And here we vote out the fascists who do stuff like that. Your option in China would be, what? You could voice your concern, and be killed. Or write a book about it, and be killed. Or...
What planet do you live on? The "government" of China is concerned about its image? We're talking about a gang of thugs who routinely kill people who disagree with them. We're not talking about routine levels of not playing nice, like Bill Gates, but seriously evil shit like torturing and murdering monks in Tibet. As far as obeying a license agreement goes, these same thugs back large numbers of software pirates -- exactly what image do they need to uphold?
I really try to avoid bashing people on forums like this, but man, you've drunk the Kool-Aid.
What has Microsoft done that Netscape and Sun have not (or would not have if not given the chance)? Scott McNealy would be Bill Gates if given half a chance (and the DOJ is insisting that Scott be given that chance).
I don't see how your Great Grandfather's story justifies the antitrust laws. Besides being irrelevant to antitrust matters, this story only seems to suggest that people will help out without the need for government sticking its snout in the matter.
As far as government being "us", it certainly isn't "me" -- no one I've ever voted for has ever been elected (I have a perfect record in that regard). Seriously -- democracy may be a lot better than the other authoritarian forms of government that have plagued humanity, but I think that people are mistaken to assume that the will of the majority can be interpreted as correct (morally or otherwise).
But what would I know, as you point out, I'm only a "clueless libertarian."
Then mightn't it be better to get rid of the government-granted monopolies, rather than using more government power to get rid of the problems caused by those government-granted monopolies? Sorry for throwing logic into an otherwise spectacular mob scene.
I don't know if I qualify as a "pseudo-libertarian", but I'll pipe up anyway.
First, let me state for the record that I dislike Microsoft a lot -- I use Linux almost exclusively at home (until Battlezone plays under Linux, I'm forced to keep Windows around). I think Windows is buggy as hell, and I agree with much of Eric Raymond's "Cathedral and the Bazaar" logic. I want very much to see Microsoft's market share get lost to Linux (or some other open operating system).
That said, I am very uncomfortable about the prospect of the government coming in and using its monopoly powers (police powers) to in some way diminish Microsoft's market share (which is what any DOJ verdict would boil down to). I realize that this finding of fact is not a final verdict, but it does suggest what the outcome will be. I urge/. readers to consider that a wrong act does not become acceptable just because the victim of the wrong act is disliked. While it may be nice to hear of bad things happening to Microsoft, wouldn't it be nicer if it occured because people decided on their own that an alternative to Windows is better?
The use of government power to diminish Microsoft's role should not be gratifying to us, even if we intensely dislike the target of that power.
I guess I can get down off my soapbox now, and get back to work.
I recently wrote an article on/. explaining some basic points of patent law. One of my purposes in writing that piece was to inform people about a system which is clearly doing more harm than good. I used to be a patent attorney, but as my views evolved over time, I realized I could no longer help create patents anymore (now I do licensing -- drafting contracts).
I tend to think that the American people are in favor of the patent system because they don't understand it. They think of it as a wonderful way of helping out the Thomas Edison's of the country. In reality it works a lot more like a shake-down. I would be happy to do my part to help inform people about the problems with the patent system, but I am realistic enough to know that the opposing forces are gargantuan -- nothing is likely to change (for the positive, anyway) anytime soon.
I just checked the PTO's website. The fee for filing a provisional patent application is $75 for a small entity, $150 for a large entity (don't worry, it is measured by number of persons, not waist size).
Since the PTO website is a bit difficult to get useful information from, here is the link: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/provapp.htm
Remember, this is not a substitute for a real patent application, but it will hold your place in line for up to a year.
The cost of filing a provisional patent application is (as I recall) $75. All you need to do is write a detailed description of what you want to protect (source code would be ideal), and file it with the USPTO (check out the web site www.uspto.gov, I believe they have information that is helpful).
That gives you one year in which to file a real patent application and claim the provisional filing date as your date of priority. After filing the provisional, if you show someone your idea and they decide to rip it off, you can decide to spend the bucks on a real application, and you will have priority.
An NDA would be good, but venture capital firms can be hesitant to sign them. I believe it is for historical reasons ("we've always done things with a handshake"), but I know that at least some VC's now sign them.
They are likely patenting [4] and [5] (algorithms and methods), which are inherent in [1] through [3]. Technically speaking, you aren't supposed to be able to patent an algorithm, but in practice it is done all the time (and such patents are held to be valid). Method patents ("I claims the method of performing steps X, Y and Z") have been around a long time (much longer than computers). A method patent effectively prohibits you from doing particular things.
Inventions that can be patented are not simply the mechanical dohicky's that the public generally thinks of. In my view (and yes, I am a former patent attorney), this misunderstanding on the part of the public is the only thing that permits this obviously unjust system (the patent system) to continue.
A lot of the bandwidth on discussions such as this one is dedicated to trying to differentiate the real, acceptable, patents from the spurious ones. I am convinced that no real line can be drawn between them. We accept patents on real inventions only because it has always (almost) been that way.
You can make a good argument that medical research would be far different in a world without patents. That, however, is not the same as making a good argument that a world without patents would be worse off. Clearly, today's pharmaceutical industries rely on the current patent regime. To suggest that they would simply wither and die, and that no research would be done without patent protection, is to exhibit a lack of imagination.
I don't mean to attack you, but too often I see the argument that things would be different pass for an argument that things would be worse. It ain't (ok, isn't) necessarily so.
When I was studying aerospace engineering, it was drummed into us early and often that the US aerospace community only uses English units (not metric). When I saw this story, my first reaction was, "why would a US aerospace team be using metric?" Then again, I headed off in a totally different direction after I graduated (law), so I can't say from experience that real-life aerospace companies all use English units. Sometimes they lie to you in school, you know?:-)
On the whole, I think that each system has its benefits and flaws (metric is easy to figure out, English allows nifty division results). The real problem stems from the two systems not living together peacefully. Expensive error, though. Alhtough not as expensive as if it had been a manned mission.
You're right. I always have been too quick to simply label things logarithmic versions of other things. Got to get over that.:-) It does have that smooshed-out logarithmic look though. Oh well.
Is it just me, or does the graph they showed look like a standard, everyday bell curve plotted on some kind of logarithmic scale? If so, then I wonder whether this is that big a deal -- instead of plotting along the X axis, you plot along the X^10 axis (or something similar) and you have the bell curve. Am I missing something?
(FYI, I am an intellectual property attorney, but that is no guarantee that I'm right in any of my conclusions. Don't rely on any of this -- see your own attorney.)
In a software license agreement, if a term like "derived work" is not defined, I would assume that most courts would assume that it meant the same as the copyright term-of-art "Derivative Work". That term is defined in 17 USC Section 101 as:
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
Okay, clear as mud.
The problem is that with software it is difficult to draw the idea/expression dichotomy that is at the heart of copyright law. Copyright law protects the expression of an idea. If you take that expression and change it, you probably have a derivative work (i.e. translate it to another language, make a movie of it, etc.). If you take the ideas from a work, and incorporate them in another work, the result is not a derivative work (think Romeo and Juliet -> West Side Story [and yes, I realize that Romeo and Juliet is not copyrighted]). In cases where there are few ways of expressing an idea (how many ways can you write a while loop?), the idea and expression are said to be "merged", and that particular expression is not protected by copyright. In software, much of the source code (to my way of thinking) is likely covered by this merger doctrine.
I tend to think that translating C code to pseudo-code is a lot like extracting the idea from a particular expression. Creating new C code from the pseudo-code (if the pseudo-code is really just the "idea") should constitute a new, non-derivative work. It is a difficult call, though, because (simply) copyright law was not designed for software, and it's doctrines do not fit well.
Anyway, I am aware that I rambled, and I can see that I have strayed from the point at least a few times. But it is Friday afternoon, and I am too tired to go back and edit my work.
I just have to chime in here. My pilot has clearly boosted my productivity. I am a lawyer (boo, hiss) and a BIG part of my job is keeping track of my billable hours. Talk to most any lawyer in private practice and you will hear complaints about how inconvenient and time-consuming it is to keep track of billable hours.
When I got a Pilot, I sat down and wrote a program for it that I could use to easily, and almost automaticlly, keep track of my billable hours as they happen. Because I wrote it, I was able to make it dovetail with my firm's (horribly inconvenient and poorly thought-out) time-tracking software.
What used to take up a significant amount of time every day has been reduced to a minor task every few days. While my system is not yet fully automated, I enjoy being able to revise the program periodically to further reduce the burden of keeping track of my time. To me, that is the attraction of not only the Pilot, but all computing devices -- that I can write a program to alleviate the repetitive, boring tasks in my life.
None of this even addresses the many times that the Pilot's built-in functionality has saved my butt by reminding me of an important meeting I had forgotten, allowed me access to information I would not have otherwise had handy, etc.
Some people may not become more productive by getting a Pilot, but I definitely did.
>It has to be used in commerce. It's being used in commerce, and has been for quite a while now. Given the >number of IPOs around it, I'd think you'd notice.
To be trademarked by SPI it has to be used in commerce by SPI. If SPI is engaged in commerce, then I was wrong. The IPOs by companies which use the term "Open Source" don't qualify because (i) they are not SPI, and (ii) because their use, as far as I can recall, is not use as a trademark, which has a special meaning under the law.
What was applied for was a "certification mark" which is similar to, but different from, a trademark. To get a trademark, one must use the mark in relation to a commercial activity. As such, Open Source was never qualified to be a trademark.
To understand what a certification mark is, think about the little UL stamped on the plugs and sockets for various pieces of electrical equipment in your home. This stands for Underwriters Labaoratory, and private certification lab. They have formulated (electrical) standards, and test equipment. If it passes, it can be stamped "UL", and if it does not, it cannot be. To maintain a certification mark, one must make the certification standards public, and must apply them without bias. Microsoft uses a certification mark of its own, the little "designed for Windows 95" logo you see everywhere. For software that meets their criteria, they must allow the publisher to use the logo.
Anyway, to wrap this up, one should think about the time and effort that an actual certification program might entail. Every programmer who wants to call a piece of code "Open Source" would have to apply to the SPI, and the SPI would have to make a yes/no determination, based on their criteria. It may be that SPI decided that the hassle of such a formal program was more than they wanted.
However, this "tax" you speak of, unlike actual taxes, costs you nothing. Zilch. In order to get to the conclusion that others "should" pay you when using your idea, you must assume that you have an ownership interest in the idea itself -- in other words, you must assume the answer as a starting point.
If you don't assume that an inventor has an ownership interest in his ideas (and I no longer do), then it does not seem like an inventor "should" get paid by those using ideas the inventor came up with. Of course, to the extent that an inventor can use an idea without giving away the secret (no we are getting into the area of "trade secrets"), I say, "knock yourself out." But why should society have to pay a price because an inventor CHOSE to make a particular idea public?
I certainly used to have the same gut reaction as most people (inventors should get paid for their ideas). I now believe, however, that I was working with flawed logic, based on a faulty assumption. That's what I think now, anyway.
You are right, copyrights last much longer than patents. But as a programmer, you can easily avoid copyright problems by just not peeking at the competition's code (or, in the case of look and feel, not peeking at their user iterface... Ok, that's not very plausible). The difference is that independent creation is a total defense in copyrights, but is almost worthless in patent infringement (I say almost only because you can get socked with triple damages if you willfully infringe a patent). Infringement of a patent is infringement of a patent, even when you have no knowledge of it. If independent creation was a defense to patent infringement, it would go a long way towards making the system less harmful.
That's just my 2-bits (which, together with the other 2-bits I contributed earlier makes 4-bits -- almost half a byte).
Until recently, I was a patent attorney. I have written and secured software patents. IMHO, the patent system is hopelessly flawed, and I am not sure any form of patent protection is justified. I keep reading the Slashdot discussions regarding each new software patent, and I am waiting for people to wake up to what the patent system is about.
People have this notion that a patent is granted on "real" inventions (you know, light-bulbs, transistors, etc). The idea is that we reward those who solve the big problems. Unfortunately, that is not how the system works. I have read thousands of patents, and I can tell you that very few of them solve a problem in a new way. The vast majority of the time, what happens is this: someone, upon stumbing on a new (to them) problem, quickly figures out the most obvious, straight-forward solution. The solution they find is the same one that most people in the same field would come to when they stumble onto the same problem. But because this particular individual was first to find the problem (in a fast moving area of technology, they may have found the problem a month or less before their competitors), they were first with the solution. They are, under our system, entitled to a patent, and entitled to exclude others from their solution. It simply doesn't matter (practically) that it was a simple solution and took no real spark of creativity. What matters is that this person was first.
Follow the logic here: Everything was new at some point. Under our patent laws everything (at the time it was new) could have been patented and held up for a period of twenty years. As long as the person who came up with it first applies for a patent, forget about using it for twenty years. Does this promote science and the useful arts? In a sideways kind of way, it might. But generally (and overwhelmingly in an area like software), it cripples innovation.
I have absolutely no idea whether this particular patent is valid. What I do know is that there is no reason in principle (under our patent system) that the person who first applied the notion of load-balancing to web-servers could not get a perfectly valid patent. What I see in this discussion is people trying desperately to explain why this particular patent may not be valid. The key is this: why do you want so much for it to be invalid? Because it would be wrong to stop programmers from applying a common-sense scheme like load-balancing to web-servers just because someone else was the first to run up against this particular problem. In other words, those who are trying to innovate can only hope that the patent system does not work as designed. In still other words, our patent system is wrong.
I hope you will all forgive me for venting, but I have been close to this problem for a long time, and I hope that the day will come when ordinary people come to realize the nature of our patent system and dismantle it (or at least gut it so that it is no more harmful than copyright).
The patent laws of this country do prohibit an individual from practicing any patented invention (whether apparatus or method) without the permission of the owner of the patent. See 35 U.S.C. Section 271. There is no exception for non-commercial use.
Slashdot Mirror
And here we vote out the fascists who do stuff like that. Your option in China would be, what? You could voice your concern, and be killed. Or write a book about it, and be killed. Or...
Did you have a point?
-Steve
What planet do you live on? The "government" of China is concerned about its image? We're talking about a gang of thugs who routinely kill people who disagree with them. We're not talking about routine levels of not playing nice, like Bill Gates, but seriously evil shit like torturing and murdering monks in Tibet. As far as obeying a license agreement goes, these same thugs back large numbers of software pirates -- exactly what image do they need to uphold?
I really try to avoid bashing people on forums like this, but man, you've drunk the Kool-Aid.
-Steve
What has Microsoft done that Netscape and Sun have not (or would not have if not given the chance)? Scott McNealy would be Bill Gates if given half a chance (and the DOJ is insisting that Scott be given that chance).
I don't see how your Great Grandfather's story justifies the antitrust laws. Besides being irrelevant to antitrust matters, this story only seems to suggest that people will help out without the need for government sticking its snout in the matter.
As far as government being "us", it certainly isn't "me" -- no one I've ever voted for has ever been elected (I have a perfect record in that regard). Seriously -- democracy may be a lot better than the other authoritarian forms of government that have plagued humanity, but I think that people are mistaken to assume that the will of the majority can be interpreted as correct (morally or otherwise).
But what would I know, as you point out, I'm only a "clueless libertarian."
-Steve
Then mightn't it be better to get rid of the government-granted monopolies, rather than using more government power to get rid of the problems caused by those government-granted monopolies? Sorry for throwing logic into an otherwise spectacular mob scene.
-Steve
I don't know if I qualify as a "pseudo-libertarian", but I'll pipe up anyway.
First, let me state for the record that I dislike Microsoft a lot -- I use Linux almost exclusively at home (until Battlezone plays under Linux, I'm forced to keep Windows around). I think Windows is buggy as hell, and I agree with much of Eric Raymond's "Cathedral and the Bazaar" logic. I want very much to see Microsoft's market share get lost to Linux (or some other open operating system).
That said, I am very uncomfortable about the prospect of the government coming in and using its monopoly powers (police powers) to in some way diminish Microsoft's market share (which is what any DOJ verdict would boil down to). I realize that this finding of fact is not a final verdict, but it does suggest what the outcome will be. I urge /. readers to consider that a wrong act does not become acceptable just because the victim of the wrong act is disliked. While it may be nice to hear of bad things happening to Microsoft, wouldn't it be nicer if it occured because people decided on their own that an alternative to Windows is better?
The use of government power to diminish Microsoft's role should not be gratifying to us, even if we intensely dislike the target of that power.
I guess I can get down off my soapbox now, and get back to work.
-Steve
I recently wrote an article on /. explaining some basic points of patent law. One of my purposes in writing that piece was to inform people about a system which is clearly doing more harm than good. I used to be a patent attorney, but as my views evolved over time, I realized I could no longer help create patents anymore (now I do licensing -- drafting contracts).
I tend to think that the American people are in favor of the patent system because they don't understand it. They think of it as a wonderful way of helping out the Thomas Edison's of the country. In reality it works a lot more like a shake-down. I would be happy to do my part to help inform people about the problems with the patent system, but I am realistic enough to know that the opposing forces are gargantuan -- nothing is likely to change (for the positive, anyway) anytime soon.
-Steve
My home network:
Larry
Moe (the server, naturally)
Curly
Shemp
Curlyjoe
If I add anything to my network, it will need to be named Joe Besser (ugh). Then my network will no longer be able to expand.
-Steve
I just checked the PTO's website. The fee for filing a provisional patent application is $75 for a small entity, $150 for a large entity (don't worry, it is measured by number of persons, not waist size).
m
Since the PTO website is a bit difficult to get useful information from, here is the link:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/provapp.ht
Remember, this is not a substitute for a real patent application, but it will hold your place in line for up to a year.
-Steven Young
The cost of filing a provisional patent application is (as I recall) $75. All you need to do is write a detailed description of what you want to protect (source code would be ideal), and file it with the USPTO (check out the web site www.uspto.gov, I believe they have information that is helpful).
That gives you one year in which to file a real patent application and claim the provisional filing date as your date of priority. After filing the provisional, if you show someone your idea and they decide to rip it off, you can decide to spend the bucks on a real application, and you will have priority.
An NDA would be good, but venture capital firms can be hesitant to sign them. I believe it is for historical reasons ("we've always done things with a handshake"), but I know that at least some VC's now sign them.
-Steven Young
They are likely patenting [4] and [5] (algorithms and methods), which are inherent in [1] through [3]. Technically speaking, you aren't supposed to be able to patent an algorithm, but in practice it is done all the time (and such patents are held to be valid). Method patents ("I claims the method of performing steps X, Y and Z") have been around a long time (much longer than computers). A method patent effectively prohibits you from doing particular things.
Inventions that can be patented are not simply the mechanical dohicky's that the public generally thinks of. In my view (and yes, I am a former patent attorney), this misunderstanding on the part of the public is the only thing that permits this obviously unjust system (the patent system) to continue.
A lot of the bandwidth on discussions such as this one is dedicated to trying to differentiate the real, acceptable, patents from the spurious ones. I am convinced that no real line can be drawn between them. We accept patents on real inventions only because it has always (almost) been that way.
I'll stop ranting now.
-Steve
You can make a good argument that medical research would be far different in a world without patents. That, however, is not the same as making a good argument that a world without patents would be worse off. Clearly, today's pharmaceutical industries rely on the current patent regime. To suggest that they would simply wither and die, and that no research would be done without patent protection, is to exhibit a lack of imagination.
I don't mean to attack you, but too often I see the argument that things would be different pass for an argument that things would be worse. It ain't (ok, isn't) necessarily so.
-Steve
When I was studying aerospace engineering, it was drummed into us early and often that the US aerospace community only uses English units (not metric). When I saw this story, my first reaction was, "why would a US aerospace team be using metric?" Then again, I headed off in a totally different direction after I graduated (law), so I can't say from experience that real-life aerospace companies all use English units. Sometimes they lie to you in school, you know? :-)
On the whole, I think that each system has its benefits and flaws (metric is easy to figure out, English allows nifty division results). The real problem stems from the two systems not living together peacefully. Expensive error, though. Alhtough not as expensive as if it had been a manned mission.
-Steve
You're right. I always have been too quick to simply label things logarithmic versions of other things. Got to get over that. :-) It does have that smooshed-out logarithmic look though. Oh well.
-Steve
Is it just me, or does the graph they showed look like a standard, everyday bell curve plotted on some kind of logarithmic scale? If so, then I wonder whether this is that big a deal -- instead of plotting along the X axis, you plot along the X^10 axis (or something similar) and you have the bell curve. Am I missing something?
-Steve
(FYI, I am an intellectual property attorney, but that is no guarantee that I'm right in any of my conclusions. Don't rely on any of this -- see your own attorney.)
In a software license agreement, if a term like "derived work" is not defined, I would assume that most courts would assume that it meant the same as the copyright term-of-art "Derivative Work". That term is defined in 17 USC Section 101 as:
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
Okay, clear as mud.
The problem is that with software it is difficult to draw the idea/expression dichotomy that is at the heart of copyright law. Copyright law protects the expression of an idea. If you take that expression and change it, you probably have a derivative work (i.e. translate it to another language, make a movie of it, etc.). If you take the ideas from a work, and incorporate them in another work, the result is not a derivative work (think Romeo and Juliet -> West Side Story [and yes, I realize that Romeo and Juliet is not copyrighted]). In cases where there are few ways of expressing an idea (how many ways can you write a while loop?), the idea and expression are said to be "merged", and that particular expression is not protected by copyright. In software, much of the source code (to my way of thinking) is likely covered by this merger doctrine.
I tend to think that translating C code to pseudo-code is a lot like extracting the idea from a particular expression. Creating new C code from the pseudo-code (if the pseudo-code is really just the "idea") should constitute a new, non-derivative work. It is a difficult call, though, because (simply) copyright law was not designed for software, and it's doctrines do not fit well.
Anyway, I am aware that I rambled, and I can see that I have strayed from the point at least a few times. But it is Friday afternoon, and I am too tired to go back and edit my work.
-Steve
(Too tired to think up a snappy sig-line)
I just have to chime in here. My pilot has clearly boosted my productivity. I am a lawyer (boo, hiss) and a BIG part of my job is keeping track of my billable hours. Talk to most any lawyer in private practice and you will hear complaints about how inconvenient and time-consuming it is to keep track of billable hours.
When I got a Pilot, I sat down and wrote a program for it that I could use to easily, and almost automaticlly, keep track of my billable hours as they happen. Because I wrote it, I was able to make it dovetail with my firm's (horribly inconvenient and poorly thought-out) time-tracking software.
What used to take up a significant amount of time every day has been reduced to a minor task every few days. While my system is not yet fully automated, I enjoy being able to revise the program periodically to further reduce the burden of keeping track of my time. To me, that is the attraction of not only the Pilot, but all computing devices -- that I can write a program to alleviate the repetitive, boring tasks in my life.
None of this even addresses the many times that the Pilot's built-in functionality has saved my butt by reminding me of an important meeting I had forgotten, allowed me access to information I would not have otherwise had handy, etc.
Some people may not become more productive by getting a Pilot, but I definitely did.
-Steve
Minor correction: CodeWarrior is not open source. The "Redhat" version does, however, run just fine on other distros.
-Steve
WOW!
I have been needing this for a while, thinking, "Why isn't there a..."
Any idea how much they will be?
-Steve
>It has to be used in commerce. It's being used in commerce, and has been for quite a while now. Given the
>number of IPOs around it, I'd think you'd notice.
To be trademarked by SPI it has to be used in commerce by SPI. If SPI is engaged in commerce, then I was wrong. The IPOs by companies which use the term "Open Source" don't qualify because (i) they are not SPI, and (ii) because their use, as far as I can recall, is not use as a trademark, which has a special meaning under the law.
For what it's worth.
-Steve
Not to pick nits, but here goes...
What was applied for was a "certification mark" which is similar to, but different from, a trademark. To get a trademark, one must use the mark in relation to a commercial activity. As such, Open Source was never qualified to be a trademark.
To understand what a certification mark is, think about the little UL stamped on the plugs and sockets for various pieces of electrical equipment in your home. This stands for Underwriters Labaoratory, and private certification lab. They have formulated (electrical) standards, and test equipment. If it passes, it can be stamped "UL", and if it does not, it cannot be. To maintain a certification mark, one must make the certification standards public, and must apply them without bias. Microsoft uses a certification mark of its own, the little "designed for Windows 95" logo you see everywhere. For software that meets their criteria, they must allow the publisher to use the logo.
Anyway, to wrap this up, one should think about the time and effort that an actual certification program might entail. Every programmer who wants to call a piece of code "Open Source" would have to apply to the SPI, and the SPI would have to make a yes/no determination, based on their criteria. It may be that SPI decided that the hassle of such a formal program was more than they wanted.
For what it is worth, yes, I am a lawyer.
-Steve
However, this "tax" you speak of, unlike actual taxes, costs you nothing. Zilch. In order to get to the conclusion that others "should" pay you when using your idea, you must assume that you have an ownership interest in the idea itself -- in other words, you must assume the answer as a starting point.
If you don't assume that an inventor has an ownership interest in his ideas (and I no longer do), then it does not seem like an inventor "should" get paid by those using ideas the inventor came up with. Of course, to the extent that an inventor can use an idea without giving away the secret (no we are getting into the area of "trade secrets"), I say, "knock yourself out." But why should society have to pay a price because an inventor CHOSE to make a particular idea public?
I certainly used to have the same gut reaction as most people (inventors should get paid for their ideas). I now believe, however, that I was working with flawed logic, based on a faulty assumption. That's what I think now, anyway.
-Steve
You are right, copyrights last much longer than patents. But as a programmer, you can easily avoid copyright problems by just not peeking at the competition's code (or, in the case of look and feel, not peeking at their user iterface... Ok, that's not very plausible). The difference is that independent creation is a total defense in copyrights, but is almost worthless in patent infringement (I say almost only because you can get socked with triple damages if you willfully infringe a patent). Infringement of a patent is infringement of a patent, even when you have no knowledge of it. If independent creation was a defense to patent infringement, it would go a long way towards making the system less harmful.
That's just my 2-bits (which, together with the other 2-bits I contributed earlier makes 4-bits -- almost half a byte).
-Steve
Until recently, I was a patent attorney. I have written and secured software patents. IMHO, the patent system is hopelessly flawed, and I am not sure any form of patent protection is justified. I keep reading the Slashdot discussions regarding each new software patent, and I am waiting for people to wake up to what the patent system is about.
People have this notion that a patent is granted on "real" inventions (you know, light-bulbs, transistors, etc). The idea is that we reward those who solve the big problems. Unfortunately, that is not how the system works. I have read thousands of patents, and I can tell you that very few of them solve a problem in a new way. The vast majority of the time, what happens is this: someone, upon stumbing on a new (to them) problem, quickly figures out the most obvious, straight-forward solution. The solution they find is the same one that most people in the same field would come to when they stumble onto the same problem. But because this particular individual was first to find the problem (in a fast moving area of technology, they may have found the problem a month or less before their competitors), they were first with the solution. They are, under our system, entitled to a patent, and entitled to exclude others from their solution. It simply doesn't matter (practically) that it was a simple solution and took no real spark of creativity. What matters is that this person was first.
Follow the logic here: Everything was new at some point. Under our patent laws everything (at the time it was new) could have been patented and held up for a period of twenty years. As long as the person who came up with it first applies for a patent, forget about using it for twenty years. Does this promote science and the useful arts? In a sideways kind of way, it might. But generally (and overwhelmingly in an area like software), it cripples innovation.
I have absolutely no idea whether this particular patent is valid. What I do know is that there is no reason in principle (under our patent system) that the person who first applied the notion of load-balancing to web-servers could not get a perfectly valid patent. What I see in this discussion is people trying desperately to explain why this particular patent may not be valid. The key is this: why do you want so much for it to be invalid? Because it would be wrong to stop programmers from applying a common-sense scheme like load-balancing to web-servers just because someone else was the first to run up against this particular problem. In other words, those who are trying to innovate can only hope that the patent system does not work as designed. In still other words, our patent system is wrong.
I hope you will all forgive me for venting, but I have been close to this problem for a long time, and I hope that the day will come when ordinary people come to realize the nature of our patent system and dismantle it (or at least gut it so that it is no more harmful than copyright).
-Steve, a recovering patent attorney
The patent laws of this country do prohibit an individual from practicing any patented invention (whether apparatus or method) without the permission of the owner of the patent. See 35 U.S.C. Section 271. There is no exception for non-commercial use.