Following latin convention (cactus -> cacti, nucleus ->nuclei), wouldn't mini already be the plural of minus? Hey does that mean the plural of Linus is Lini? I guess that never comes up because he's one of a kind.
Uh, can somebody repeat this guy's test. It sounds like nobody can repeat his results, which is generally a sign of a poorly performed experiment. I can do it, but it will be a few weeks before I have time.
search algorithms are a good example of a purely mathematical construct. under software patents...
Well, although I'm sure I can come up with a search algorithm that has no fundamental mathematical basis (and probably wouldn't work well), I'm sure you are referring to derived algorithms such as "shortest distance". (Obviously the shortest distance between two points is a fundamental truth and not an invention.)
should all software be off limits to patents? no.
And that's my main point. There are many people arguing that all software patents are inherently a bad idea, and generalization that "software patents are just pathetic" falls into that line of thinking. I agree with you that many software patents (and patents in general) are very poorly awarded and I also agree with you not all software patents should be off limits. It's the lack of proper application of the rules and the process by which they are awarded that are the main problems, and I think this is a problem with patents in general these days. "Software" patents are only the hot topic.
Very over-used, over-simplified, and wrong argument. Algorithms are procedures and methods. Mathematics is only one technique for writing the method down. But even if written in mathematics it does not mean it was "discovered". Discovery implies it is a universal truth and is inevitably achieved. This is true if the mathematics is a proof(e.g., Pythagoras theorum) or new form of performing mathematics (e.g., Calculus). It is also true of physcial laws. But it is not true of a procedure (e.g., image processing algorithms, data mining techniques, etc.). These procedures are neither fundamental truths nor are they inevitable; they are often works of innovative and ingenious individuals.
The other non-sw patents you mention are simply ridiculous.
So how does that differ from the 1-Click patent? There are tons of other "obvious" non-software patents out there.
Software patents are pathetic since they are purposly broadly written so that pretty much anything done with a computer (even if it already exists in the non-software world) will infringe.
First of all, all patents are generally written as broadly as possible. Any good patent lawyer will tell you that. In one patent seminar I was at a few months ago, the main lecture was on the biggest mistakes in patenting and #1 was patent claims that are too narrowly focused. Inventors tend to focus on the functionality of their invention rather than the innovations of all the components. Even a nut and bolt can be patented if it is used in a new way or has a new feature. (I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is what patent lawyers do.) So, your complaint isn't specific about software patents, it's a general problem as well.
Second of all, there are a multitude of genuinely useful and innovative algorithms (implemented in software) that deserve patenting as much as any useful and innovative device. Some examples include algorithms for high-performance mass spectrometry and target recognition.
I think there's been a lot of hype about software patents, but so far the arguments seem to have nothing to do with software specifically, just an outdated patent system and poorly applied rules. A good starting point to fix this was recently presented on Groklaw.
And if your congress critter doesn't understand that difference, work to elect one that does, its all valuable science.
While I agree that it's important that those in U.S. Congress understand the difference, that doesn't mean that they'd automatically vote for continuing support of Hubble or replacing it. Even those who recognize Hubble as a great science machine must recognize that it isn't free. If Webb and ground based adaptive optics can do, say 80% of what Hubble is used for (not what it can do, but what it does do) plus a bunch of things Hubble can't, is it worth the billions of dollars to maintain or get back that 20%? To many astronomers and scientists the answer is probably yes. To social activists begging for money for homeless, medicare, etc., the answer is probably no. To the average Joe Taxpayer the answer is "Huh, what's a Hubble?". To those who must make the decisions it's a nightmare. There is no right answer. It's all a balance of meeting needs and not everybody's needs can be met.
How can a company patent one-click shopping? If you think about it, one-click shopping is just a system for...
You objection seems to be that such a system is obvious. I wholeheartedly agree with you there. There are rules against patenting the obvious, and things like this seem to be slipping through. However, then you say:
Software patents are just pathetic.
It's not clear how the former justifies the latter statement. The patent on 1-Click appears to violate the existing rules for patents on obviousness. There are also plenty of non-software patents that violate such rules (playing with a cat using a laser pointer, the combover, etc.). So how does any of this show that software patents in particular are pathetic? Or was it a non-sequitor?
I had to go back and check, but yes he did effectively support your statement. What seems to be the difference, and rampant on Slashdot, is different definitions of "efficiency". You say that generating heat from electrical sources is about the same efficiency as from burning gas, which is probably true depending on where you draw the line of input-output. He says that given the same amount of gas fuel to start with, heat from electricity must go through more steps and hence more losses, and hence less heat output per unit of gas fuel input, and hence less efficient. This may or may not be true depending on how they are converted. Even home furnaces vary quite a bit in efficiency. You only indicate the extra cost these steps add.
So, it seems you are both right, or both wrong, depending on how you draw your input-output lines for defining efficiency and on what conversion devices you are referring to. Unfortunately, defining energy efficiency is not as straighforward as many would think. Even the science of thermodynamics has a number of efficiency definitions for energy conversions. I find this is how most energy related arguments break down, everyone has a different definition of the metrics they're describing.
... by the time a good engineer gets done breaking it down into small processes, there aren't many pieces left that are truly innovative.
See, here's your problem. Patents are generated for the "pieces" that make them innovative. All patented mechanical devices can be broken down into the 4 simple machine components. The patent is on the way in which they are put together. By breaking it down the way you suggest, of course there won't be anything truly innovative, it's the combination that is innovative. And it is extremely unlikely that any two people would come up with the same combination near the same time, and exponentially less likely the more complicated the combination is. There are rare exceptions like radio and telephone but these aren't by coincidence.
I built an ultra-light aircraft for my wife and decided to make is extra strong. When she crashed it...
There was nothing left of the plane. It practically disintegrated around us...
Last week I was early on the scene of an accident...
Wow, you are to accidents what Angela Landsbury was to murders. Please keep away from me, I'd prefer not to have your bad luck. By any chance has anybody cursed you (besides your wife for making that airframe rigid). Perhaps you should write old country songs.
so why don't all the versions of ms office that look different confuse windows users?
They do. But it's not the difference between versions that confuse them, it's that all of them do confusing things. *$$#*&$% Stupid Figure TOC won't recognize figure captions &%$(*$ !!!!.
Wherever someone is sitting around "inventing"/discovering something someone else is sitting around somewhere else "inventing"/discovering the exact same thing.
Absolute bull. Let's take, for example, an object recognition algorithm that uses data from 3 different types of sensors, performs a dozen algorithms on each sensor image, performs a database search on each processed image using unique comparison algorithms, combines the results into a singe metric, and performs self-consistency and validation checking using unique properties of the algorithms. There are litterally thousands of steps involved using a variety of techniques specific to those sensors and the way they are combined. The odds that anyone else in the world is even close to the same approach are infinitessimal. We're not talking about algorithms that are derivable from first principles, we're talking about a very complex network of algorithms.
And, supposing someone somewhere did stumble upon a similar, even if not identical approach, how would this be harmful to software development in general? Again, we're talking about very specific algorithms for a specific purpose that has nothing to do with normal operation of software. Do software developers normally in the run of a day have 3 specific sensors they are trying to perform object recognition on?
More importantly, the argument that someone else is coming up with the same thing would apply just as much to physical devices.
However, in reality, the only reason anyone carries out patent searches today is to scout out potential infringement claims, for either offensive or defensive purposes.
That's not true at all. Many companies, and including myself, search a patent to determine how a particular new invention works and to learn from it. I agree that this has less meaning than it did when the patent system was originated because by the time the patent has run out the technology is probably long obsolete. But this doesn't mean that the principles involved in how it works don't create better understanding of the invention (including pros and cons) as well as create ideas in people's minds (including mine) using similar principles. Even if those new ideas are close enough to the original that it requires licensing with the patent owner, without the publication of the patent those new ideas never would have existed. In that sense, it is even more in the best interest for an inventor to patent because even if someone comes up with something better based on their idea, the inventor still gets to profit.
Again, I'm not saying the current system isn't full of problems. It certainly needs reform. But that doesn't mean the principle of a patent system inherently harms innovation. Even the current broken system does create advancements, albeit poorly balanced against the developments it stops.
I agree. I have yet to see an argument that demonstrates "software" patents are inherently bad. There really is no such thing as "software patents" anyway. They are patents on "methods" or "algorithms". Some of them can be implemented in hardware rather than software but in this day and age that is unlikely to happen. There are essentially two arguments against such patents: examples of bad software patents and the harm they've caused, and stating that software is just math and math isn't (or shouldn't be) patentable. This is essentially what the case against software patents comes down to. Lets look at these two arguemtns:
Examples of where "software" patents have been, or can be, harmful is not an argument that they are inherently bad. There are also bad "device" patents even outside software, such as the combover and using a laser pointer to play with a cat. It also doesn't show that all software patents are harmful.
The harm caused by some software patents isn't because algorithms and methods are patentable, it's because simple obvious ones are being approved as valid patents. Think about it. If the algorithm is not trivial or simple, nobody would come up with it by chance anyway and so it isn't stopping them from doing anything. For example, there are a multitude of machine vision algorithms such as facial recognition or object recognition. You can't accidently stumble on the same approach, they are complicated an non-obvious. Patenting these harms nobody. If they weren't patentable, many of these intelligent algorithms would not get published and would be kept secret, so we'd never learn how they worked and couldn't improve from them. Conversely, as in the typical examples given, if someone can inadvertantly implement a patented algorithm, it must be somewhat obvious to people in the industry (and hence shouldn't be patentable).
As far as the "it's just math" argument, I go back again to machine vision. Yes, it can be written as math. But we're not talking about fundamental math derivable from first principles, we're talking about procedures that involve math as a basic building block. This is akin to developing physical devices in which physical laws are the basic building blocks. Often a physical design is optimized by math, the same as an algorithm.
In short, so far the arguments against software patents in general don't hold water. Yes, there absolutely has to be patent reform, but that includes all forms of patents. But that doesn't mean that one has to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are non-harmful algorithms (and I would argue these are the majority of algorithms) and it is in the public's interest to provide some protection to the inventor, otherwise these algorithms will be kept secret.
If you are a inventor and want protection use an NDA.
That misses the key trade in a patent system: publication of the idea. Your version of "protection" results in the idea being kept secret by the inventor and the public never benefiting from the knowledge of the idea, or the public can figure it out (e.g., reverse engineering) and the inventor is left unprotected. Yes, patents have a downside, but they are recognized as a necessary evil. The key to a good patent system is a proper balance between the public good and providing enough protection for the inventor to publish their idea (in a patent). Once the patent runs out the invention design is in the public domain and can be built, sold, and improved by anyone. Some people seem to miss the point that without patents there'd be fewer publically available designs.
While I agree with some of what you are saying, particularly that the "all patents are bad" mantra is an over-reaction, but I think your main point is quite naive. You say:
With such an obviously invalid patent, the case is so ridiculously clean cut it will never ever stand up in court
and
I mean, the patent office is not perfect as the people inside are not perfect.
You seem to recognize that the ideology of a perfect patent system isn't realistic, but you claim this isn't a problem because of your ideological belief in the court system. There are several flaws with your claims.
First, civil courts rarely just "throw things out". Usually they'll hear the whole case before deciding on whether or not it has merit. In civil cases this often takes years and costs millions.
Second, even when courts throw things out it is usually after Discovery in which the parties exchange all of their evidence. Discovery is expensive and can take years as well. Just witness SCO vs IBM. SCO doesn't a lick of evidence against IBM for the claims they are making and yet they are still at it.
Third, courts generally only throw things out when they see them as frivalous, completely without merit. In a patent case, the plaintiff here (e.g., Sun or Microsoft) would have a valid patent (in the eyes of the law) and the defendant would have clearly violated that patent. Such a case would not be frivalous. The defense would challenge the validity of the patent which would probably require expert testimony, which would generally be entered into cout during the case, well after Discovery. (Expert analysis also comes at a cost.)
Fourth, even if the case would be thrown out, and I doubt it given the points above, if the defending company is small they will often cave to legal pressure of the larger plaintiff company simply because of the financial risk. For example, you should read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig where he provides explicit examples of the de facto removal of fair use rights because the "little guy" can't risk a copyright lawsuit when a large corporation threatens him. The same is true for patent lawsuits.
Fifth, if the offending (defending?) company is a corporation controlled by investors, it will often be forced to cave because the lawsuit and risk will often drop the share values, especially when investors see that the company is violating a legally valid patent.
In short, it is quite naive to think that an obviously invalid, yet granted, patent is nothing to worry about. It does have a chilling effect on innovation and implementation of the process.
I also disagree on several other points, such as that "software patents" should be abolished. (I know, heresy on Slashdot.) There really is not such thing as "software patents", they are patents on methods (algorithms) that can be implemented in software. Yes, there's an explosion of such patents that are invalid and harmful, but the same is true of patents in general. For example, someone patented "playing with a cat using a laser pointer and the combover. But that doesn't mean there are ingenious or innovative algorithms that wouldn't exist without the protection of patents. The double-click patent fails the obviousness test (and in the case of Microsoft, the prior art test). But what about some ingenious facial recognition algorithm, for example. There can easily be as much innovation and ingenuity in that as any mechani
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
This refers to "a copyrighted work" and doesn't differentiate between software and "artistic" works. (Though one might argue about how to even define the difference.) The "notwithstanding" of sections 106 and 106A refers to the protections that copyright gives. So, unless there's something I missed, fair use applies equally to software as to any other copyrighted work. If there is another section or law that negates this, I'd be interested in a reference.
I don't know how long it would take to scan a 400 page book, but it would be boring and probably take up an afternoon or so.
Well, even if it took that long it would still be cheap and easy compared to say, copying a car. But there are scanners that could scan the whole book automatically in minutes. (Worst case, rip off the binding and feed the sheets into a feed-scanner.) Regardless, the difficulty and expense of scanning a book is hardly a deterent from copying it, so it still doesn't answer the question of why software is licensed and books aren't.
I think it relates more to the fact that software is intended to be copied, e.g., from a CD onto your computer, so vendors need to let you copy it at least once. Installing on more than one computer then becomes a grey issue (since you are allowed to copy from the CD onto a computer). Because of these complexities, vendors need to spell out what you can and can't do. This isn't an issue for books because the vendor doesn't have to let you copy it at all, you just aren't allowed -- period.
I'm not sure I understand what the "do as I please" part is.
In this case, the person was referring to having paid for Windows XP (well, a license to use it), but not being able to take it off that computer and put it on another. In other words, the license wasn't just for a use of the software, it was for use of the software on that particular computer. It's somewhat analogous to selling a book with a booklamp and slapping on a restriction that you can only read that book using that booklamp as the light source, and nothing else. In this case it's not a copying issue, but rather a "mobility" issue.
Give it to someone else? Yeah, as long as you remove your copy (the copy the other person uses is the only one). The normal licensing of the boxes of Windows you get at BestBuy have all these things.
Well, that's the issue here. The person couldn't do that. The software could only be used on the computer he bought. He didn't get a CD and couldn't remove it and give it to someone else. He could only use it on the computer it was installed on. Copying is certainly restricted by law. Moving copyrighted material or transferring ownership is not illegal. He was limited beyond the law here by a license restriction, and in this case probably one he didn't agree to at the time of purchase. (There are, of course, lots of issues with the validity of EULAs, which tend to be written as contracts and not licenses.) It's certainly a big issue that I don't think we're going to resolve here.
Physical material cost (for the item itself and the equipment required to build the parts) prevents it [copying].
You are mixing and matching a bunch of cases that muddle the issue. There are at least 4 cases here in:
Software: Copying is easy, cheap, but illegal (except for fair use). This is the one that's at the core of the discussion. The main issue is that people license software instead of owning the copy they get, unlike just about any other product.
Natural material goods, like lettuce: Copying is impossible, but legal. I don't think anybody would complain if we could.
Manufactured material goods, like an automobile: Copying is hard, expensive, but generally legal (except if violating a patent).
Copyrighted material goods, like a book: Copying is relatively cheap and easy, especially if scanned in, but illegal.
From the above list, you'll see that software and books are very similar. Both can be copied cheaply and easily. Books can be scanned it and distributed through P2P. The original question I think asked how come I can buy a book and do with it as I please (except copy it) but not the same with software for which we license it, sometimes with severe and inconvenient restrictions? It is a valid question. The ease and cheapness of copying does not differentiate books from software, both are generally quite easy and cheap. The difference seems to lie in the fact that software naturally comes in a form that can be copied and a book has to be converted from physical to electronic (via scanning, for instance). It's not as clear a difference as some would believe.
The original ranter can call me a money grubbing whore all he wants.
And I'd also disagree with him. People should be able to make a living off of creating software, music, etc. However, as in my example with Matlab, it seems to me the issue is far from black and white. For example, you state "It's painful as all getout to see a game you've worked multiple years on not sell well, yet literaly hundreds of thousands of people are playing it online." Supposing P2P didn't exist and the only way those "hundreds of thousands of people" could get that game was by paying for it, do you know that even a single one of them would have bought it? Or would they even have heard about it if it was distributed over P2P?
Just because somebody likes something doesn't mean they'd buy it if they couldn't get it for free. (Of course many of those people might not even like it, they might just be trying it out to see if they like it.) Think of all the people who have downloaded more than 10,000 songs. Does anybody believe they'd actually buy 10,000 CDs (~$150,000) if they could get them for free?
Unfortunately, we can't know. The marketplace is too complicated to atribute things to one source. Yet some people spin it like it can, resulting in absurd statements like if CD sales drop it is because of P2P "pirating" and if they increase it is due to publicity of suing illegal sharers. Now that's spin. Somehow free music (to the listener) on the radio increases CD sales but free music from P2P decreases them, unless they actually increase in which case it is because of efforts against P2P. Give me a break.
Anyway. If your case is truly due to P2P, it's a shame. It's quite possible. But I'm not sure anyone can know. I also don't know what the solution is. As I pointed out with my Matlab example, outlawing P2P isn't the answer (baby/bathwater), and yet completely legalizing sharing of everything also won't work. The answer is somewhere in the middle and is going to be very complicated. Good luck.
Fair use, however, does not mean "I don't want to pay for it, so I can copy it whenever I want".
This is absolutely true. But that's completely different from "IF YOU DO NOT CREATE THE MATERIAL, YOU CAN DO ONLY WHAT CREATOR SAYS YOU CAN" from the parent post. Yes, there are some restrictions, but they are very limited. By the way, depending on what country you live in you can generally "copy it whenever I want" and in others you can copy it under a fairly wide range of circumstances. For example, in Canada it is legal to borrow a CD from a friend and copy it and even P2P downloading and sharing are legal for music. And yet CD sales in Canada have increased. (I find it funny when sales decrease the music industry blames it on P2P and when sales increase they blame it on "publicity arising from music industry efforts to sue illegal file swappers" -- which doesn't even recognize that it is legal in Canada.)
So should I be saying "FU!" to the people that steal the games I work on or should I be saying "FU!" to myself for being such a whore that I want to have a house for myself and my wife, food on our table, clothes in our closet, and money with which to enjoy our lives?
Here's an honest question. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious what your answer is. If people "stealing" your game results in more sales of the game, and hence more income, would you think it is acceptable for people to share your game without your permission (i.e., steal in your words), or would you still be quite opposed to it?
I ask only because I think this is a very grey area and I'm not sure there's a solution. There is plenty of evidence that file sharing has resulted in many artists selling more and even general increases in CD sales at point-of-sale (stores, online). Similarly, lots of software (potentially games) attract and get users "addicted" through illegal copies. I've been using "free" copies of Matlab on my own for about 10 years, and my skills in it have lead me to get the company I work for to buy a number of licenses from Mathworks. Now, I never would have paid for Matlab for personal use, I could never afford it. But Mathworks has made tens of thousands of dollars because I was able to obtain "free" versions.
This type of case suggests it is in Mathworks interest to allow sharing/illegal copies of Matlab. On the other hand, if these copies were legal in nature there'd be no incentive for companies to actually pay for their copies. This leave Mathworks in a paradox. They benefit from illegal sharing of their software, but if they support it as a legal practise then they lose the benefit. It seems that the solution that is in Mathworks' best interests it to turn a blind eye to personal sharing and keep their mouth shut, but enforce the law with commercial businesses. This can only work if law enforcement also turns a blind eye to personal sharing.
I imagine there are a lot of cases like this. Perhaps yours is too. If that's the case, it might be in your best interests just to grin and bear the illegal sharing, if your goal is to feed and clothe your family. It's an odd set of circumstances, but I'm not sure there is a better solution than the status quo.
IF YOU CREATE THE MATERIAL, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT. IF YOU DO NOT CREATE THE MATERIAL, YOU CAN DO ONLY WHAT CREATOR SAYS YOU CAN.
That's wrong, very wrong. In some places, the creator does have some control over it, but nowhere in the world does the creator have sole control and say-so. Copyright is not an inherent right, it is a necessary evil. It is limited in length and scope (though seemingly less so every day). To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the inherent problem with IP laws, in comparison to normal property laws, is that they cover ideas. Though the law tries, it can never hope to restrict the passing of an idea, nor can it stop the idea from sparking new ideas in others (derivative works). In fact, you can't stop the idea from spreading. Once it enters someone's head, the harder they try to get it out the more stuck it becomes. IP differs significantly from normal property in that the idea can be, and is, copied repeatedly without depriving the "owner" of the property themselves.
Property laws exist solely because the property can only be used one at a time. IP law only exists as a limited form as an incentive to share ideas (ironic, eh?). But it is not all encompassing, far from it. Fair use and time limits are paramount to the point of IP laws.
We're about an hour away from the wee little city of Moncton, and a little under two hours from the larger city of Halifax.
Hmmm, that sounds approximately like Parrsboro, N.S. or nearby. If so, it might be "pathetic" in some ways, but at least there's a nice view and some "interesting" nature around. Beats having a view of the next building and the most intersting nature is a cemetary across the street.
Slashdot Mirror
Following latin convention (cactus -> cacti, nucleus ->nuclei), wouldn't mini already be the plural of minus? Hey does that mean the plural of Linus is Lini? I guess that never comes up because he's one of a kind.
Uh, can somebody repeat this guy's test. It sounds like nobody can repeat his results, which is generally a sign of a poorly performed experiment. I can do it, but it will be a few weeks before I have time.
Well, although I'm sure I can come up with a search algorithm that has no fundamental mathematical basis (and probably wouldn't work well), I'm sure you are referring to derived algorithms such as "shortest distance". (Obviously the shortest distance between two points is a fundamental truth and not an invention.)
should all software be off limits to patents? no.
And that's my main point. There are many people arguing that all software patents are inherently a bad idea, and generalization that "software patents are just pathetic" falls into that line of thinking. I agree with you that many software patents (and patents in general) are very poorly awarded and I also agree with you not all software patents should be off limits. It's the lack of proper application of the rules and the process by which they are awarded that are the main problems, and I think this is a problem with patents in general these days. "Software" patents are only the hot topic.
Very over-used, over-simplified, and wrong argument. Algorithms are procedures and methods. Mathematics is only one technique for writing the method down. But even if written in mathematics it does not mean it was "discovered". Discovery implies it is a universal truth and is inevitably achieved. This is true if the mathematics is a proof(e.g., Pythagoras theorum) or new form of performing mathematics (e.g., Calculus). It is also true of physcial laws. But it is not true of a procedure (e.g., image processing algorithms, data mining techniques, etc.). These procedures are neither fundamental truths nor are they inevitable; they are often works of innovative and ingenious individuals.
If you took the word "software" out of your sentence it wouldn't make it any less true.
So how does that differ from the 1-Click patent? There are tons of other "obvious" non-software patents out there.
Software patents are pathetic since they are purposly broadly written so that pretty much anything done with a computer (even if it already exists in the non-software world) will infringe.
First of all, all patents are generally written as broadly as possible. Any good patent lawyer will tell you that. In one patent seminar I was at a few months ago, the main lecture was on the biggest mistakes in patenting and #1 was patent claims that are too narrowly focused. Inventors tend to focus on the functionality of their invention rather than the innovations of all the components. Even a nut and bolt can be patented if it is used in a new way or has a new feature. (I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is what patent lawyers do.) So, your complaint isn't specific about software patents, it's a general problem as well.
Second of all, there are a multitude of genuinely useful and innovative algorithms (implemented in software) that deserve patenting as much as any useful and innovative device. Some examples include algorithms for high-performance mass spectrometry and target recognition.
I think there's been a lot of hype about software patents, but so far the arguments seem to have nothing to do with software specifically, just an outdated patent system and poorly applied rules. A good starting point to fix this was recently presented on Groklaw.
While I agree that it's important that those in U.S. Congress understand the difference, that doesn't mean that they'd automatically vote for continuing support of Hubble or replacing it. Even those who recognize Hubble as a great science machine must recognize that it isn't free. If Webb and ground based adaptive optics can do, say 80% of what Hubble is used for (not what it can do, but what it does do) plus a bunch of things Hubble can't, is it worth the billions of dollars to maintain or get back that 20%? To many astronomers and scientists the answer is probably yes. To social activists begging for money for homeless, medicare, etc., the answer is probably no. To the average Joe Taxpayer the answer is "Huh, what's a Hubble?". To those who must make the decisions it's a nightmare. There is no right answer. It's all a balance of meeting needs and not everybody's needs can be met.
You objection seems to be that such a system is obvious. I wholeheartedly agree with you there. There are rules against patenting the obvious, and things like this seem to be slipping through. However, then you say:
Software patents are just pathetic.
It's not clear how the former justifies the latter statement. The patent on 1-Click appears to violate the existing rules for patents on obviousness. There are also plenty of non-software patents that violate such rules (playing with a cat using a laser pointer, the combover, etc.). So how does any of this show that software patents in particular are pathetic? Or was it a non-sequitor?
I had to go back and check, but yes he did effectively support your statement. What seems to be the difference, and rampant on Slashdot, is different definitions of "efficiency". You say that generating heat from electrical sources is about the same efficiency as from burning gas, which is probably true depending on where you draw the line of input-output. He says that given the same amount of gas fuel to start with, heat from electricity must go through more steps and hence more losses, and hence less heat output per unit of gas fuel input, and hence less efficient. This may or may not be true depending on how they are converted. Even home furnaces vary quite a bit in efficiency. You only indicate the extra cost these steps add.
So, it seems you are both right, or both wrong, depending on how you draw your input-output lines for defining efficiency and on what conversion devices you are referring to. Unfortunately, defining energy efficiency is not as straighforward as many would think. Even the science of thermodynamics has a number of efficiency definitions for energy conversions. I find this is how most energy related arguments break down, everyone has a different definition of the metrics they're describing.
See, here's your problem. Patents are generated for the "pieces" that make them innovative. All patented mechanical devices can be broken down into the 4 simple machine components. The patent is on the way in which they are put together. By breaking it down the way you suggest, of course there won't be anything truly innovative, it's the combination that is innovative. And it is extremely unlikely that any two people would come up with the same combination near the same time, and exponentially less likely the more complicated the combination is. There are rare exceptions like radio and telephone but these aren't by coincidence.
There was nothing left of the plane. It practically disintegrated around us ...
Last week I was early on the scene of an accident ...
Wow, you are to accidents what Angela Landsbury was to murders. Please keep away from me, I'd prefer not to have your bad luck. By any chance has anybody cursed you (besides your wife for making that airframe rigid). Perhaps you should write old country songs.
They do. But it's not the difference between versions that confuse them, it's that all of them do confusing things. *$$#*&$% Stupid Figure TOC won't recognize figure captions &%$(*$ !!!!.
Absolute bull. Let's take, for example, an object recognition algorithm that uses data from 3 different types of sensors, performs a dozen algorithms on each sensor image, performs a database search on each processed image using unique comparison algorithms, combines the results into a singe metric, and performs self-consistency and validation checking using unique properties of the algorithms. There are litterally thousands of steps involved using a variety of techniques specific to those sensors and the way they are combined. The odds that anyone else in the world is even close to the same approach are infinitessimal. We're not talking about algorithms that are derivable from first principles, we're talking about a very complex network of algorithms.
And, supposing someone somewhere did stumble upon a similar, even if not identical approach, how would this be harmful to software development in general? Again, we're talking about very specific algorithms for a specific purpose that has nothing to do with normal operation of software. Do software developers normally in the run of a day have 3 specific sensors they are trying to perform object recognition on?
More importantly, the argument that someone else is coming up with the same thing would apply just as much to physical devices.
That's not true at all. Many companies, and including myself, search a patent to determine how a particular new invention works and to learn from it. I agree that this has less meaning than it did when the patent system was originated because by the time the patent has run out the technology is probably long obsolete. But this doesn't mean that the principles involved in how it works don't create better understanding of the invention (including pros and cons) as well as create ideas in people's minds (including mine) using similar principles. Even if those new ideas are close enough to the original that it requires licensing with the patent owner, without the publication of the patent those new ideas never would have existed. In that sense, it is even more in the best interest for an inventor to patent because even if someone comes up with something better based on their idea, the inventor still gets to profit.
Again, I'm not saying the current system isn't full of problems. It certainly needs reform. But that doesn't mean the principle of a patent system inherently harms innovation. Even the current broken system does create advancements, albeit poorly balanced against the developments it stops.
Examples of where "software" patents have been, or can be, harmful is not an argument that they are inherently bad. There are also bad "device" patents even outside software, such as the combover and using a laser pointer to play with a cat. It also doesn't show that all software patents are harmful.
The harm caused by some software patents isn't because algorithms and methods are patentable, it's because simple obvious ones are being approved as valid patents. Think about it. If the algorithm is not trivial or simple, nobody would come up with it by chance anyway and so it isn't stopping them from doing anything. For example, there are a multitude of machine vision algorithms such as facial recognition or object recognition. You can't accidently stumble on the same approach, they are complicated an non-obvious. Patenting these harms nobody. If they weren't patentable, many of these intelligent algorithms would not get published and would be kept secret, so we'd never learn how they worked and couldn't improve from them. Conversely, as in the typical examples given, if someone can inadvertantly implement a patented algorithm, it must be somewhat obvious to people in the industry (and hence shouldn't be patentable).
As far as the "it's just math" argument, I go back again to machine vision. Yes, it can be written as math. But we're not talking about fundamental math derivable from first principles, we're talking about procedures that involve math as a basic building block. This is akin to developing physical devices in which physical laws are the basic building blocks. Often a physical design is optimized by math, the same as an algorithm.
In short, so far the arguments against software patents in general don't hold water. Yes, there absolutely has to be patent reform, but that includes all forms of patents. But that doesn't mean that one has to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are non-harmful algorithms (and I would argue these are the majority of algorithms) and it is in the public's interest to provide some protection to the inventor, otherwise these algorithms will be kept secret.
That misses the key trade in a patent system: publication of the idea. Your version of "protection" results in the idea being kept secret by the inventor and the public never benefiting from the knowledge of the idea, or the public can figure it out (e.g., reverse engineering) and the inventor is left unprotected. Yes, patents have a downside, but they are recognized as a necessary evil. The key to a good patent system is a proper balance between the public good and providing enough protection for the inventor to publish their idea (in a patent). Once the patent runs out the invention design is in the public domain and can be built, sold, and improved by anyone. Some people seem to miss the point that without patents there'd be fewer publically available designs.
and
You seem to recognize that the ideology of a perfect patent system isn't realistic, but you claim this isn't a problem because of your ideological belief in the court system. There are several flaws with your claims.
First, civil courts rarely just "throw things out". Usually they'll hear the whole case before deciding on whether or not it has merit. In civil cases this often takes years and costs millions.
Second, even when courts throw things out it is usually after Discovery in which the parties exchange all of their evidence. Discovery is expensive and can take years as well. Just witness SCO vs IBM. SCO doesn't a lick of evidence against IBM for the claims they are making and yet they are still at it.
Third, courts generally only throw things out when they see them as frivalous, completely without merit. In a patent case, the plaintiff here (e.g., Sun or Microsoft) would have a valid patent (in the eyes of the law) and the defendant would have clearly violated that patent. Such a case would not be frivalous. The defense would challenge the validity of the patent which would probably require expert testimony, which would generally be entered into cout during the case, well after Discovery. (Expert analysis also comes at a cost.)
Fourth, even if the case would be thrown out, and I doubt it given the points above, if the defending company is small they will often cave to legal pressure of the larger plaintiff company simply because of the financial risk. For example, you should read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig where he provides explicit examples of the de facto removal of fair use rights because the "little guy" can't risk a copyright lawsuit when a large corporation threatens him. The same is true for patent lawsuits.
Fifth, if the offending (defending?) company is a corporation controlled by investors, it will often be forced to cave because the lawsuit and risk will often drop the share values, especially when investors see that the company is violating a legally valid patent.
In short, it is quite naive to think that an obviously invalid, yet granted, patent is nothing to worry about. It does have a chilling effect on innovation and implementation of the process.
I also disagree on several other points, such as that "software patents" should be abolished. (I know, heresy on Slashdot.) There really is not such thing as "software patents", they are patents on methods (algorithms) that can be implemented in software. Yes, there's an explosion of such patents that are invalid and harmful, but the same is true of patents in general. For example, someone patented "playing with a cat using a laser pointer and the combover. But that doesn't mean there are ingenious or innovative algorithms that wouldn't exist without the protection of patents. The double-click patent fails the obviousness test (and in the case of Microsoft, the prior art test). But what about some ingenious facial recognition algorithm, for example. There can easily be as much innovation and ingenuity in that as any mechani
Can you provide a reference on this? In the U.S., Section 107 of the Copyright Act states:
This refers to "a copyrighted work" and doesn't differentiate between software and "artistic" works. (Though one might argue about how to even define the difference.) The "notwithstanding" of sections 106 and 106A refers to the protections that copyright gives. So, unless there's something I missed, fair use applies equally to software as to any other copyrighted work. If there is another section or law that negates this, I'd be interested in a reference.
Well, even if it took that long it would still be cheap and easy compared to say, copying a car. But there are scanners that could scan the whole book automatically in minutes. (Worst case, rip off the binding and feed the sheets into a feed-scanner.) Regardless, the difficulty and expense of scanning a book is hardly a deterent from copying it, so it still doesn't answer the question of why software is licensed and books aren't.
I think it relates more to the fact that software is intended to be copied, e.g., from a CD onto your computer, so vendors need to let you copy it at least once. Installing on more than one computer then becomes a grey issue (since you are allowed to copy from the CD onto a computer). Because of these complexities, vendors need to spell out what you can and can't do. This isn't an issue for books because the vendor doesn't have to let you copy it at all, you just aren't allowed -- period.
I'm not sure I understand what the "do as I please" part is.
In this case, the person was referring to having paid for Windows XP (well, a license to use it), but not being able to take it off that computer and put it on another. In other words, the license wasn't just for a use of the software, it was for use of the software on that particular computer. It's somewhat analogous to selling a book with a booklamp and slapping on a restriction that you can only read that book using that booklamp as the light source, and nothing else. In this case it's not a copying issue, but rather a "mobility" issue.
Give it to someone else? Yeah, as long as you remove your copy (the copy the other person uses is the only one). The normal licensing of the boxes of Windows you get at BestBuy have all these things.
Well, that's the issue here. The person couldn't do that. The software could only be used on the computer he bought. He didn't get a CD and couldn't remove it and give it to someone else. He could only use it on the computer it was installed on. Copying is certainly restricted by law. Moving copyrighted material or transferring ownership is not illegal. He was limited beyond the law here by a license restriction, and in this case probably one he didn't agree to at the time of purchase. (There are, of course, lots of issues with the validity of EULAs, which tend to be written as contracts and not licenses.) It's certainly a big issue that I don't think we're going to resolve here.
You are mixing and matching a bunch of cases that muddle the issue. There are at least 4 cases here in:
Software: Copying is easy, cheap, but illegal (except for fair use). This is the one that's at the core of the discussion. The main issue is that people license software instead of owning the copy they get, unlike just about any other product.
Natural material goods, like lettuce: Copying is impossible, but legal. I don't think anybody would complain if we could.
Manufactured material goods, like an automobile: Copying is hard, expensive, but generally legal (except if violating a patent).
Copyrighted material goods, like a book: Copying is relatively cheap and easy, especially if scanned in, but illegal.
From the above list, you'll see that software and books are very similar. Both can be copied cheaply and easily. Books can be scanned it and distributed through P2P. The original question I think asked how come I can buy a book and do with it as I please (except copy it) but not the same with software for which we license it, sometimes with severe and inconvenient restrictions? It is a valid question. The ease and cheapness of copying does not differentiate books from software, both are generally quite easy and cheap. The difference seems to lie in the fact that software naturally comes in a form that can be copied and a book has to be converted from physical to electronic (via scanning, for instance). It's not as clear a difference as some would believe.
And I'd also disagree with him. People should be able to make a living off of creating software, music, etc. However, as in my example with Matlab, it seems to me the issue is far from black and white. For example, you state "It's painful as all getout to see a game you've worked multiple years on not sell well, yet literaly hundreds of thousands of people are playing it online." Supposing P2P didn't exist and the only way those "hundreds of thousands of people" could get that game was by paying for it, do you know that even a single one of them would have bought it? Or would they even have heard about it if it was distributed over P2P?
Just because somebody likes something doesn't mean they'd buy it if they couldn't get it for free. (Of course many of those people might not even like it, they might just be trying it out to see if they like it.) Think of all the people who have downloaded more than 10,000 songs. Does anybody believe they'd actually buy 10,000 CDs (~$150,000) if they could get them for free?
Unfortunately, we can't know. The marketplace is too complicated to atribute things to one source. Yet some people spin it like it can, resulting in absurd statements like if CD sales drop it is because of P2P "pirating" and if they increase it is due to publicity of suing illegal sharers. Now that's spin. Somehow free music (to the listener) on the radio increases CD sales but free music from P2P decreases them, unless they actually increase in which case it is because of efforts against P2P. Give me a break.
Anyway. If your case is truly due to P2P, it's a shame. It's quite possible. But I'm not sure anyone can know. I also don't know what the solution is. As I pointed out with my Matlab example, outlawing P2P isn't the answer (baby/bathwater), and yet completely legalizing sharing of everything also won't work. The answer is somewhere in the middle and is going to be very complicated. Good luck.
This is absolutely true. But that's completely different from "IF YOU DO NOT CREATE THE MATERIAL, YOU CAN DO ONLY WHAT CREATOR SAYS YOU CAN" from the parent post. Yes, there are some restrictions, but they are very limited. By the way, depending on what country you live in you can generally "copy it whenever I want" and in others you can copy it under a fairly wide range of circumstances. For example, in Canada it is legal to borrow a CD from a friend and copy it and even P2P downloading and sharing are legal for music. And yet CD sales in Canada have increased. (I find it funny when sales decrease the music industry blames it on P2P and when sales increase they blame it on "publicity arising from music industry efforts to sue illegal file swappers" -- which doesn't even recognize that it is legal in Canada.)
Here's an honest question. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious what your answer is. If people "stealing" your game results in more sales of the game, and hence more income, would you think it is acceptable for people to share your game without your permission (i.e., steal in your words), or would you still be quite opposed to it?
I ask only because I think this is a very grey area and I'm not sure there's a solution. There is plenty of evidence that file sharing has resulted in many artists selling more and even general increases in CD sales at point-of-sale (stores, online). Similarly, lots of software (potentially games) attract and get users "addicted" through illegal copies. I've been using "free" copies of Matlab on my own for about 10 years, and my skills in it have lead me to get the company I work for to buy a number of licenses from Mathworks. Now, I never would have paid for Matlab for personal use, I could never afford it. But Mathworks has made tens of thousands of dollars because I was able to obtain "free" versions.
This type of case suggests it is in Mathworks interest to allow sharing/illegal copies of Matlab. On the other hand, if these copies were legal in nature there'd be no incentive for companies to actually pay for their copies. This leave Mathworks in a paradox. They benefit from illegal sharing of their software, but if they support it as a legal practise then they lose the benefit. It seems that the solution that is in Mathworks' best interests it to turn a blind eye to personal sharing and keep their mouth shut, but enforce the law with commercial businesses. This can only work if law enforcement also turns a blind eye to personal sharing.
I imagine there are a lot of cases like this. Perhaps yours is too. If that's the case, it might be in your best interests just to grin and bear the illegal sharing, if your goal is to feed and clothe your family. It's an odd set of circumstances, but I'm not sure there is a better solution than the status quo.
That's wrong, very wrong. In some places, the creator does have some control over it, but nowhere in the world does the creator have sole control and say-so. Copyright is not an inherent right, it is a necessary evil. It is limited in length and scope (though seemingly less so every day). To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the inherent problem with IP laws, in comparison to normal property laws, is that they cover ideas. Though the law tries, it can never hope to restrict the passing of an idea, nor can it stop the idea from sparking new ideas in others (derivative works). In fact, you can't stop the idea from spreading. Once it enters someone's head, the harder they try to get it out the more stuck it becomes. IP differs significantly from normal property in that the idea can be, and is, copied repeatedly without depriving the "owner" of the property themselves.
Property laws exist solely because the property can only be used one at a time. IP law only exists as a limited form as an incentive to share ideas (ironic, eh?). But it is not all encompassing, far from it. Fair use and time limits are paramount to the point of IP laws.
Hmmm, that sounds approximately like Parrsboro, N.S. or nearby. If so, it might be "pathetic" in some ways, but at least there's a nice view and some "interesting" nature around. Beats having a view of the next building and the most intersting nature is a cemetary across the street.