That's nonsense. You clearly don't know that patents require you to publish details of your process - and they don't forbid anyone from using that information, they merely permit you to charge (license) people for making use of the information that you might have invested considerable time and money to discover/develop.
When was the last time you looked at a patent to implement a piece of software? Patents aren't written in a language that most normal people understand. They are written in legal mumbo jumbo to be as broad and encompassing as possible. Try to translate that into a useful program.
Re:Everybody Knows
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The article cited in this story bears out all to well the issue of the necessity of patents in a modern industrial society - both Switzerland and the Netherlands adopted patent systems 100 years ago. Countries in today's world that do not support a patent system are countries with no significant technological infrastructure.
Interesting spin and partially true. But most of those [presumably third world] countries were the victims of the great colonial powers of the time, with a lot of taking and no giving--unless you count misery. There are a lot of reasons why those countries are not doing well. Lack of education, continuing armed conflict, disease, anarchy, you name it. Patents don't make the list. Patents in those countries mostly cause more misery in the form of desperately needed drugs unavailable due to the high cost of patented drugs.
I am by no means against IP protection--in the form of copyright. But patents, especially the recently extended life of patents, are a disincentive to innovators.
I think patents can be likened to a mine field. If you can afford hundreds of mine sweepers (lawyers), then burying more patent mines may seem like a good idea. But keep in mind that even the patent office regularly issues patents for things that are already patented (for an example look up the history of the GIF patent).
Patents are also a good idea if you are a giant corporation with thousands of patents. Then you can sit down with other giant corporations and negotiate a truce. Which of course keeps the new players (those little companies that come up with billion dollar ideas that drive the economy, think Amazon, eBay,...) out of the game.
And of course, the software industry is proof that patents are not needed to create enormous wealth and incentives. Think Bill Gates. Virtually all of the important software inventions were made without patent protection. I have never seen anybody complain about Microsoft not making enough money. All that was accomplished without patent protection. And even without patents they ended up being a monopoly. So what makes you think that any large corporation would not have gotten just as big, or bigger, without patents.
Patents (software patents in particular) mean that you have no idea if your work will pay off, because somebody may own the ideas you thought up, even if those ideas seem obvious (a reason why the patent office should deny the patent application, but rarely does). And sooner or later, independent developers with great ideas will just die out.
I must have missed the corporation bashing part of the article, but everybody knows that patents are mostly bad for innovation. And too much innovation and progress however, is bad for big established businesses. It is costly and disruptive to the business. Why innovate, if the law guarantees excellent returns on past inventions until the current management retires? But that is not a good way to keep the status quo, so a little FUD is needed.
Lawmakers must choose between public good and corporate good, and since corporations pay for their reelections, they help their donors. The catch is that a bad economy is bad for getting reelected, and fallout from recent court decisions and the frenzy to uphold software and business method patents will be felt soon.
Basically, the patent frenzy will be felt first by people seeking venture capital. Investing in a startup is already a risky proposition. But with patents it is much worse, since you have no reasonable way of knowing which patents your programmers are violating. Which means you have to cash out through an IPO before the lawyers come after your baby. And once a few promising startups get tripped up, you will see venture capital dry up.
And where would the Internet be today without venture funding? Without small startups creating a whole new economic sector? Does anybody really think the telcos would have invented any of this stuff? Not likely.
Without small companies and individuals taking risks, patents mean stagnation or slow economic growth at best. That is why when you get rid of patents, you spur economic growth. Pretty logical, until you get to the FUD part used to scare everybody.
Just for kicks, take any drug company and look at their numbers. Most (if not all) spend a lot more on marketing and operating expenses than R&D. Obviously they don't mind doing that without patent protection.
I applaud the L.A. Times for publishing this information and making Americans aware of what their "elected" officials are doing. The Nuclear Posture Review should not be secret, because if it is, then how can nuclear weapons be a deterrent? And further, if the NPR is secret, then how can the voters make a meaningful choice at the time of the next election?
Every civilized person on this planet was horrified and saddened by what happened on Sept. 11. That does not mean every person on the planet supports U.S. World Domination at any cost, which now includes the use of nuclear weapons. There are roughly six billion other people on this planet. Half of them hungry and angry, with little to loose. The U.S. needs more friends, not enemies, and perhaps it would be wise to make the distinction between countries temporarily afraid of the U.S., and friends.
The United States is embarking on a very lonely journey with, if history is a guide, a certain and unpleasant outcome. Imperialism does not work, corporate or otherwise. Europeans are openly discussing the Bush Doctrine, which according to an opinion piece in the German paper Die Welt can be summed up as "America above everything." When have we heard that the last time? Remember what happened? Every time there is a large imbalance in military power, somebody tries to take advantage, and now it seems the U.S. are about to cross a threshold from which there is no turning back.
People in the Middle East not being enamored with America is one thing. But allies and friends not supporting the U.S. is worrisome. Political leaders in Germany have openly warned the U.S. that they do not have card blanche to hit whatever country the U.S. doesn't like. Try to remember that Germans are among the closest allies of the U.S.
It is obvious that the Congress cannot be counted on to make rational decisions in a time of crisis (cf. horrific assault on the Constitution without meaningful dissent or discussion). But other countries are not blinded by American patriotism and pork barrel politics, and cannot be counted on to support military adventures that can lead to no good.
The N.Y. Times quotes Colin Powell: "Right now, today, not a single nation on the face of the earth is being targeted by an American nuclear weapon on a day-to-day basis." What Mr. Powell meant to say is, we target everybody and you better make sure you're on our side.
Perhaps Colin Powell means what he said, but reportedly the Nuclear Posture Review was signed by the Secretary of Defense, and he is the President's military advisor. The key issue is that Nuclear weapons were never meant to be used. They were meant as a deterrent. Now they are becoming part of the plan.
I support striking back hard at Afghanistan. But at the same time, the U.S. must show some respect on the world stage. It starts just a few miles off the American coast. The world has told the U.S. to leave Cuba alone, but that's not politically correct at home. So U.S. economic warfare continues to punish this tiny island nation for no apparent reason. Yes, Castro was not elected, but that doesn't seem to be a big problem when it comes to any of our Middle Eastern dictator friends. When the U.S. doesn't like the way the U.N. works, they simply don't pay and again use economic power to assert their will. (Can I not pay my taxes if I don't like what's happening in D.C.?) These are only two examples, in which the U.S. acts as if it is already in charge of the planet. Is it a surprise then when some people feel the only way to make their voice heard is suicide bombings, and that it appears we are in trouble even with our friends abroad? It is not a matter of being right. It is a matter of respect for other people.
Yes, we have the biggest meanest guns right now. But look at history. Things change. Pray that the Bush Administration comes to its senses before it is too late.
The changes to the settlement agreement are just a way for the Justice Department to save face. The government surrendered. Considering MS spending during the last election, it is obvious that an enormous amount of lobbying went on behind the scenes. Current law does not consider that bribery. But is it surprising that MS does not want to advertise that fact in open court? Or that the Justice Department does not want to comment on MS maneuvering behind the scenes? The spin makers are simply trying to make the Government's surrender look a little less obvious.
In the meantime it is obvious that Microsoft has no intention of playing fair, or by the rules. Locking competing browsers out of MSN is only one example. Microsoft is working to become a toll booth for all Internet access. If they are successful, then Bill Gates will either be the first Trillionaire--or maybe we'll finally have a revolution;-)
Another example of Microsoft claiming victory is a friend who upgraded MS Explorer, because she heard about all the security holes. The upgrade also conveniently removed her Eudora icon from the desktop and replaced it with all kinds of spamicons (although they didn't go as far as actually removing the program or her files).
More? Need I mention Passport? How about XP Forced Activation and "Managed Applications"? Sounds good, until you realize that it gives Microsoft complete control over who can play in their sandbox.
Through the Quest DSL deal, they are even trying to control the pipe.
The bottom line: Microsoft has declared victory, and they are behaving like it. You will be assimilated,...
All [programming] languages have an "unsafe" mode
on
Bill Joy's Takes on C#
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...even English. To try it, go into a biker bar and tell the toughest looking guy you liked his mother. If that doesn't do it, ask him if he has a sister. Make sure to call 911 before you do;-)
Yes, C# has an unsafe mode. So does Perl, Python, Java Script, and guess what--Java.
The only difference is that C# lets you write unsafe code in C#. In Perl, Python, etc.. you would write a shared library (or link extensions into the language executable). And then of course you have to trust that the shared library is "safe."
Yes, there are going to be security holes in programs written in C#. Only careful programming, and as much peer review as possible can reduce those mistakes. In the end, only time will tell if an application has holes.
Long live the Department of FUD! Let's go scare some suits:-)
Great, so Monsanto now has a license to contaminate people's farms and then extort royalties. I guess they don't need those costly sales and marketing people anymore.
I'm not a farmer, but I'd have to guess that the Monsanto plants don't grow with a little "Patent No. $1,000,000,000 - pay up suckers" stamp. So that means the farmers are supposed to do a DNA check on every plant? Sounds about as practical as checking every line of code you write for patent infringement. Although with plants it's easier. I guess you just mail your check to Monsanto.
The only hope is that the farmer prevails in his suit against Monsanto. Organic and other natural seed farmers have a right to not have their land contaminated by genetically engineered garbage that destroys their business. The only reason for most of these seeds is greed; to make sure that farmers have to pay up every year.
Just wait until you have to pay a royalty when you get sick from corn not meant for human consumption.
Anybody think the patent system needs an overhaul?
There are a lot of comments here suggesting that subscriptions are no different than subscribing to cable TV. I beg to differ: by buying subscription software, you are allowing the vendor to hold your data hostage. If you can't see your own documents a year from now, you will be forced to upgrade. That's quite different from not being able to watch recycled TV fare.
It also gives large software vendors another way to eliminate competition with artificially low prices, and then milking the subscriber base in years to come. That has already happened with non-subscription software. Why should this be any different? So much for people hoping to plan their software budget--unless by planning they mean planning for exponential price increases.
Amazingly some people consider forced upgrades an advantage. Half the upgrades I have paid for, I didn't buy for the feature bloat they came with, but rather to fix bugs. And because upgrading one piece of software often requires other upgrades (including hardware upgrades), you are guaranteeing that everything will become obsolete once a year, even if it works.
In all fairness, Microsoft and many other software companies probably look at subscriptions as a survival issue. PC sales are leveling off, and who needs yet another buggy feature in MS Office? Subscriptions are a substitute for innovation, in an area where there is little improvement.
The bottom line is, that subscriptions give software vendors (mostly big ones like Microsoft) unprecedented power. We'll see if the public is dumb enough to let MS and company do that.
As for how it affects hardware vendors... it's great for them if it works out, because as I said above, software upgrades often force hardware upgrades. And that's what hardware vendors want.
All of this might be a bit depressing, if it wasn't also the greatest opportunity in 20 years. I believe there will be a lot of people smart enough to see through this transparent ploy by software vendors to extort payments, just for the privilege of being allowed to see their own data. Open Source software is one of the answers, which is why Microsoft believes it to be anti-American.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nonsense. You clearly don't know that patents require you to publish details of your process - and they don't forbid anyone from using that information, they merely permit you to charge (license) people for making use of the information that you might have invested considerable time and money to discover/develop.
When was the last time you looked at a patent to implement a piece of software? Patents aren't written in a language that most normal people understand. They are written in legal mumbo jumbo to be as broad and encompassing as possible. Try to translate that into a useful program.
The article cited in this story bears out all to well the issue of the necessity of patents in a modern industrial society - both Switzerland and the Netherlands adopted patent systems 100 years ago. Countries in today's world that do not support a patent system are countries with no significant technological infrastructure.
...) out of the game.
Interesting spin and partially true. But most of those [presumably third world] countries were the victims of the great colonial powers of the time, with a lot of taking and no giving--unless you count misery. There are a lot of reasons why those countries are not doing well. Lack of education, continuing armed conflict, disease, anarchy, you name it. Patents don't make the list. Patents in those countries mostly cause more misery in the form of desperately needed drugs unavailable due to the high cost of patented drugs.
I am by no means against IP protection--in the form of copyright. But patents, especially the recently extended life of patents, are a disincentive to innovators.
I think patents can be likened to a mine field. If you can afford hundreds of mine sweepers (lawyers), then burying more patent mines may seem like a good idea. But keep in mind that even the patent office regularly issues patents for things that are already patented (for an example look up the history of the GIF patent).
Patents are also a good idea if you are a giant corporation with thousands of patents. Then you can sit down with other giant corporations and negotiate a truce. Which of course keeps the new players (those little companies that come up with billion dollar ideas that drive the economy, think Amazon, eBay,
And of course, the software industry is proof that patents are not needed to create enormous wealth and incentives. Think Bill Gates. Virtually all of the important software inventions were made without patent protection. I have never seen anybody complain about Microsoft not making enough money. All that was accomplished without patent protection. And even without patents they ended up being a monopoly. So what makes you think that any large corporation would not have gotten just as big, or bigger, without patents.
Patents (software patents in particular) mean that you have no idea if your work will pay off, because somebody may own the ideas you thought up, even if those ideas seem obvious (a reason why the patent office should deny the patent application, but rarely does). And sooner or later, independent developers with great ideas will just die out.
I must have missed the corporation bashing part of the article, but everybody knows that patents are mostly bad for innovation. And too much innovation and progress however, is bad for big established businesses. It is costly and disruptive to the business. Why innovate, if the law guarantees excellent returns on past inventions until the current management retires? But that is not a good way to keep the status quo, so a little FUD is needed.
Lawmakers must choose between public good and corporate good, and since corporations pay for their reelections, they help their donors. The catch is that a bad economy is bad for getting reelected, and fallout from recent court decisions and the frenzy to uphold software and business method patents will be felt soon.
Basically, the patent frenzy will be felt first by people seeking venture capital. Investing in a startup is already a risky proposition. But with patents it is much worse, since you have no reasonable way of knowing which patents your programmers are violating. Which means you have to cash out through an IPO before the lawyers come after your baby. And once a few promising startups get tripped up, you will see venture capital dry up.
And where would the Internet be today without venture funding? Without small startups creating a whole new economic sector? Does anybody really think the telcos would have invented any of this stuff? Not likely.
Without small companies and individuals taking risks, patents mean stagnation or slow economic growth at best. That is why when you get rid of patents, you spur economic growth. Pretty logical, until you get to the FUD part used to scare everybody.
Just for kicks, take any drug company and look at their numbers. Most (if not all) spend a lot more on marketing and operating expenses than R&D. Obviously they don't mind doing that without patent protection.
I applaud the L.A. Times for publishing this information and making Americans aware of what their "elected" officials are doing. The Nuclear Posture Review should not be secret, because if it is, then how can nuclear weapons be a deterrent? And further, if the NPR is secret, then how can the voters make a meaningful choice at the time of the next election?
Every civilized person on this planet was horrified and saddened by what happened on Sept. 11. That does not mean every person on the planet supports U.S. World Domination at any cost, which now includes the use of nuclear weapons. There are roughly six billion other people on this planet. Half of them hungry and angry, with little to loose. The U.S. needs more friends, not enemies, and perhaps it would be wise to make the distinction between countries temporarily afraid of the U.S., and friends.
The United States is embarking on a very lonely journey with, if history is a guide, a certain and unpleasant outcome. Imperialism does not work, corporate or otherwise. Europeans are openly discussing the Bush Doctrine, which according to an opinion piece in the German paper Die Welt can be summed up as "America above everything." When have we heard that the last time? Remember what happened? Every time there is a large imbalance in military power, somebody tries to take advantage, and now it seems the U.S. are about to cross a threshold from which there is no turning back.
People in the Middle East not being enamored with America is one thing. But allies and friends not supporting the U.S. is worrisome. Political leaders in Germany have openly warned the U.S. that they do not have card blanche to hit whatever country the U.S. doesn't like. Try to remember that Germans are among the closest allies of the U.S.
It is obvious that the Congress cannot be counted on to make rational decisions in a time of crisis (cf. horrific assault on the Constitution without meaningful dissent or discussion). But other countries are not blinded by American patriotism and pork barrel politics, and cannot be counted on to support military adventures that can lead to no good.
The N.Y. Times quotes Colin Powell: "Right now, today, not a single nation on the face of the earth is being targeted by an American nuclear weapon on a day-to-day basis." What Mr. Powell meant to say is, we target everybody and you better make sure you're on our side.
Perhaps Colin Powell means what he said, but reportedly the Nuclear Posture Review was signed by the Secretary of Defense, and he is the President's military advisor. The key issue is that Nuclear weapons were never meant to be used. They were meant as a deterrent. Now they are becoming part of the plan.
I support striking back hard at Afghanistan. But at the same time, the U.S. must show some respect on the world stage. It starts just a few miles off the American coast. The world has told the U.S. to leave Cuba alone, but that's not politically correct at home. So U.S. economic warfare continues to punish this tiny island nation for no apparent reason. Yes, Castro was not elected, but that doesn't seem to be a big problem when it comes to any of our Middle Eastern dictator friends. When the U.S. doesn't like the way the U.N. works, they simply don't pay and again use economic power to assert their will. (Can I not pay my taxes if I don't like what's happening in D.C.?) These are only two examples, in which the U.S. acts as if it is already in charge of the planet. Is it a surprise then when some people feel the only way to make their voice heard is suicide bombings, and that it appears we are in trouble even with our friends abroad? It is not a matter of being right. It is a matter of respect for other people.
Yes, we have the biggest meanest guns right now. But look at history. Things change. Pray that the Bush Administration comes to its senses before it is too late.
The changes to the settlement agreement are just a way for the Justice Department to save face. The government surrendered. Considering MS spending during the last election, it is obvious that an enormous amount of lobbying went on behind the scenes. Current law does not consider that bribery. But is it surprising that MS does not want to advertise that fact in open court? Or that the Justice Department does not want to comment on MS maneuvering behind the scenes? The spin makers are simply trying to make the Government's surrender look a little less obvious.
;-)
...
In the meantime it is obvious that Microsoft has no intention of playing fair, or by the rules. Locking competing browsers out of MSN is only one example. Microsoft is working to become a toll booth for all Internet access. If they are successful, then Bill Gates will either be the first Trillionaire--or maybe we'll finally have a revolution
Another example of Microsoft claiming victory is a friend who upgraded MS Explorer, because she heard about all the security holes. The upgrade also conveniently removed her Eudora icon from the desktop and replaced it with all kinds of spamicons (although they didn't go as far as actually removing the program or her files).
More? Need I mention Passport? How about XP Forced Activation and "Managed Applications"? Sounds good, until you realize that it gives Microsoft complete control over who can play in their sandbox.
Through the Quest DSL deal, they are even trying to control the pipe.
The bottom line: Microsoft has declared victory, and they are behaving like it. You will be assimilated,
...even English. To try it, go into a biker bar and tell the toughest looking guy you liked his mother. If that doesn't do it, ask him if he has a sister. Make sure to call 911 before you do ;-)
:-)
Yes, C# has an unsafe mode. So does Perl, Python, Java Script, and guess what--Java.
The only difference is that C# lets you write unsafe code in C#. In Perl, Python, etc.. you would write a shared library (or link extensions into the language executable). And then of course you have to trust that the shared library is "safe."
Yes, there are going to be security holes in programs written in C#. Only careful programming, and as much peer review as possible can reduce those mistakes. In the end, only time will tell if an application has holes.
Long live the Department of FUD! Let's go scare some suits
--AM
Great, so Monsanto now has a license to contaminate people's farms and then extort royalties. I guess they don't need those costly sales and marketing people anymore.
I'm not a farmer, but I'd have to guess that the Monsanto plants don't grow with a little "Patent No. $1,000,000,000 - pay up suckers" stamp. So that means the farmers are supposed to do a DNA check on every plant? Sounds about as practical as checking every line of code you write for patent infringement. Although with plants it's easier. I guess you just mail your check to Monsanto.
The only hope is that the farmer prevails in his suit against Monsanto. Organic and other natural seed farmers have a right to not have their land contaminated by genetically engineered garbage that destroys their business. The only reason for most of these seeds is greed; to make sure that farmers have to pay up every year.
Just wait until you have to pay a royalty when you get sick from corn not meant for human consumption.
Anybody think the patent system needs an overhaul?
There are a lot of comments here suggesting that subscriptions are no different than subscribing to cable TV. I beg to differ: by buying subscription software, you are allowing the vendor to hold your data hostage. If you can't see your own documents a year from now, you will be forced to upgrade. That's quite different from not being able to watch recycled TV fare.
It also gives large software vendors another way to eliminate competition with artificially low prices, and then milking the subscriber base in years to come. That has already happened with non-subscription software. Why should this be any different? So much for people hoping to plan their software budget--unless by planning they mean planning for exponential price increases.
Amazingly some people consider forced upgrades an advantage. Half the upgrades I have paid for, I didn't buy for the feature bloat they came with, but rather to fix bugs. And because upgrading one piece of software often requires other upgrades (including hardware upgrades), you are guaranteeing that everything will become obsolete once a year, even if it works.
In all fairness, Microsoft and many other software companies probably look at subscriptions as a survival issue. PC sales are leveling off, and who needs yet another buggy feature in MS Office? Subscriptions are a substitute for innovation, in an area where there is little improvement.
The bottom line is, that subscriptions give software vendors (mostly big ones like Microsoft) unprecedented power. We'll see if the public is dumb enough to let MS and company do that.
As for how it affects hardware vendors... it's great for them if it works out, because as I said above, software upgrades often force hardware upgrades. And that's what hardware vendors want.
All of this might be a bit depressing, if it wasn't also the greatest opportunity in 20 years. I believe there will be a lot of people smart enough to see through this transparent ploy by software vendors to extort payments, just for the privilege of being allowed to see their own data. Open Source software is one of the answers, which is why Microsoft believes it to be anti-American.
--AM