Stallman's working for social justice, freedom and equality. He gets chosen less often as a posterboy, but he's the one doing the really important work.
Linus is only popular because his style is convenient for IBM and the other megacorps. He goes with the flow, let's those with power do what they want.
And if when we have software to play the format, do you think it will be long before we have software to write it?
Oh, but free software will never have a desktop, ah.. graphical web broswer, ah.. office suite, ah.. Flash player, ah... Flash writer. Yeh, that's the application that progress will never reach.
Microsoft is pushing software patents and DRM around the world. These are the two main things blocking free software from being compatible, so this is holding back the technical progress and the spread of free software.
MS's policies are getting worse and worse, so I can't see why helping them is in our interest.
This isn't so much a business methods case as it is a case of Bilski's patent. The CAFC rejected Bilski's patent and installed a test, and some of the patents that will fail that test are what we call software patents.
There's no "business methods" line that the CAFC or SCOTUS have to stay within, and FSF's request is just for upholding of the CAFC's test and a clarification about when a computer (such as is used by Bilski's patented system) is or isn't a "particular machine".
I take your points, but I still see this as by far the biggest chance we're getting this decade to fix this problem.
Will this section be worth anything if neither party is actually asking for software patents as a whole to be thrown out?
Yes. The court's job is to decide on the point of law and it's not limited to following the request of either party.
The last paragraph of FSF's Interests of Amicus Curiae notes: Notwithstanding the contrary assertion at sec. I.C.3 (pages 36-44) of Respondentâ(TM)s brief, the Foundation submits respectfully that this case is an appropriate one to address patenting eligibility of computer software. Several amici aligned with both parties of this case so regard it and indeed the court of appeals eschewed a categorical exclusion of business methods and, instead, applied the machine-transformation test to a claimed process which was implicitly software-based though not reciting software directly in its broadest independent claim.
Like how the CAFC's machine-or-transformation test excludes some software, the SC can install a different test with broader or narrower scope.
The brief can be split roughly in three. There's the "Interest Of
Amicus Curiae" section, which is a long description of FSF, to inform the Supreme Court why they should be interested in reading the brief. Then there's the Argument, which has the remaining two parts. The first is about the previous rulings which indicate that software has already been explicitly excluded by the Supreme Court. The last part, which starts at "II. For Many Software Developers, The Patent System Is Unjust.", deals with how software patents have proved to hinder, rather than promote, the progress of the useful arts - which means they have no valid constitutional basis.
When people have to campaign for their freedom to share and change recipes, they can simply reverse Stallman's recipe example:
But these freedoms should not be strange to you. At least, not if you cook, because people who cook enjoy the same four freedoms in using recipes.
The freedom to cook the recipe when you want. Thatâ(TM)s freedom zero. The freedom to study the ingredients and how itâ(TM)s done, and then change it. Thatâ(TM)s freedom one. Cooks frequently change recipes. And then the freedom to copy it and hand copies to your friends. Thatâ(TM)s freedom two. And then, freedom three is less frequently exercised because itâ(TM)s more work, but if you cook your version of the recipes for a dinner with your friends, and a friend says "that was great, can I have the recipe?" you can write down your version of the recipe and make a copy for your friend.
This is a really expensive way to dodge a tiny part of the software patent problem, and it involves paying Microsoft millions. And for every such trick we win, how many did we lose?
The upcoming Bilski review is the first time in 28 years that the Supreme Court in the USA will review the patentability of software - that's were we can get a real victory. I'm working on an amicus brief which'll have to be submitted within about two weeks. If anyone wants to help, it would be very useful to expand the swpat.org wiki's information about studies which show the harm of software patents:
The Supreme Court's review of Bilski is the first time since 1981 that they've decided to look at the patentability of software. The Supreme Court needs facts, studies, and opinions (but only if they're from very respected people, which includes Timothy B. Lee). You can help gather and document these things on the public swpat.org wiki:
A "use em or lose'm" rule would be good for fixing the patent troll problem, but it would do nothing to prevent software companies from attacking free software or from ruining standards.
Microsoft does support reform. "Reform" means making litigation harder for certain types of companies (small companies and companies that don't have a successful product based on the patents), reducing the time for granting patents, and reducing the amount that an infringer can have to pay (by dropping the incentives for litigation, patent trolls should be less common).
All these measures are good for Microsoft and other dominant players who want to use their portfolio strategically to entrench their positions, but these aren't enough to fix society's problems. We need to abolition of software patents, not any kind of reform.
I've been thinking about this, and the short answer's no:-/
Getting a brief ready is actually a lot of work and there are a lot of formalities. You'd need a lawyer, and you pretty much need a lawyer who's accepted at the Supreme Court bar.
So what I hope to do is to get a draft of the EndSoftwarePatents brief ready asap and call for third-parties to sign it. That way people who are against software patents can get their voice heard with very little effort, and the big effort from the ESP team can be shown to the Supreme Court not just as the opion of some self appointed experts, but also of businesses.
Hopefully you'll hear about this in the coming days. I'll put something on http://endsoftwarepatents.org/ (but hopefully Slashdot etc. will help spread the word).
In the case Bilski v. Doll, the Supreme Court is reviewing the patentability of software for the first time since 1981. This is a very rare chance to fix things, and you're exactly the type of case they want to hear.
For the most part, briefs are being submitted by the mega corporations and the groups of patent lawyers. Ordinary programmers and small businesses are not participating, and they're exactly the groups that are bearing the costs and restrictions of software patents.
Please help spread the word. I'll be sending out more info about this in the coming days via the EndSoftwarePatents mailing list.
Slashdot Mirror
Stallman's working for social justice, freedom and equality. He gets chosen less often as a posterboy, but he's the one doing the really important work.
Linus is only popular because his style is convenient for IBM and the other megacorps. He goes with the flow, let's those with power do what they want.
The End Software Patents campaign has posted:
And how many lucrative patents will this research yield?
When can we expect the next shakedown?
Help in documenting CSIRO and other troll activities is welcome:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/CSIRO_wifi_patent
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_trolls
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Litigation_and_specific_patents
I've started documenting it here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/U.S._Ethernet_Innovations_v._many_defendants_(2009%2C_USA)
Help sought. Thanks.
And if when we have software to play the format, do you think it will be long before we have software to write it?
Oh, but free software will never have a desktop, ah.. graphical web broswer, ah.. office suite, ah.. Flash player, ah... Flash writer. Yeh, that's the application that progress will never reach.
Adobe has to scramble now because otherwise the gadget makers will invest in GNU gnash.
De Icaza Responds:
Nooo, wait, come back. I found a way for people ditching Windows to keep using Microsoft technologies..
Microsoft is pushing software patents and DRM around the world. These are the two main things blocking free software from being compatible, so this is holding back the technical progress and the spread of free software.
MS's policies are getting worse and worse, so I can't see why helping them is in our interest.
I've been documenting Microsoft's patent activity, and I fail to see any change for the better.
This isn't so much a business methods case as it is a case of Bilski's patent. The CAFC rejected Bilski's patent and installed a test, and some of the patents that will fail that test are what we call software patents.
There's no "business methods" line that the CAFC or SCOTUS have to stay within, and FSF's request is just for upholding of the CAFC's test and a clarification about when a computer (such as is used by Bilski's patented system) is or isn't a "particular machine".
I take your points, but I still see this as by far the biggest chance we're getting this decade to fix this problem.
Will this section be worth anything if neither party is actually asking for software patents as a whole to be thrown out?
Yes. The court's job is to decide on the point of law and it's not limited to following the request of either party.
The last paragraph of FSF's Interests of Amicus Curiae notes: Notwithstanding the contrary assertion at sec. I.C.3 (pages 36-44) of Respondentâ(TM)s brief, the Foundation submits respectfully that this case is an appropriate one to address patenting eligibility of computer software. Several amici aligned with both parties of this case so regard it and indeed the court of appeals eschewed a categorical exclusion of business methods and, instead, applied the machine-transformation test to a claimed process which was implicitly software-based though not reciting software directly in its broadest independent claim.
Like how the CAFC's machine-or-transformation test excludes some software, the SC can install a different test with broader or narrower scope.
The brief can be split roughly in three. There's the "Interest Of
Amicus Curiae" section, which is a long description of FSF, to inform the Supreme Court why they should be interested in reading the brief. Then there's the Argument, which has the remaining two parts. The first is about the previous rulings which indicate that software has already been explicitly excluded by the Supreme Court. The last part, which starts at "II. For Many Software Developers, The Patent System Is Unjust.", deals with how software patents have proved to hinder, rather than promote, the progress of the useful arts - which means they have no valid constitutional basis.
And Shane Coughlan has also been doing this for years: shane's page on fsfe.org. His work was previously discussed on Slashdot: Tasks of a Free Software Legal Department.
When people have to campaign for their freedom to share and change recipes, they can simply reverse Stallman's recipe example:
But these freedoms should not be strange to you. At least, not if you cook, because people who cook enjoy the same four freedoms in using recipes.
The freedom to cook the recipe when you want. Thatâ(TM)s freedom zero. The freedom to study the ingredients and how itâ(TM)s done, and then change it. Thatâ(TM)s freedom one. Cooks frequently change recipes. And then the freedom to copy it and hand copies to your friends. Thatâ(TM)s freedom two. And then, freedom three is less frequently exercised because itâ(TM)s more work, but if you cook your version of the recipes for a dinner with your friends, and a friend says "that was great, can I have the recipe?" you can write down your version of the recipe and make a copy for your friend.
This escaped my list somehow. I'll add it now.
If anyone has others, it's a publicly editable wiki.
This is a really expensive way to dodge a tiny part of the software patent problem, and it involves paying Microsoft millions. And for every such trick we win, how many did we lose?
The upcoming Bilski review is the first time in 28 years that the Supreme Court in the USA will review the patentability of software - that's were we can get a real victory. I'm working on an amicus brief which'll have to be submitted within about two weeks. If anyone wants to help, it would be very useful to expand the swpat.org wiki's information about studies which show the harm of software patents:
And to add more info about arguments for abolishing software patents:
This is our big chance and might be the last one for decades.
The Supreme Court's review of Bilski is the first time since 1981 that they've decided to look at the patentability of software. The Supreme Court needs facts, studies, and opinions (but only if they're
from very respected people, which includes Timothy B. Lee). You can help gather and document these things on the public swpat.org wiki:
This is our big chance to fix the problem!
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/crash.htm
Here are his previous comments:
...but there's one more from around 2006 that I'm still looking for. Check back in a few minutes.
A "use em or lose'm" rule would be good for fixing the patent troll problem, but it would do nothing to prevent software companies from attacking free software or from ruining standards.
I've started a page to document this concept on the swpat.org wiki:
They've ponyed up well over a billion dollars in the last five years alone. Another fine won't change anything.
Microsoft does support reform. "Reform" means making litigation harder for certain types of companies (small companies and companies that don't have a successful product based on the patents), reducing the time for granting patents, and reducing the amount that an infringer can have to pay (by dropping the incentives for litigation, patent trolls should be less common).
All these measures are good for Microsoft and other dominant players who want to use their portfolio strategically to entrench their positions, but these aren't enough to fix society's problems. We need to abolition of software patents, not any kind of reform.
I've been thinking about this, and the short answer's no :-/
Getting a brief ready is actually a lot of work and there are a lot of formalities. You'd need a lawyer, and you pretty much need a lawyer who's accepted at the Supreme Court bar.
So what I hope to do is to get a draft of the EndSoftwarePatents brief ready asap and call for third-parties to sign it. That way people who are against software patents can get their voice heard with very little effort, and the big effort from the ESP team can be shown to the Supreme Court not just as the opion of some self appointed experts, but also of businesses.
Hopefully you'll hear about this in the coming days. I'll put something on http://endsoftwarepatents.org/ (but hopefully Slashdot etc. will help spread the word).
In the case Bilski v. Doll, the Supreme Court is reviewing the patentability of software for the first time since 1981. This is a very rare chance to fix things, and you're exactly the type of case they want to hear.
For the most part, briefs are being submitted by the mega corporations and the groups of patent lawyers. Ordinary programmers and small businesses are not participating, and they're exactly the groups that are bearing the costs and restrictions of software patents.
Please help spread the word. I'll be sending out more info about this in the coming days via the EndSoftwarePatents mailing list.