Who did the reporter misunderstand to write this nonsense: "For example, Java was originally designed to prevent users from saving files to a computer's hard drive - a good security precaution, but worse than useless for word processing." He's talking about a default security policy for a class that implements the Applet interface. The policy can be changed. Most Java classes do not implement Applet or need to run in a browser, where security is vital. Java was designed to have a fine-grained security policy--unlike ActiveX where you must choose to trust everything, or nothing. This factoid had the strongest smell of FUD for me.
Many former geophysics grad students have been tempted away into pure computer science. A Stanford professor wrote some career advice for his students: "There are many good opportunities [in comp sci] because the computer world is always changing, and that puts young people on an even footing with older people... Are you planning to stay young forever? Math, Engineering, and Geophysics have their eternal verities: Fourier analysis, Maxwell equations, elasticity, finite differences, operators, eigenvectors, adjoints, conjugate-gradient solvers, expectation and covariance, moveout corrections, acoustic imaging, the list goes on and on. Learn these things and learn them well, because they can serve you for a lifetime."
Why does Unisys keep this nonsense on their webpage? They claim a couple thousand have actually paid the fee. It isn't new, but it doesn't appear to be dead either.
My only regret is that we do not prepare and preserve summaries of the conclusions of these open debates. For example, there is no single document that one can point to that clearly summarizes all that we learned about the MindCraft debate. Why? Our distribution rules for words are much more stringent than our rules for code. I do not feel entitled to grab ESR's "Response to the MindCraft fiasco" and revise until it incorporates all information I think he might have overlooked. That would be "plagiarism," and I should be ashamed. Nevertheless, I immediately feel entitled to do the same with his code. Words are at a disadvantage. Yet, summaries and overviews are very important to persuading those who do not have time to be regular slashdot readers. Imagine what we could do with thousands of authors. FAQ's are written this way. Why not news stories and analyses? Do we need a copyleft for words?
We are in an unstable transition, so it is not surprising that we can't easily identify the "fair thing to do." The main services provided by record companies are promotion and distribution, and the Internet threatens their hold on both. Recording and production equipment are vastly cheaper now and are much less of an issue. Record companies are classic middlemen, like the railroads that used to take most of the profits from agriculture. Existing contracts are binding, and we are obliged to respect them. But a new economic model is forming, and the record companies can't expect to retain such an overwhelming share forever. (Funding the right congressmen will postpone the change.)
Given enough eyes, any news analysis is shallow. (Apologies to ESR.) Invariably I find many slashdot comments that are more perceptive, more informative, and better balanced than the articles they respond to.
Fetish is the right word. This article perfectly describes the fetish of "ownership." Ultimately you only need "access" to material things. You only need ownership for exclusive access. If your access is unlimited, then why do you need ownership? Naturally you want to own your toothbrush, so you don't have to share it with anyone. But what's wrong with enjoying something that everyone can access freely, like a public park?
The distinction between "ideas" and "implementations" makes perfect sense. The words "method" and "algorithm," however, could be interpreted either way. The fast-Fourier transform and Quick Sort are both ideas that have only one obvious implementation. Either could be patented in the US today, if new.
With really cheap machines, you could probably expect market segmentation from MS. They'd probably give away something like CE rather than see a competitor lock up a new mass market. Remember IE.
One more remark. Employers in my business usually realize that they pay for good implementations of ideas, not for the ideas themselves. A good idea, without a good understanding and good implementation skills, is worth little. Really useful ideas seem inevitable and are usually discovered independently by many. A good programming implementation seems well protected by copyright. Source code can be compared to see if an implementation was plagiarized. But it is difficult to describe a computer program in the language of a patent without effectively claiming ownership of the ideas that inspired the implementation.
Thanks again. I could more easily endorse what you say if my business involved building a better mechanical apparatus, instead of finding a better way to interpret data. A computer program is just math. I would not attempt to patent a series of keystrokes on a calculator, but I am entitled to do so when the calculator is big enough.
Different parts of society do indeed have conflicting interests, and I want my small part of society to better defend our interests. For example, a corporation may argue that mandatory arbitration is good for business, but those of use who lose our right to sue should still complain.
(Unfortunately specific patent examples would be bound to offend someone in my small field. Anyone could look up those involved and make it personal.)
I thank this attorney for taking the time to respond. In few forums do I have the opportunity to hear such a perspective. After overcoming the painful sensation of being contradicted so forcefully, I reread and found enough concessions to feel that my own impressions may not be statistically negligible.
Perhaps seismic signal processing is atypical, but I find many others in my business with similar feelings. Our job is to invent new numerical algorithms and code them up. Essentially we're paid for doing math. Math is something we strive to learn, to understand, and to discover -- we do not invent math or create math. When patents stop us from using certain combinations of equations, then we lose part of our education -- the one piece of property I hoped never could be taken from me.
I'm sure that many fine patent reviewers can see right through a syntactically obfuscated patchwork of algorithms from different specialties. Having tried to get competent reviewers for technical papers, I've sometimes wondered if three people existed who could decode them, much less review them. Could it be that the patent office has more than their share of such people?
Many colleagues shake their heads when reading descriptions of new patents in our technical journals. We can't believe that such fundamental ideas (for us) now belong to someone. Too often I have seen small companies bullied into a license by a big company. The cost of fighting a patent is very high.
The author of one controversial patent explained that he was actually claiming one specific numerical idea in the patent, not the entire area of application. Nevertheless, the patent was used against anyone who attempted to solve the same problem, by any means. It didn't matter that I used a college textbook that explained the very same solution years before.
Clearly I'm not ready to step into court and indict the profession of patent attorneys. Nevertheless, I must insist that I find no benefit in intellectual-property patents to researchers and programmers such as myself.
Should you attempt to patent "intellectual property," such as a computer algorithm?
Obtaining a patent is easy. I obtained quite a few before realizing the consequences. You write up any idea you are moderately proud of and send it to your company's patent lawyer. One or two pages are enough. The lawyer translates into ugly and inaccurate syntax that few of your peers could understand. Don't bother to proofread. It won't matter to anyone. The lawyer will handle the submission.
The patent office rejects the application once to discourage amateurs. They make random objections that demonstrate they didn't understand a word. They ask how your work is different from other patents with similar keywords in the title. You point out that the cited patents have nothing to do with your topic. The lawyer fixes the rest and resubmits. The revised patent is approved without a hitch.
At no time during the application does anyone oblige you to demonstrate that your method is not common practice or obvious to someone in the field. At no time is your patent read by someone who understands it. The office performs no literature search: they simply scan for keywords in previous patents.
Your employer, who actually owns the patent, now has the right to drag smaller companies into court and force them to demonstrate that their practices do not fall under the patent. The burden of proof is on the defender, although the owner of the patent proved nothing to obtain the patent. If you leave the company, you'll have to license your own idea. Why would you participate in such injustice? For a negligible bonus?
Some say that patents must be sought to defend against other patents. Extra patents won't stop lawsuits, though. To defend yourself, why not simply publish the idea? Publishing requires more work, but at least you can continue to use your own ideas. If you need an easier way to protect yourself, keep a dated lab notebook, and document your debt to obvious and well-known ideas.
Patents are one way corporations attempt to own ideas. Once, "knowledge workers" could keep their mental tools when they changed jobs. Employers do not patent the skills of manual workers because those workers depend on expensive mechanical tools. New rules were invented to keep the rest of us equally dependent. "Intellectual property" was invented to own what is in your brain -- to own your skills and your education. Don't make it easier for them. Don't be exploited by your own vanity.
Slashdot Mirror
Who did the reporter misunderstand to write this nonsense: "For example, Java was originally designed to prevent users from saving files to a computer's hard drive - a good security precaution, but worse than useless for word processing." He's talking about a default security policy for a class that implements the Applet interface. The policy can be changed. Most Java classes do not implement Applet or need to run in a browser, where security is vital. Java was designed to have a fine-grained security policy--unlike ActiveX where you must choose to trust everything, or nothing. This factoid had the strongest smell of FUD for me.
Many former geophysics grad students have been tempted away into pure computer science. A Stanford professor wrote some career advice for his students: "There are many good opportunities [in comp sci] because the computer world is always changing, and that puts young people on an even footing with older people... Are you planning to stay young forever? Math, Engineering, and Geophysics have their eternal verities: Fourier analysis, Maxwell equations, elasticity, finite differences, operators, eigenvectors, adjoints, conjugate-gradient solvers, expectation and covariance, moveout corrections, acoustic imaging, the list goes on and on. Learn these things and learn them well, because they can serve you for a lifetime."
Why does Unisys keep this nonsense on their webpage? They claim a couple thousand have actually paid the fee. It isn't new, but it doesn't appear to be dead either.
If your web site uses GIF files, then Unisys wants $5000. Why isn't PNG more widely used yet?
My only regret is that we do not prepare and preserve summaries of the conclusions of these open debates. For example, there is no single document that one can point to that clearly summarizes all that we learned about the MindCraft debate. Why? Our distribution rules for words are much more stringent than our rules for code. I do not feel entitled to grab ESR's "Response to the MindCraft fiasco" and revise until it incorporates all information I think he might have overlooked. That would be "plagiarism," and I should be ashamed. Nevertheless, I immediately feel entitled to do the same with his code. Words are at a disadvantage. Yet, summaries and overviews are very important to persuading those who do not have time to be regular slashdot readers. Imagine what we could do with thousands of authors. FAQ's are written this way. Why not news stories and analyses? Do we need a copyleft for words?
We are in an unstable transition, so it is not surprising that we can't easily identify the "fair thing to do." The main services provided by record companies are promotion and distribution, and the Internet threatens their hold on both. Recording and production equipment are vastly cheaper now and are much less of an issue. Record companies are classic middlemen, like the railroads that used to take most of the profits from agriculture. Existing contracts are binding, and we are obliged to respect them. But a new economic model is forming, and the record
companies can't expect to retain such an overwhelming share forever. (Funding the right congressmen will postpone the change.)
Given enough eyes, any news analysis is shallow. (Apologies to ESR.) Invariably I find many slashdot comments that are more perceptive, more informative, and better balanced than the articles they respond to.
Strangely spelled words are also tiresome to read.
Fetish is the right word. This article perfectly describes the fetish of "ownership." Ultimately you only need "access" to material things. You only need ownership for exclusive access. If your access is unlimited, then why do you need ownership? Naturally you want to own your toothbrush, so you don't have to share it with anyone. But what's wrong with enjoying something that everyone can access freely, like a public park?
The distinction between "ideas" and "implementations" makes perfect sense. The words "method" and "algorithm," however, could be interpreted either way. The fast-Fourier transform and Quick Sort are both ideas that have only one obvious implementation. Either could be patented in the US today, if new.
With really cheap machines, you could probably expect market segmentation from MS. They'd probably give away something like CE rather than see a competitor lock up a new mass market. Remember IE.
Brain weight correlates with body weight.
Does anyone believe that heavy people are
usually more intellegent than skinny
people?
One more remark. Employers in my business
usually realize that they pay for good
implementations of ideas, not for the ideas
themselves. A good idea, without a good
understanding and good implementation skills,
is worth little. Really useful ideas seem
inevitable and are usually discovered
independently by many. A good programming
implementation seems well protected by
copyright. Source code can be compared to
see if an implementation was plagiarized.
But it is difficult to describe a computer
program in the language of a patent without
effectively claiming ownership of the ideas
that inspired the implementation.
Thanks again. I could more easily endorse
what you say if my business involved building
a better mechanical apparatus, instead of
finding a better way to interpret data. A
computer program is just math. I would not
attempt to patent a series of keystrokes on a
calculator, but I am entitled to do so when
the calculator is big enough.
Different parts of society do indeed have
conflicting interests, and I want my small
part of society to better defend our
interests. For example, a corporation may
argue that mandatory arbitration is good for
business, but those of use who lose our right
to sue should still complain.
(Unfortunately specific patent examples would
be bound to offend someone in my small field.
Anyone could look up those involved and make
it personal.)
I thank this attorney for taking the time to
respond. In few forums do I have the
opportunity to hear such a perspective.
After overcoming the painful sensation of
being contradicted so forcefully, I reread
and found enough concessions to feel that my
own impressions may not be statistically
negligible.
Perhaps seismic signal processing is
atypical, but I find many others in my
business with similar feelings. Our job is
to invent new numerical algorithms and code
them up. Essentially we're paid for doing
math. Math is something we strive to learn,
to understand, and to discover -- we do not
invent math or create math. When patents
stop us from using certain combinations of
equations, then we lose part of our education
-- the one piece of property I hoped never
could be taken from me.
I'm sure that many fine patent reviewers can
see right through a syntactically obfuscated
patchwork of algorithms from different
specialties. Having tried to get competent
reviewers for technical papers, I've
sometimes wondered if three people existed
who could decode them, much less review them.
Could it be that the patent office has more
than their share of such people?
Many colleagues shake their heads when
reading descriptions of new patents in our
technical journals. We can't believe that
such fundamental ideas (for us) now belong to
someone. Too often I have seen small
companies bullied into a license by a big
company. The cost of fighting a patent is
very high.
The author of one controversial patent
explained that he was actually claiming one
specific numerical idea in the patent, not
the entire area of application.
Nevertheless, the patent was used against
anyone who attempted to solve the same
problem, by any means. It didn't matter that
I used a college textbook that explained the
very same solution years before.
Clearly I'm not ready to step into court and
indict the profession of patent attorneys.
Nevertheless, I must insist that I find no
benefit in intellectual-property patents to
researchers and programmers such as myself.
B.H.
Should you attempt to patent "intellectual
property," such as a computer algorithm?
Obtaining a patent is easy. I obtained quite
a few before realizing the consequences. You
write up any idea you are moderately proud of
and send it to your company's patent lawyer.
One or two pages are enough. The lawyer
translates into ugly and inaccurate syntax
that few of your peers could understand.
Don't bother to proofread. It won't matter
to anyone. The lawyer will handle the
submission.
The patent office rejects the application
once to discourage amateurs. They make
random objections that demonstrate they
didn't understand a word. They ask how your
work is different from other patents with
similar keywords in the title. You point out
that the cited patents have nothing to do
with your topic. The lawyer fixes the rest
and resubmits. The revised patent is
approved without a hitch.
At no time during the application does anyone
oblige you to demonstrate that your method is
not common practice or obvious to someone in
the field. At no time is your patent read by
someone who understands it. The office
performs no literature search: they simply
scan for keywords in previous patents.
Your employer, who actually owns the patent,
now has the right to drag smaller companies
into court and force them to demonstrate that
their practices do not fall under the patent.
The burden of proof is on the defender,
although the owner of the patent proved
nothing to obtain the patent. If you leave
the company, you'll have to license your own
idea. Why would you participate in such
injustice? For a negligible bonus?
Some say that patents must be sought to
defend against other patents. Extra patents
won't stop lawsuits, though. To defend
yourself, why not simply publish the idea?
Publishing requires more work, but at least
you can continue to use your own ideas. If
you need an easier way to protect yourself,
keep a dated lab notebook, and document your
debt to obvious and well-known ideas.
Patents are one way corporations attempt to
own ideas. Once, "knowledge workers" could
keep their mental tools when they changed
jobs. Employers do not patent the skills of
manual workers because those workers depend
on expensive mechanical tools. New rules
were invented to keep the rest of us equally
dependent. "Intellectual property" was
invented to own what is in your brain -- to
own your skills and your education. Don't
make it easier for them. Don't be exploited
by your own vanity.
Intellectual property is neither.
B. Harlan