder.
The cost of media and recorders makes home copying unattractive to the man in the street. A completely different picture emerges if you are going to sell 100,000 pirate copies. Such pirates will have the resources to buy or modify recorders to make bit-clone copies.
Don't know if Palm patented it then, but it certainly was out before 1995 (when the Xerox patent was first applied for).
If you read the patent, you will see that it is a continuation of a filing that occurred in 1993. This means the invention had to occur some time before 1993, perhaps a year or two. It is the time of invention that determines when prior art becomes applicable.
What am I missing?
:-). The key date that determines establishes priority over prior art is when the invention was made. NOT when the patent issued!
Any semblance of a clue about patent law
The original filing was 1993. The invention obviously has to occur some time before that, probably 1990 or so.
This could be argued to be an "evolution" to the existing patent, and thus, not in violation of the patent as written.
OoooOOOooh. I would LOVE to take you into court on that. I'd end up owning your ass, your wife's ass, and all your material possesions, plus a lien on everything you will make in the future, and your kids.
Ever hear of stuff like 'doctrine of equivalents'? It's a specific part of patent law that clearly gives the patent owner rights over trivial variations like having ONE character out of 100 or so be two strokes.
The Palm and related devices has been out for how long? And this suit is just now coming up? Ok, I might be missing something, but it really irks me when a company waits several years to push a patent...just when the supposed infringement is making money.
/. people so STUPID about patents? Read the patent, and the article. The patent issued in 1997. Xerox filed their law suit in 1997.
Why are
There was NO delay, NO attempt to sabotage the Palm IPO.
Get a clue, you are looking pretty lame.
earlier, abandoned application filed October 6, 1993, which is what I think is the important date for establishing any prior art.
That is not correct. The PRIORITY DATE in this case would be when the actual concept was invented.
The Palm and related devices has been out for how long?
Did you READ THE ARTICLE?????
It specifically said that Xerox filed suit 3 years ago. It has taken this long to get the first court ruling.
The REAL question is if it's KOREAN newspaper pages, or American! That tricky Korean alphabet stacks characters vertically in one space to 'overload' sounds and increase information density.
Us folks with Cablevision are screwed as far as cablemodems go, and DSL hasn't made it to my area yet. It pisses me off to no end that Cablevision is trying to buy up sports teams here for $$$$$$$, and runs crappy MSG channels on their cable, but is still working it's way through NY and CT with their broadband internet services. Meanwhile Comcast has had cable internet access for a year or two in towns not 10 miles away.
DSL will probably be here in about 6-12 months, but I bet it will be crappy. Bell Atlantis does not have a good record so far. And they keep sending me notes in the mail - switch to us as your ISP. Yeah, right - at $20/mo for LIMITED service with reliability and service guaranteed to be lower than my nice local provider.
If this is how they think, this is a very bad sign.
I agree, however the rollout of these technologies is depressingly slow. Some companies like Lucent have been hit in their stock prices partly due to slower than expected movement by the phone companies to get this stuff out.
I know it all too well. I live in the middle of the most densely populated state in the country (NJ) and can't get either a cable modem or consumer DSL services. I could get business DSL if I was willing to pay $100+ month.
I really dislike software modems. If you want to decrease latency attributable to modems, the way to do it is optimize the modem firmware ala USR.
One of the things that bothers me quite a bit about the issue of high tech education in the US is that industry and government like to whine about the insufficiency of US engineering and programmer graduates. This buffaloes congress into passing special measures allowing large numbers of immigrants to fill these postions. Now I have nothing against immigrants - in fact I married one. Best move I ever made.
But it seems to me that by issuing large numbers of visas in this fashion supply and demand is not going to be balanced internally. This external supply will inevatably reduce the wages of such workers, resulting in insufficient incentives to attract top students who go into more lucrative professional tracks such as medicine, law and business schools.
Now we get complaints about the number of non-US citizens working in 'critical' computer areas. Well, DUH!!
If you want to fix this, cut back on those visas!
The problem with these color case guys is that just like last year, they got slashdotted.
Fresh from a successful salvage effort of somewhat torched space probe recently shot down by the Mars Air Force over the South Pole, Mr. Pthehq3 has recently decoded the software designed to control a concealed listening device attached to the probe. This concealed listening device is thought to be part of the well known Earth Spy Agency Project "Echelon".
On examination of the software, Mr. Pthehq3 has filed a trademark application with the NMSPTO for the term Linux, and has additionally registered several domain names including linux.mars and linux.venus. Mr. Pthehq3 has stated that he will soon establish a web site for the free dissemination of the software under the MPL, Mars Public License.
The US government is the largest organization in the world.
/. !
Another unlikelihood from the archives of
I'd bet the following are larger than the US Government:
1. The Indian Government (India has 4x as many people, and is famous for it's bureaucracy)
2. The Mafia. What can I say. International in scope, beyond the touch of any government.
3. The Chinese Government - duh! - a HUGE standing army, plus all the apparachiks implicit in commounism. The mind wobbles.
Besides the fact that Congress has made "business processes" patentable, in violation of the spirit of patent law.
Well, not to pick nits, but this was a court decision - current patent law does forbid business process patents, however courts have streached the conventional process patent criterea to cover business processes.
Submarine patents are obvious abuses, and should not be valid.
Submarine patents are bogeymen. There have been very few actual cases of 'submarine patents'.
If two people independantly come up with an idea, obviously it wasn't patentable to begin with.
I think that is nonsense. Two great mathematicians, Leibnitz and Newton came up with the idea of calculus independently. One of the greatest intellectual achievements in history. If this is a criterea of rejection, there is a good chance that NO invention will be patentable.
You may think that intellectual property is a dubious notion, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a new concept, and has been around since the Magna Carta, at least. It is a well entrenched aspect of our society that has accepted social benefits.
As I said before, if you are going to start reducing the term of a patent, you are going to end up making patents worthless. Inventors will then just keep their work secret. When that happens there will be great damage to technological progress.
Exactly which major innovations of software have been patented (and defended successfully).
Certainly the STAC compressed disk volume was. Microsoft had to pay a $100 million dollar settlement for infringement in this case.
I read Mr. Trudel's article in Analog about a month ago; I must say that I thought at the very least it was filled with a lot of historical distortions and inaccuracies.
For example, he credited the authors of the Constitution with developing the first useful patent system, and that this system was responsible for the genesis of rapid technical progress and technology world leadership in the US.
Well, there are some very severe problems with this account. One is that the first effective patent system was devised in England, not the US. A second is that up until at least 1850 or so the US was hardly a world technological power.
Another problem I have with Mr. Trudell is his rant about the US patent system becoming like the Japanese system. In one respect I agree with him - the Japanese system is terrible. It is in fact a corrupt arm of the Keiretsu that use it to maintain their grip on the Japanese economy. HOWEVER, most of the changes that are working their way through the US patent system are actually inspired by standardization that occurred in Europe with the WPO and EPO. These changes, from my point of view are generally beneficial, and solve a number of problems with the US system.
Many people feel that the problems with the Japanese patent system are very detrimental to their development of new technologies. One thing is certain; basic research in Japan is a mess.
If you compare the three systems, you will find that the historical tendency has been in Japan to grant a patent for very small inventions - things I have seen patented there would not make it through the US Patent Office. There are other problems as well; for example the company filing a patent has control of the examining process, and can delay examination for many years.
On the other hand, European patents are generally tougher to get, and require demonstration of a larger step in innovation - something I would like to see in the US process.
I have not read HR 1907 in detail, but if it is directed towards making the US system more compatable with the WPO (and the WPO does publish 18 months after filing) I am all in favor of it.
Since software has just recently become patentable, it should have a short-lived patent system, say a 3 year patent on all software
innovations. Later, say in 10 years, congress could then extend the length of patents for longer. This is because software is a new and
quickly emerging field, without 17-year business cycles.
The purpose of a patent is to encourage the inventor to disclose the details of his invention in exchange for a grant of exclusive use from the government. The alternative is to maintain the inventions as a trade secret; that is no disclosure. If you drastically shorten the effective period of a patent, few inventors will be interested in such a worthless bargain - they get nothing in exchange for their making their work public. In addition it will be very difficult to attract capital for commercial development of inventions that have only a three year exclusivity period.
I think that the result of your proposal will be a significant decrease in the rate of innovation in fields where the highest potential for growth exists - exactly the wrong economic result. People will not fund research in these fields, nor will they invest capital in whatever inventions do occur, and the tendency will be to try to keep the inventions as secret as possible.
As far as Microsoft goes, I really doubt that any of its OS monopoly is derived from a patent position. If you recal, Microsoft purchased MS-DOS from another company, and they did not have an exclusive license to sell it. There were at least two other unlimited licenses. MS-DOS is a copyrighted product, which is a completely different area of law from patents.
For a server Linux will be a lot better."
That's just FUD. Everyone knows that the serious, giant web sites and ISPs use BSD, not Linux. There's no end of documentation on this.
Interesting and perhaps shoot-from-the-hips reactions to my comments. First, I do not believe that you can flat out say that "serious giant web sites use BSD, not Linux" any more. For example, eToys was is the 3rd largest ecommerce site on the web in Q4 this year. eToys runs on Linux. Google, which is an extrodinarily large site with something like 2000 servers runs Linux. BSD advocates need a reality check here - the use of Linux in large sites is there, and is increasing.
The second point is that people are completely forgetting to examine the thread before flaming. The original question was:
"If OS X delivers on the features it promises, what incentive do I have for choosing Linux over OS X?"
The reason that Linux will be better than OS X has NOTHING to do with the BSD vs. Linux holy war/debate. The reason is the OS X is being positioned as a desktop OS, as a companion to OS X Server by Apple. As such OS X is unlikely to have support for large numbers of users and may contain a variety of cripplings so as to not encroach on the OS X Server 'market space'. This sort of castration is likely to make Linux a better choice (per the original question) than Mac OS X for server applications.
How the various *BSD PPC versions will compare to Linux on Mac hardware I don't have a clue. However I will say that they too will probably be better choices for server applications than Mac OS X for the same reasons.
Finally, one person commented that IT departments like to choose servers that run the same OS as their clients. This is true IN SOME CASES. It has never been true when the Macintosh has been the client. There are far more UNIX + variant and NT servers in Mac client environments than Mac servers. Macs have historically been crappy servers for a variety of reasons, AND I DO NOT EXPECT THIS TO CHANGE. While Apple may be selling this nice fancy BSD derived server, Apple sure as shit does offer a fault tolerant redundant power supply multi CPU hot swappable drive box to run this software on.
Guys, next time do engage the brain before starting the typing.