Whose economic theory posits that patents don't "promote the progress of science and useful arts?" And if you don't promote the progress of software via patents, how do you do it?
(Neo)liberal economists. The patent system interferes in the market and changes its structure but it is difficult to show that it serves its objectives. Maybe the new book of Dominique Guellec is a good start. He was chief economist of the European Patent Office. A still enlighting classic is Machlup, Fritz: An Economic Review of the Patent System http://www.mises.org/about/3237
His popular conclusions 1958:
If one does not know whether a system "as a whole" (in contrast to certain features of it) is good or bad, the safest "policy conclusion" is to "muddle through" - either with it, if one has long lived with it, or without it, if one has lived without it... If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it. This last statement refers to a country such as the United States of America - not to a small country and not a predominantly nonindustrial country, where a different weight of argument might well suggest another conclusion...
Decoded: We have an "incentive system" but don't know if it works it all. It is not economic proof that it works, so you cannot recommend its application on a economy from a tabula rasa perspective. But abolishing is no solution because market players are used to it.
Now the shocking fact is that this conclusion is still state of the art. It is just that some economists shift on qualitative effects. Every few years a a young fellow comes around to the scientific societies and recommends to abolish it. You applaud his interesting views. But as the patent institutions dominate the discourse and invest in research and no radical reformer is expected to get around the corner you keep a low voice.
I guess there are less costly methods that work. Maybe Slashdot promotes the "progress of software".;-)
There is a wide gulf between the statements "software patents are an inherently bad idea, because they don't serve the purpose they are intended to serve," and "all patents are bad."
The gulf are my interests. I don't care about patents for laundry machines and pharma. I don't care. I wanted to argue why traditional patents make sense but you cannot apply it to software and it turned out: the patent system is economically unjustified. I was quite shocked. Economists know that, but they tend to word that diplomatically.
Why do these economic theories argue against patent systems? Is their argument actually economic or is it an argument against restricting freedoms?
It is a simple test W(Tabula Rasa) W(patent system installed) In order to install the patent system and make patents available you need to proof that it works.
This type of thinking is very natural to an economist. The phrase "promotes the sciences and the arts" is an objective of the *instrumental* use of a patent system, not a feature naturally associated with it.
Lawers and politicians don't understand that which leads to a fundamental logical fallacy: they let to prove why patents are wrong for software instead of asking if they are justified for that subject matter as an economist would do.
"promote the progress of science and useful arts" is an objective that limits the constitutional right of the US federal level to install a patent system. Only for that objective it is authorized to install a patent system by the US constitution.
"An **influential Brussels think tank** is urging the European Commission to ban the bundling of operating systems with desktop and laptop computers. The **Globalisation Institute**'s submission to the Commission.."
sorry, that line is enough for a big laughter.
"Globalisation Institute" lol
The group has absolutely "zero influence" in Brussels. Give me a break and I find out who is behind.
"providing incentives to create innovative softwares seems like a pretty good justification to allow software patents"
Learning curve ahead. No free lunch in patents.
Patents don't work for small companies. Look at the data.
You start with finbding out that patents make no sense for software. I am satisfied with an abolishment of software patents.
But the point is that when get into the economical literature you would find out within 3 month that the patent system as a whole is economical voodoo.
Sure Gartner is low-quality research, today I found some interesting comments on the Gartner report for a reform of the European Interoperability Framework. When you read the original Gartner report it is simply a mouthpiece of CompTIA's Hugo Lueders (a Microsoft proxy) and his "multiple standards" advocacy. Note that the European Interoperability Framework is the most advanced open standards promotion tool in public administration.
I represented Denmark in the comittee that created the EIF and maintained the AG, so of course I read the Gartner-report with a biased view. Then again, I always tend to read documents from Gartner with a biased view. [..] If the Gartner consultants were my students, they should fear the exam, because I would confront their problem understanding, their methods, their empirical depths/shallowness, and not least their pseudo-theoretical analysis and model-amok. Having said that, I admit to finding some of their proposals pretty interesting, for example, their Generic Public Services Framework is conceptually interesting, but not very well explained and motivated.
Researchwise, the Gartner report does not go into much if any detail with respect to the national interoperability frameworks that have been established in several member states: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom.
EIF presented a pretty clear definition of open standards. EIF 2.0 will, Gartner suggests, "allow open standards and other recognized standards to coexist", and Gartner recommends not to focus on the use of open standards per se.
Gartner's advice to IDABC is so fundamentally flawed that, if followed, it would break down the interoperability that has been achieved via EIF 1.0 and set back any prospect of achieving improved interoperability in the future. Their findings are unbalanced to weight the desires of an IT vendor over the good of IT customers and the fundamental goal of interoperability. This unbalance is so fundamental that Gartner mis-states the very character of standards and the conditions that provide interoperability, and confuses mere formats with standards.
This comment counters Gartner's report with a simple explanation regarding the conditions necessary to achieve interoperability while being fair to all parties. The recent overpowered push for acceptance of Office Open XML in ISO made it clear that the proper conditions for interoperability must be explained to many nontechnical people, if political pressure is not to overwhelm technical reality. Thus, this comment defines basic concepts and uses terms that nontechnical people can be expected to understand. The more technical are requested to bear with us.
First to file and first to invent has *nothing* to do with prior art. But in a "first to invent" thinking market players tend to believe prior art was more important. In a first to file system novelty is still a requirement that kills the claim.
Protests based on these grounds follow illusions about the reality of the patent system.
The funny thing here is that a premature fix to the broken US patent system is provided by Microsoft and others, and the patent trolls cry and campaign. Nice try.
Sure, it would be better to abolish the patent system altogether as it is not justified for software at all. But unfortunately Microsoft does not support this. Anyway, let's better get what you can, and set up a real campaign against US software patents. All experts agree that the Us patent system needs reforms. But what you need in the US is a pressure group as FFII that works to put the kibosh on it.
That is right: competition policy alone won't solve it but interoperability enforcement is the other side of the debate.
I am speaking of an amendment that got almost 92% support in the software patents debate
"Wherever the use of a patented technique is necessary in order to ensure interoperability between two different data processing systems, in the sense that no equally efficient and equally effective alternative non-patented means of achieving such interoperability between them is available, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement, nor is the development, testing, making, offering for sale or licence, or importation of programs making such use of a patented technique to be considered a patent infringement."
I wonder how it can be possible that they intercept communication in Europe? It does not matter if its was successful or not if its illegal it can't be used. They commit illegal action which would get them into prison in order to save foreign nations. I am sorry, this is not the way it is supposed to work.
Where did the Anthrax come from that was sent to journalists? Ehemm, well. It wasn't from Saddam. We know it wasn't Al Quida... the story appeared as big news, then they found out the bioweapon stuff was just from the Us military, then the story vanished... Or was it from Saddam, the Anthrax he originally got from the US military and that couldn't be found in Iraq as he sent it to the media? Because he wanted his nation to get invaded, his regime overthrown and getting executed to become a Youtube celebrity? I guess that was the smoking gun right? they knew it was Saddam but it was their own Anthrax?
Or does the US military compare to the rest of the world and attract the smart guys? Who knows. Anywhere, there could be an Us soldier with bioweapons out there. I am so scared. Hope he won't sent it to Commander Taco in an email attachment.
It is a prototype for a linux support of an emerging Microsoft technology. Nothing more. Now they start real development.
According to Miguel's spin Mono would be a 100% implementation of.NET in 2004.
I smell is the usual Miguel spin. Moonlight is a prototype. We don't have a 100% compatible implementation! Moonlight will depend on Mono. Novell will invest capacity in Silverlight implementation. But Novell will not invest in Gnash.
And will Moonlight be GPL? Read between the lines of Icazas blog entry. We know the games Novell plays in support of Open XML standardization and other Microsoft garbage. Ok, they are hired to do it.
Silverlight looks promising. But it will take a few years and could well become a second XPS.
I don't trust the current Microsoft patent models.
Freedom to faschism? It is a dangerous powermongering cult with science fiction elements. I consider it dangerous. As dangerous as Jesuits.
But was does the Gov do? Fight the Brethren of the Free Spirit. But we are fighting back!
Very interesting. Wow. Very useful information. I was playing around with the relay setting yesterday.
> The Wine project simply needs more manpower more than anything, help is most any area would be appreciated by many.
Yeah, easier access to development. I know from my own project that you get your core team of brilliant and informed people that do 90% of the work but it is really necessary to spent at least 10% to reach out to the community and explain what you are doing and how to hack the code. Because otherwise your project does not scale.
Hurray, it needs to get real corporate media attention. Not the nerd online resources. It is important to get the news out, through whatever channels you have.
I understand that your answer is the official party line. I think in 2001 it was the same response.
What I mean is not a per-application tool but a per-Wine tool with feedback of all used applications.
Currently I can't say: function x, it gets executed by Acrobat Reader 2.1, Firefox, fuzzycalc and Darly's Printshop. So the person who implements it can test it with these applications that make use of it.
I understand that a function does not need to be 100% implemented. But think about a sponsor who says: I want to sponsor dll x. Or: My program WAccounting uses these 5 API calls, I want this program to run perfect under Wine, what does it cost me?
What also motivates people is to see a kind of progress bar. I mean a automated script that indicates how much stubs and so on are in there.
I also would like to get informed how to debug an application with Wine. The documentation is heavily outdated and imcomplete here. WINEDEBUG=+relay is intresting, I tried it out. But the documentation is not very informative here.
My perception is that we will get - almost perfect DirectX games support - very good installer and crypto support. because here it really does scale but wine development did not scale that much over the past years.
When most application run it is not to difficult to get people to resolve the remaining bugs. But areas where the wine support probability is low won't develop too fast. It is all about "islands" of supports that expand at the edges. The more applications get platinum the easier it expands,
One great issue these days is for instance that most users can easily get the latest version installed. So wine gets more testing. anyway I would really like to participate in a workshop on how to hack wine.
And the real fun is that we now get an additional load of patent indemnification licenses, see microsoft's Open Specification Promis and so on.
http://www.noooxml.org/
Right, but the question for me is how it scales. How much money and time needs to be dumped on it?
How much does it cost to make a DLL that is currently 75% --> 100% ?
what Wine is really missing is a tool that documents all calls by programs, so you say: aha, this stub is needed by these applications, so let's implement it.
Or: this application sents these messages to the function.
Slashdot Mirror
(Neo)liberal economists. The patent system interferes in the market and changes its structure but it is difficult to show that it serves its objectives. Maybe the new book of Dominique Guellec is a good start. He was chief economist of the European Patent Office. A still enlighting classic is Machlup, Fritz: An Economic Review of the Patent System http://www.mises.org/about/3237
His popular conclusions 1958:
Decoded: We have an "incentive system" but don't know if it works it all. It is not economic proof that it works, so you cannot recommend its application on a economy from a tabula rasa perspective. But abolishing is no solution because market players are used to it.
Now the shocking fact is that this conclusion is still state of the art. It is just that some economists shift on qualitative effects. Every few years a a young fellow comes around to the scientific societies and recommends to abolish it. You applaud his interesting views. But as the patent institutions dominate the discourse and invest in research and no radical reformer is expected to get around the corner you keep a low voice.
I guess there are less costly methods that work. Maybe Slashdot promotes the "progress of software".
The gulf are my interests. I don't care about patents for laundry machines and pharma. I don't care. I wanted to argue why traditional patents make sense but you cannot apply it to software and it turned out: the patent system is economically unjustified. I was quite shocked. Economists know that, but they tend to word that diplomatically.
It is a simple test
W(Tabula Rasa) W(patent system installed)
In order to install the patent system and make patents available you need to proof that it works.
This type of thinking is very natural to an economist. The phrase "promotes the sciences and the arts" is an objective of the *instrumental* use of a patent system, not a feature naturally associated with it.
Lawers and politicians don't understand that which leads to a fundamental logical fallacy: they let to prove why patents are wrong for software instead of asking if they are justified for that subject matter as an economist would do.
"promote the progress of science and useful arts" is an objective that limits the constitutional right of the US federal level to install a patent system. Only for that objective it is authorized to install a patent system by the US constitution.
Ah, now I understand why OOXML makes it easier to detect Macros... See Knowlton video who explains how OOXML improves security.
How stupid do they believe we are?
The problem is that their software does not inspire anymore.
"An **influential Brussels think tank** is urging the European Commission to ban the bundling of operating systems with desktop and laptop computers. The **Globalisation Institute**'s submission to the Commission.." sorry, that line is enough for a big laughter. "Globalisation Institute" lol The group has absolutely "zero influence" in Brussels. Give me a break and I find out who is behind.
"providing incentives to create innovative softwares seems like a pretty good justification to allow software patents" Learning curve ahead. No free lunch in patents. Patents don't work for small companies. Look at the data.
You start with finbding out that patents make no sense for software. I am satisfied with an abolishment of software patents.
But the point is that when get into the economical literature you would find out within 3 month that the patent system as a whole is economical voodoo.
So here Gartner is clearly a Microsoft proxy.
http://gotze.eu/2007/07/gartner-and-the-european-interoperability-framework-20.html
Bruce Perens: Confusion of Tongues
First to file and first to invent has *nothing* to do with prior art. But in a "first to invent" thinking market players tend to believe prior art was more important. In a first to file system novelty is still a requirement that kills the claim. Protests based on these grounds follow illusions about the reality of the patent system.
The funny thing here is that a premature fix to the broken US patent system is provided by Microsoft and others, and the patent trolls cry and campaign. Nice try.
Sure, it would be better to abolish the patent system altogether as it is not justified for software at all. But unfortunately Microsoft does not support this. Anyway, let's better get what you can, and set up a real campaign against US software patents. All experts agree that the Us patent system needs reforms. But what you need in the US is a pressure group as FFII that works to put the kibosh on it.
That is right: competition policy alone won't solve it but interoperability enforcement is the other side of the debate.
I am speaking of an amendment that got almost 92% support in the software patents debate
"Wherever the use of a patented technique is necessary in order to ensure interoperability between two different data processing systems, in the sense that no equally efficient and equally effective alternative non-patented means of achieving such interoperability between them is available, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement, nor is the development, testing, making, offering for sale or licence, or importation of programs making such use of a patented technique to be considered a patent infringement."
and I am speaking of the EU IDABC and its European Interoperability Framework. Sure, they are working on its obnstruction but it looks like Microsoft can't do it anymore. Everybody is fed up with them. And another important field is standard policy.
Don't forget: anyone can start an antitrust complaint e.g. against EULA provisions. Here is the complaint form.
Extralegal action. Have a look at the Europarl website...
And now Microsoft challenges Apple. They selected Craig Mundie cause he smiles like a gay monkey. That will attract the community.
No, it is. See http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0904.zip Just a few bugs...
I wonder how it can be possible that they intercept communication in Europe? It does not matter if its was successful or not if its illegal it can't be used. They commit illegal action which would get them into prison in order to save foreign nations. I am sorry, this is not the way it is supposed to work.
Where did the Anthrax come from that was sent to journalists? Ehemm, well. It wasn't from Saddam. We know it wasn't Al Quida... the story appeared as big news, then they found out the bioweapon stuff was just from the Us military, then the story vanished... Or was it from Saddam, the Anthrax he originally got from the US military and that couldn't be found in Iraq as he sent it to the media? Because he wanted his nation to get invaded, his regime overthrown and getting executed to become a Youtube celebrity? I guess that was the smoking gun right? they knew it was Saddam but it was their own Anthrax?
Or does the US military compare to the rest of the world and attract the smart guys? Who knows. Anywhere, there could be an Us soldier with bioweapons out there. I am so scared. Hope he won't sent it to Commander Taco in an email attachment.
It is a prototype for a linux support of an emerging Microsoft technology. Nothing more. Now they start real development. According to Miguel's spin Mono would be a 100% implementation of .NET in 2004.
I smell is the usual Miguel spin. Moonlight is a prototype. We don't have a 100% compatible implementation! Moonlight will depend on Mono. Novell will invest capacity in Silverlight implementation. But Novell will not invest in Gnash. And will Moonlight be GPL? Read between the lines of Icazas blog entry. We know the games Novell plays in support of Open XML standardization and other Microsoft garbage. Ok, they are hired to do it. Silverlight looks promising. But it will take a few years and could well become a second XPS. I don't trust the current Microsoft patent models.
Freedom to faschism? It is a dangerous powermongering cult with science fiction elements. I consider it dangerous. As dangerous as Jesuits. But was does the Gov do? Fight the Brethren of the Free Spirit. But we are fighting back!
Very interesting. Wow. Very useful information. I was playing around with the relay setting yesterday. > The Wine project simply needs more manpower more than anything, help is most any area would be appreciated by many. Yeah, easier access to development. I know from my own project that you get your core team of brilliant and informed people that do 90% of the work but it is really necessary to spent at least 10% to reach out to the community and explain what you are doing and how to hack the code. Because otherwise your project does not scale.
Hurray, it needs to get real corporate media attention. Not the nerd online resources. It is important to get the news out, through whatever channels you have.
Oh well, executing Winetestu ilt/winetest-latest.exe
http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/paulm/WRT/CrossB
I understand that your answer is the official party line. I think in 2001 it was the same response.
What I mean is not a per-application tool but a per-Wine tool with feedback of all used applications.
Currently I can't say: function x, it gets executed by Acrobat Reader 2.1, Firefox, fuzzycalc and Darly's Printshop. So the person who implements it can test it with these applications that make use of it.
I understand that a function does not need to be 100% implemented. But think about a sponsor who says: I want to sponsor dll x. Or: My program WAccounting uses these 5 API calls, I want this program to run perfect under Wine, what does it cost me?
What also motivates people is to see a kind of progress bar. I mean a automated script that indicates how much stubs and so on are in there.
I also would like to get informed how to debug an application with Wine. The documentation is heavily outdated and imcomplete here. WINEDEBUG=+relay is intresting, I tried it out. But the documentation is not very informative here.
My perception is that we will get
- almost perfect DirectX games support
- very good installer and crypto support.
because here it really does scale but wine development did not scale that much over the past years.
When most application run it is not to difficult to get people to resolve the remaining bugs. But areas where the wine support probability is low won't develop too fast. It is all about "islands" of supports that expand at the edges. The more applications get platinum the easier it expands,
One great issue these days is for instance that most users can easily get the latest version installed. So wine gets more testing. anyway I would really like to participate in a workshop on how to hack wine.
I am looking for a video tool, I installed everything but it doesn't work as it should. Windows is no solution to the problem.
And the real fun is that we now get an additional load of patent indemnification licenses, see microsoft's Open Specification Promis and so on. http://www.noooxml.org/
Well, video editing and all the Adobe tools...
Right, but the question for me is how it scales. How much money and time needs to be dumped on it?
How much does it cost to make a DLL that is currently 75% --> 100% ?
what Wine is really missing is a tool that documents all calls by programs, so you say: aha, this stub is needed by these applications, so let's implement it.
Or: this application sents these messages to the function.
control Spy as an interesting test tool
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=239