How in the world does using the same protection method for books and music and software make sense? You don't sit down and read a piece of software. But hey, we're all happy with the status quo. I mean, we get paid a lot of money to do shoddy work and people just laugh when the computer locks up and they lose all their data. It'd take some kind of massive campaign of lawsuits or boycotts to change things.
The point was that the software industry was unprofessional and produced shit, yes, if you disagree with that I think we should stop talking right now. The way I believe we could fix this is to change the system by which government provides clout to software producers. Copyright clearly doesn't work. I believe a patent system for original non-trivial algorithms would. Note that there's three elements here. Remove copyright, add patents, reform the patent system.
When was the last time you bought a car or jumbo jet bult by an amateur or small business?
Never, cause I was not alive back when cars and planes were built by bicycle repairmen.
When was the last time you used a piece of software written by an amateur or small business?
A better question would be when was the last time I didn't? Because our industry is so unprofessional that the idea that someone would actually put a warrentee on a piece of software or seriously sell it with the claim that it was bug free (like they do cars and planes) so yes, just about every piece of software I use was written by an amateur, or someone who acted like one. I don't consider this a good thing, why do you?
Great, you just ruled yourself as an extremist and can now leave the conversation to the rest of us. I guess I'm being harsh, but we could have a nice long argument about whether property is theft or companies should be allowed to exist or if this pesky thing called money really brings anyone happiness anyway, but I think we should reduce the scope to the question, should patents cover software, to people who actually think patents are a good idea in the first place.
No, a better question is why has the copyright system been applied to programs. It's really a disingenious of Stallman to argue that patents are not applicable to software as he has previously argued that copyright isn't applicable either. Call me crazy, but I think something should be applicable to software, so which is it? Stallman will tell you that no protection is necessary, but if you look at the rediculously slow level of progress that we have made in computer science it is clear that some system is needed. So let's dump copyright and give patents a go. If it doesn't work, let's look at why it doesn't work and try to come up with a system that will.
Sigh, since when exactly did amateur plane enthusiast work on something being in direct competition to the offerings of boing and aribus?
heh, that would be way back when planes were made by bicycle repairmen. It was back before the space race. Yes, the aerospace industry went through the exact same period the software industry is now going through. Same with the auto industry. The difference is that the aerospace and auto industries were populated by people who recognised that a maturing industry is a good thing. They also didn't have the warm blanket of copyright protection. For them it was either patents or trade secrets and if they stuck with trade secrets they knew they would have to keep their products under lock and key to prevent reverse engineering. Much like what software producers are hoping to do with DRM and web services.
1995 called, they want their argument back. Who actually still thinks that the software industry has anything to do with getting code to the customer. The business part of software, the bit that people actually shell out money for, it's the relationship between the producer and the consumer. The value is in the service provided by the company. Which is why the system currently used to regulate the software industry (copyright) is totally inappropriate and a system similar to patent law would be much more appropriate.
Oh, so you're against patents in every industry. Where I look at automobiles and aeroplanes and pharmaceuticals think Wow! How did they make all that progress in such a short period of time and wonder what the software industry would be like if someone had suggested that we go with patents instead of copyright 50 years ago, you look at these industries and think what? That we'd have better cars and planes and drugs today if the patent system wasn't around? How can you possibly think that?
The fact that Open Source can challenge commercial software at all just demonstrates that commercial software is shit. So what's your plan for making it not shit? Oh that's right, nothing, you have no plan. Instead you want everything to stay the same.. or better yet, have the commercial software industry just crumble and go away to be replaced by the equally (or possibly even slightly superior) shit we call Open Source. Great! Here's a better idea. Let's grant software patents on truely original and non-trivial algorithms. Let's bring back the great minds who used to work in computer science (like Edsger Wybe Dijkstra and Sir Antony Hoare) by designing a system that commercialises the creation of knowledge instead of just the application of it. Cause that's what is at stake here. There's no incentive to create knowledge and make discoveries in computer science today. The government supplies you with ample power to make money from applying other people's discoveries in your own software, so why doing any research yourself?
And small and medium sized software companies produce crap that shouldn't be in the industry. That's my point. Either software remains this big bag of hacks or it matures and becomes something great. As a programmer I want to work in the later industry, not the former. As a consumer I want to buy from the later industry, not the former. The mere fact that Open Source software, writen by amateurs can compete with commercial software is not a testimony to how great Open Source is, it's a testimony to how shit commercial software is. It's a testimony to how little innovation has occured over the last 40 years.
Your example more points out why Stallman's argument is stupid. Patents exist harmoniously in dozens of industries in our society. For many industries they underpin how that industry operates. Will introducing software patents in the EU change the way the software industry works? Yes. About as much as it changed the way the software industry works in the US. If you want to argue that overly broad patents are a bad idea, fine, do that, no-one will disagree with you. In fact, they'll happily point you at the numerous supreme court rulings that have decided as much. But don't make the claim that we should throw out the entire patent system (or not apply it to software) because of an issue that has been solved in every other industry for which patents serve an integral part.
If the EU adopts software patents (and I guarantee they will -- it's only a matter of time and money), there will be precious few places left in the world where one is truly free to write software.
Just to get this straight, you think that those of us in Australia and the Unitied States are not free to write software? Couldn't it be possible, just possible, that you're exadurating because you're afraid that software patents will upset the status quo? Isn't it possible that you, like most every human being on this planet, are afraid of change?
If you don't want to put in a bit of background reading then don't talk about psychology. Piss off to some other message board and talk about reality tv or Paris Hilton. Is it too much to ask that the people who don't know what is going on bugger off and learn on their own? Is our society so spoon fed that they can't even participate in educated conversation?
Have you considered the possibility that the people who want software patents make really good arguments and the people who don't want software patents make really stupid ones? The most common argument I hear from the anti-software-patent crowd is that if the EU starts granting software patents the ass will fall out of the software business in the EU. That's a blatantly dumb argument as, for a start, it's the software business that is calling for software patents to be granted in the EU.. they'd hardly be calling for something they thought was going to screw them. And secondly, the US already has software patents and it has the biggest software business in the world. But ok, then there's the other argument, the one about software patents screwing amature programmers and open source. That argument is dumb too cause there's amature radio enthusiests. There's amature car enthusiests. There's amature plane enthusiests. All these industries are restricted by international patents. Even if it were the case that introducing patents would kill off amature programmers (beats me how, but ok), who cares? It just means customers in the software industry will finally be able to license software that has some chance of being backed by a major company. Yes, we won't have the 3.6 million bullshit little software companies that we have now, but hey, that's a small price to pay for maturing an industry into something actually reliable.
I heard two women talking about programming on the train the other day. I was following their conversation for about 30 seconds before I realised they were child care workers. They have to make a programme so their children get the necessary amount of exercise and educational activities. What the difference between a programme and a schedule is I'll never know. Maybe child care workers will be applying for patents next.
The only argument Stallman makes is that patents should not be overly broad. You don't see broad patents in the automobile, aerospace or pharmacutical industries because people actually challenge patents in those industries. In the software industry we just tend to roll over when a lawyer even sneezes in our general direction. Why? Because the software industry is made up of fly-by-night companies that can't afford to put up a legal fight, let alone produce a stable product. If our industry is ever to mature we have to learn to let go of the status quo and embrace change. This does not mean the amature programmer has to suffer. Free and Open Source Software can continue to produce new and innovative things, just like amatures do in automobile, aerospace, radio and other industries already covered by international patents.
Personally, I'd like to see the copyright system not be applied to software. The kind of argument Stallman makes about patents not being a good fit for literature can also be made for why copyright is not a good fit for automobiles or planes.
seriously, it's a well known problem. I don't mean to be rude but I refer you to the literature as it were. Alternatively you can go ask any phsychology professor who probably performs the experiment every year to show his students that they are just as falible as the next guy.
It's called the Expectancy effect and was discovered by Rosenthal and Fode in 1963. Obviously it is not something that can be proven, but it is something that can be observed and has been time and time again since.
Take 100 rats. Give 50 to a random selection of students and give them 5 tests to perform. Give the other 50 to a random selection of students and give them the same 5 tests to perform, but tell the students that these are specially bred laboratory rats which have been genetically tested to ensure they are more accurate when testing for human disease (or whatever fairy tale your students are likely to buy). The results from the second group will not match the first. There will be a statistically significant difference between them.
Uhhh, there's these people called accountants who do these things called audits that ensure that donations and such are not in fact bribes. Whereas in the US campaign contributions often go straight into the pocket of the representative. Lemme give you some information that just might make your head spin. In Australia, you might give money to a political party to help them lobby so people vote for them and they might decide that there is no good way for them to spend that money to win the election. In that situation it is common for them to give the money back. Now tell me, does this ever happen in the US?
The people of Australia have the same short attention spans as the people of most democratic societies. When it came time for the election people were thinking about what was best for them instead of thinking about whether it was right to reelect someone who invaded a helpless nation. You really couldn't think it was going to go any other way on that issue.
Clinton should have said "how dare you ask me that question?" and then left the room. He didn't cause he had no spine. Then his political enemies saw that they could easily prove that he lied and ruin him. Of course, had he done the first he probably would have been dethroned (err, impeached?) sooner rather than later so really it was a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Personally I would have taken the spineful way out, but that's probably why I'll never be a politician.
Slashdot Mirror
How in the world does using the same protection method for books and music and software make sense? You don't sit down and read a piece of software. But hey, we're all happy with the status quo. I mean, we get paid a lot of money to do shoddy work and people just laugh when the computer locks up and they lose all their data. It'd take some kind of massive campaign of lawsuits or boycotts to change things.
Isn't it obvious? Cars and planes are more like software than novels. You use a car to do work. You don't sit down and read a piece of software.
The point was that the software industry was unprofessional and produced shit, yes, if you disagree with that I think we should stop talking right now. The way I believe we could fix this is to change the system by which government provides clout to software producers. Copyright clearly doesn't work. I believe a patent system for original non-trivial algorithms would. Note that there's three elements here. Remove copyright, add patents, reform the patent system.
Never, cause I was not alive back when cars and planes were built by bicycle repairmen.
When was the last time you used a piece of software written by an amateur or small business?
A better question would be when was the last time I didn't? Because our industry is so unprofessional that the idea that someone would actually put a warrentee on a piece of software or seriously sell it with the claim that it was bug free (like they do cars and planes) so yes, just about every piece of software I use was written by an amateur, or someone who acted like one. I don't consider this a good thing, why do you?
Great, you just ruled yourself as an extremist and can now leave the conversation to the rest of us. I guess I'm being harsh, but we could have a nice long argument about whether property is theft or companies should be allowed to exist or if this pesky thing called money really brings anyone happiness anyway, but I think we should reduce the scope to the question, should patents cover software, to people who actually think patents are a good idea in the first place.
No, a better question is why has the copyright system been applied to programs. It's really a disingenious of Stallman to argue that patents are not applicable to software as he has previously argued that copyright isn't applicable either. Call me crazy, but I think something should be applicable to software, so which is it? Stallman will tell you that no protection is necessary, but if you look at the rediculously slow level of progress that we have made in computer science it is clear that some system is needed. So let's dump copyright and give patents a go. If it doesn't work, let's look at why it doesn't work and try to come up with a system that will.
heh, that would be way back when planes were made by bicycle repairmen. It was back before the space race. Yes, the aerospace industry went through the exact same period the software industry is now going through. Same with the auto industry. The difference is that the aerospace and auto industries were populated by people who recognised that a maturing industry is a good thing. They also didn't have the warm blanket of copyright protection. For them it was either patents or trade secrets and if they stuck with trade secrets they knew they would have to keep their products under lock and key to prevent reverse engineering. Much like what software producers are hoping to do with DRM and web services.
1995 called, they want their argument back. Who actually still thinks that the software industry has anything to do with getting code to the customer. The business part of software, the bit that people actually shell out money for, it's the relationship between the producer and the consumer. The value is in the service provided by the company. Which is why the system currently used to regulate the software industry (copyright) is totally inappropriate and a system similar to patent law would be much more appropriate.
Oh, so you're against patents in every industry. Where I look at automobiles and aeroplanes and pharmaceuticals think Wow! How did they make all that progress in such a short period of time and wonder what the software industry would be like if someone had suggested that we go with patents instead of copyright 50 years ago, you look at these industries and think what? That we'd have better cars and planes and drugs today if the patent system wasn't around? How can you possibly think that?
I have another suggestion: fuck off and die.
The fact that Open Source can challenge commercial software at all just demonstrates that commercial software is shit. So what's your plan for making it not shit? Oh that's right, nothing, you have no plan. Instead you want everything to stay the same.. or better yet, have the commercial software industry just crumble and go away to be replaced by the equally (or possibly even slightly superior) shit we call Open Source. Great! Here's a better idea. Let's grant software patents on truely original and non-trivial algorithms. Let's bring back the great minds who used to work in computer science (like Edsger Wybe Dijkstra and Sir Antony Hoare) by designing a system that commercialises the creation of knowledge instead of just the application of it. Cause that's what is at stake here. There's no incentive to create knowledge and make discoveries in computer science today. The government supplies you with ample power to make money from applying other people's discoveries in your own software, so why doing any research yourself?
And small and medium sized software companies produce crap that shouldn't be in the industry. That's my point. Either software remains this big bag of hacks or it matures and becomes something great. As a programmer I want to work in the later industry, not the former. As a consumer I want to buy from the later industry, not the former. The mere fact that Open Source software, writen by amateurs can compete with commercial software is not a testimony to how great Open Source is, it's a testimony to how shit commercial software is. It's a testimony to how little innovation has occured over the last 40 years.
Your example more points out why Stallman's argument is stupid. Patents exist harmoniously in dozens of industries in our society. For many industries they underpin how that industry operates. Will introducing software patents in the EU change the way the software industry works? Yes. About as much as it changed the way the software industry works in the US. If you want to argue that overly broad patents are a bad idea, fine, do that, no-one will disagree with you. In fact, they'll happily point you at the numerous supreme court rulings that have decided as much. But don't make the claim that we should throw out the entire patent system (or not apply it to software) because of an issue that has been solved in every other industry for which patents serve an integral part.
Just to get this straight, you think that those of us in Australia and the Unitied States are not free to write software? Couldn't it be possible, just possible, that you're exadurating because you're afraid that software patents will upset the status quo? Isn't it possible that you, like most every human being on this planet, are afraid of change?
If you don't want to put in a bit of background reading then don't talk about psychology. Piss off to some other message board and talk about reality tv or Paris Hilton. Is it too much to ask that the people who don't know what is going on bugger off and learn on their own? Is our society so spoon fed that they can't even participate in educated conversation?
Have you considered the possibility that the people who want software patents make really good arguments and the people who don't want software patents make really stupid ones? The most common argument I hear from the anti-software-patent crowd is that if the EU starts granting software patents the ass will fall out of the software business in the EU. That's a blatantly dumb argument as, for a start, it's the software business that is calling for software patents to be granted in the EU.. they'd hardly be calling for something they thought was going to screw them. And secondly, the US already has software patents and it has the biggest software business in the world. But ok, then there's the other argument, the one about software patents screwing amature programmers and open source. That argument is dumb too cause there's amature radio enthusiests. There's amature car enthusiests. There's amature plane enthusiests. All these industries are restricted by international patents. Even if it were the case that introducing patents would kill off amature programmers (beats me how, but ok), who cares? It just means customers in the software industry will finally be able to license software that has some chance of being backed by a major company. Yes, we won't have the 3.6 million bullshit little software companies that we have now, but hey, that's a small price to pay for maturing an industry into something actually reliable.
I heard two women talking about programming on the train the other day. I was following their conversation for about 30 seconds before I realised they were child care workers. They have to make a programme so their children get the necessary amount of exercise and educational activities. What the difference between a programme and a schedule is I'll never know. Maybe child care workers will be applying for patents next.
Personally, I'd like to see the copyright system not be applied to software. The kind of argument Stallman makes about patents not being a good fit for literature can also be made for why copyright is not a good fit for automobiles or planes.
seriously, it's a well known problem. I don't mean to be rude but I refer you to the literature as it were. Alternatively you can go ask any phsychology professor who probably performs the experiment every year to show his students that they are just as falible as the next guy.
It's called the Expectancy effect and was discovered by Rosenthal and Fode in 1963. Obviously it is not something that can be proven, but it is something that can be observed and has been time and time again since.
Take 100 rats. Give 50 to a random selection of students and give them 5 tests to perform. Give the other 50 to a random selection of students and give them the same 5 tests to perform, but tell the students that these are specially bred laboratory rats which have been genetically tested to ensure they are more accurate when testing for human disease (or whatever fairy tale your students are likely to buy). The results from the second group will not match the first. There will be a statistically significant difference between them.
Uhhh, there's these people called accountants who do these things called audits that ensure that donations and such are not in fact bribes. Whereas in the US campaign contributions often go straight into the pocket of the representative. Lemme give you some information that just might make your head spin. In Australia, you might give money to a political party to help them lobby so people vote for them and they might decide that there is no good way for them to spend that money to win the election. In that situation it is common for them to give the money back. Now tell me, does this ever happen in the US?
The people of Australia have the same short attention spans as the people of most democratic societies. When it came time for the election people were thinking about what was best for them instead of thinking about whether it was right to reelect someone who invaded a helpless nation. You really couldn't think it was going to go any other way on that issue.
Didn't he end up leaving his wife ant and moving in with her daughter ant?
Clinton should have said "how dare you ask me that question?" and then left the room. He didn't cause he had no spine. Then his political enemies saw that they could easily prove that he lied and ruin him. Of course, had he done the first he probably would have been dethroned (err, impeached?) sooner rather than later so really it was a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Personally I would have taken the spineful way out, but that's probably why I'll never be a politician.