The SOPA issue was raised at the recent GOP debate, and all four candidates spoke against it.
They are pandering for votes. Why would they admit to being for something that is currently getting a lot of negative press? Especially when he can come up with a "valid rational reason" to reconsider after he is elected. They flip-flopped on every topic so far, why should this one be any different?
You're correct. "Not rare" was a totally inaccurate description for passenger service. However, I've know of several cargo vessels breaking up at sea, capsizing near ports, or crashing into natural features (like coral reefs). So I meant to say that maritime accidents do occur and there's a trade of professionals dedicated to handle it. I didn't mean to say that this was a common occurrence.
Actually they want to make sure that there aren't any encumbrances on the concept/idea that you signed over to them. This way they are free to use any part of your idea without fear of legal liability from a third party. If it's found that there is a third party claim to your idea, then I'm sure this phrasing allows Walmart and their sponsors to seek compensation for any legal fees.
IANAL but if you are thinking of entering this contest you may want to get you one.
I don't think Dockwise has anything close to big enough for the Concordia.
You're correct the Dockwise Blue Marlin probably can't handle the load of the whole ship (which leaves option #2) or as you suggest towing to the nearest dock. However the Dockwise Vanguard possibly can. It's scheduled maiden voyage is later this year.
(disclosure) I used to be a vessel owner agent for them...
They only have to debunker what authorities identify as a credible environmental risk. While it's true that the MGO will be easier to debunker than the MDO or MFO (depending on age of ship) due to the viscosity, oil recovery equipment does exist and there are marine petroleum recovery services trained and equipped to handle the task.
Debunker (pump out) the fuel from cruise ship to bunker barges. From there they can either:
1. Cut the vessel into easier to handle parts and load the still quite large size parts onto a vessel designed for carrying other vessels like the ones from Dockwise. The parts will then go to a scrap yard.
2. Attempt to float the vessel using buoyancy bags to where if could be either loaded on the Dockwise ship or onto a portable dry dock where it can be disassembled.
Seriously a year to remove the vessel? Accidents like these aren't a rare occurrence, there is a whole cottage industry that handle these situations.
You may want to look that one up yourself. Diamond was a automatic plastic mold and Bilksi was an attempt to patent software that implemented a business method for hedging losses in the energy sector.
I went back up the thread, and I didn't see any examples... Not disbelieving you, but can you post some numbers?
So patents on software based memory management, just in time compilation, caching of data based on forecasted events (like the one mentioned in TFA) do not exist?
Virtual Memory Management: (Java VM) 7475214, (Virtual Storage Dynamic Translation) 5058003
Just in time compilation: (Sun's Application still pending) 11/864,847, (Hybrid JIT) 6332216
caching of data based on forecasted events: (The article itself): 8082342
As for what my question is, it's why did SCOTUS say that an algorithm should be unpatentable?
I defer that to the wikipedia entry (I found it by googling Diamond v Diehr, then Parker v. Flook, and wound up at Gattschalk v. Benson. I admit it would have been quicker to consult wikipedia first, but at least I can verify its accuracy. No since paraphrasing Gattschalk when wikipedia did it well enough):
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." That would be tantamount to allowing a patent on an abstract idea, contrary to precedent dating back to the middle of the Nineteenth Century. The Court added "it is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold." The case was argued on October 16, 1972 and was decided November 20, 1972.
Patents on software alone do not exist, but patents on software performed by computers or on computers that perform software do exist.
Does software exist outside of a computer?
What others have said is "SCOTUS said so" or the slightly more detailed "all software is maths, and SCOTUS said math is unpatentable." And no, people haven't addressed the underlying rationale. Frankly, I find that most people (a) haven't thought about it at all, or (b) don't understand it. Not surprisingly, most people haven't actually read Diamond v. Diehr either.
You're trying to move the goal posts. I already conceded the validity of Diamond v Diehr in my original reply:
I see nothing wrong with patents for machines that are a combination of specialized hardware and software (e.g. Medical equipment like MRI, Equipment used in manufacturing, Household appliances, Automotive accessories, Specialized (aka Novel) telecommunication hardware). However the patenting of software algorithms or software only applications are absurd and should be abolished.
Diamond v. Diehr arose from Diamond's desire to patent (from the patent itself) "Rubber-molding presses, which are closed manually upon installation of pieces of rubber compound, are opened automatically by a system which continuously calculates and recalculates the correct cure time and is actuated when the calculated cure time equals the elapsed cure time.". The court found in favor of Diamond since an otherwise patentable machine doesn't become unpatentable simply because a computer is involved. I'm surprised you brought up Diamond v Diehr since I already stated that machines based on computers can be patented.
I think "Gottschalk v. Benson" and "Bilski v. Kappos" are more relevant to the discussion. Since they are software patent related.
Anyway my argument is that just because you make an application that has a "web based" user interface or make a version of an application that runs on a phone, it doesn't become patent worthy. Also the software only applications that I mentioned earlier do not appear to satisfy the "machine-or-transformation" tests yet they were awarded a patent. I maintain that we should abolish these software only patents.
So, twice you pull my words out of context, and you refuse to answer my straightforward question. Trolling or just stumped?
I'm not stumped. I'm just trying to figure out what your question is. We both agree with the merits of Diamond v. Diehr and you seem to believe that "software algorithms or software-only applications are already unpatentable".
I gave examples of patents that I feel aren't being properly addressed by Diamond v Diehr or the other two. Why do these patents exist?
Software algorithms or software-only applications are already unpatentable.
So patents on software based memory management, just in time compilation, caching of data based on forecasted events (like the one mentioned in TFA) do not exist?
What is "absurd" about patenting of software algorithms?
The reasons for absurdity have been mentioned countless times on this site and others by more than just me.
You complain that too many software patents are obvious... so your solution is no patents at all for the entire industry, regardless of whether they're inventive?
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: I see nothing wrong with patents for machines that are a combination of specialized hardware and software (e.g. Medical equipment like MRI, Equipment used in manufacturing, Household appliances, Automotive accessories, Specialized (aka Novel) telecommunication hardware). However the patenting of software algorithms or software only applications are absurd and should be abolished.
If it is so obvious, why didn't you patent it first?
With the exception of the large software corporations, who has the money to patent every obvious thing out there? How many of these people can afford to defend their patent?
Bill Gate's greatest fear was that someone in a garage was already working on the next online revolution. Software patents like the one that was mentioned in the TFA puts most of those fears to rest. If you reduce the number of potential competitors by making it expensive to enter the market while making it a liability minefield, you make it easier to forecast what your current competitors are doing and work to stay ahead of them.
Software patents mostly benefit the established market holders (e.g. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, etc.), lawyers, venture capitalists, and investors in technology portfolios (patent trolls). I see nothing wrong with patenting a specialized machine which is controlled by software (ie. some hardware/software combination), but I believe patents for software only solutions (ie. algorithms) should be abolished.
1. Apples and Oranges. You are comparing with the act of physical removing an object preventing another person from using that resource, vs the act of copying something that allows BOTH people to enjoy the use of that resource.
It's not apple and oranges. I was comparing a loss of a potential sale due to copyright infringement to a loss of a potential sale due to shoplifting. I did not make any assertions that copyright infringements equates to theft so there is no need to use that meme.
2. Economy/Commerce is nethanderal thinking -- literally buying into the false belief that "There is Never Enough." Its time to end archaic thinking.
It's nice to see someone fantasizing about a world without the need for commerce.
Intellectual Property, is neither intellectual, nor property
Thanks for your slogan and the links to the opinion pieces. I think you'll find a lot of people question the "not intellectual" part of your assertion as well as the property part. I think technically if you produce something like a painting and believe it to be yours then by definition it is "intellectual property". I believe you really question the need for intellectual property laws but the assertion that intellectual property doesn't exists is false and doesn't really add anything to your case.
The fact that is is illegal to share a number is insane.
Irrelevant. It's not the number that is being shared but the digital representation of the work that is being shared. Paintings, photographs, and literature are not simply a composition of numbers. Of course your assertion is plain silly since you are attempting to justify forfeiting someone's right to copyright protection based on how that work is represented in it's stored state. Analog recordings and digital recording deserve the same level of copyright protection.
The basis of civilization is FOUNDED upon the fact that people SHARE.
Trade is either archaic thinking or a new ideology put in place by people who can't have enough. Which is it? You seem to be contradicting your #2 point in the first half of your comment. By the way, trade laws are recorded within the code of hammurabi which was written in 1772 BC. The ancient greeks and romans had merchants that sold books. Aristotle and Plato have paid for books.
Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed.
I think they are charging because they like to be able to pay for their expenses. I could easily say that people who infringe copyright do it out of lust and a false sense of entitlement but I don't think that adds much to the conversation about the need for copyright protection.
Copyright is the *cause* of the abuses (fraud, illegal accounting, contract violations, etc.) perpetrated by the movie industry.
Actually greed is the *cause* of the abuses and none of the examples you listed involve copyrights. The very low number of independent quality film studios gives the industry the ability to set the price of goods. Evidently you find this price fixing unacceptable. The lack of copyrights would actually make the problem worse since it would lower the number of studios that are able to afford to produce the blockbusters you desire to an even lower number (maybe even zero).
I believe that we are in a period of potentially huge change in that industry since we have technology giving everyone the ability to produce their own show/movie and the internet giving them an non-monopolized resource to distribute it to their audience. This will eventually solve the apparent price fixing, but really good movies aren't cheap to produce and the creator needs to have methods and laws in place that enables them to recoup their expenses and make a little money.
The question I have is why you feel the creator of a work doesn't deserve the ability to make money for that work or have a say in how it's distributed?
The movie industry would bitch and moan for 5-10 years, then get back to business as usual, with movies being played in theaters and on TV, even if DVDs never get released (and likely, DVDs would be released at a $5-$10 price point, rather than the $30 price point most new DVDs list at).
So you based your argument for abolishing the copyright system on one industry's alleged ability to make money despite the absence of copyrights? You act like nobody else uses copyrights to protect their works. You also act like the movie industries solely use copyrights to protect their market shares. Who owns the distribution system? The television stations? The radio stations?
I'm just asking you to reconsider the cause for the alleged abuses by the movie industry. A lot of industries depend on the existence of copyrights and they don't have the same power as movie moguls to control their market.
Only for those on the corporate side of the copyright-based industries. Everyone else would be better off, even most creators.
So this has turned into an argument between two straw men?
Strawman #1: People don't follow the copyright laws anyway so what harm can come from simply abolish them?
Well evidence does show that the majority of the public do respect the current copyright laws. They don't do it because they're scared of the movie/record/software industry lawyers; They do it because they think they are paying what the work is worth and support the idea of the creative artist/programmer getting paid for the effort. Sure it looks like a lot of people pirate but that could simply be because the squeaky wheel gets the grease meaning that people who do buy songs from iTunes/Amazon or purchase software don't go around making a big deal out of it.
Let me put it another way. People shoplift. A lot of shop keeps experience revenue loss from "shrinkage" which is the term they use for inventory that left the store without payment. Does this mean that we should abolish our current system of commerce? No. I find the Pirate Party's argument just as ridiculous.
Strawman #2: Copyright are only for those on the corporate side of the copyright-based industries.
This looks like an attempt to engage in a fictional class war where only the wealthy evil corporations have copyrights and the common man is being oppressed by them. Give me a break. There are many independent artists/programmers that depend on copyright laws to protect their interests, and unlike the other forms of intellectual property protections (patents), copyright doesn't require a substantial investment in legal fees just to make your work public. Not to mention, most of our favorite open source licenses depend on copyright laws to give there terms legal protection. What you thought corporations followed the GPL out of the kindness of their hearts and to protect their honor?
If you need something to fight against then please take up the cause to abolish software only patents. Now that does nothing but to serve corporate interests, venture capitalists, and their lawyers.
Sure. Copyright protects a specific tangible embodiment. If I cut and paste your source code without permission, I've infringed your copyright. If I play with your program for a while and then code an identical program on my own, I have not infringed your copyright. If I send your program to my team of reverse engineers and coders in Russia and crank out my own copy, I have not infringed your copyright. Thus, it's relatively trivial to get around copyright, particularly if I've got money.
That is the point. My copyright doesn't prevent you from making a similar product and we have to compete with each other based on software quality and customer service. Sure you can make a knock off but if you don't understand your customer needs or satisfy them well enough, then in theory I could still make money because I would have the reputation and the market lead to remain competitive. You act like foreign companies don't already infringe patents with impunity and only wealthy companies can afford the legal expenses needed to defend the knockoffs from entering the US market.
Furthermore, copyright infringement is just as expensive as patent litigation, if not more so... You have to actually prove not just that my program is identical to your program, but that I copied your program rather than writing it on my own. One of your arguments against patents was the high cost of litigation - copyright is just as bad, if not worse.
Except that the entry into market with copyrights is substantially lower. Protection from either mechanism is expensive, however with copyright I can at least make some money. You must admit only wealthy corporations or corporations backed by VCs interested in eventually acquiring the said patent can afford this protection, so by definition it seems that patent protection limits market access to those that can afford them. Copyright does not.
Sure, but the individual patent is not what causes innovation. As you note, a patent, by definition, prevents others from implementing the same idea. What causes innovation is the required disclosure of the patent. Others can see how the patent owner implemented their idea, and then, rather than recreating the idea, they can innovate new improvements. The alternate situation is in trade secrets, where 100 engineers at 100 companies will all spend time in individual locked R&D labs recreating the same one idea over and over. If the first engineer published, the other companies could take a license, and the other 99 could move on to the next idea. That reduction in "re-invention" and wasted man-hours is how the patent system spurs innovation... not by "rewarding" an inventor. If an idea is economically valuable, someone will eventually invent it and exploit it... what patents do is encourage public disclosure on top of that exploitation, so that the art, as a whole, may advance faster.
I agree with the theory of "re-invention" and wasted man hours. However the quality of the patents being granted needs to be assessed, and some would question the real cost of re-invention since the patent infringement cases seem to be with products that already exist and assumed to have unintentionally violated a patent.
Sorry, I was trying to make an analogy that was clear and easy to understand (and yes, the doctrine of equivalents applies to design patents, too). But is this clearer for you:
I get a patent on "a seating device with four legs, an attached horizontal plane for supporting one's buttocks, and an upright plane fixed at one edge of the horizontal plane and extending vertically to support one's back" and you make a three-legged chair. You can't possibly infringe, because my seating device requires four legs, and you don't meet that element, regardless of whether "four" is obvious or not over "three".
Thanks for the clarification. Would an attorney advise me to have my patent cover my specific implementation detail or would that attorney advise me to make my implementation details generic enough to stifle competition yet specific enough to remain competitive?
Except that none of that evidence speaks to the proposition that software patents stifle innovation.
Depends on your definition of innovation. I couldn't help but notice that we're omitting competition from the argument and only talking about "innovation". I have yet to see an argument that software only innovations need more protection than what is provided by copyright. Competition means more jobs, more features being added to competing products, improved quality, and cheaper prices. Software patents only serve to benefit a single holder and his licensees and keep the profit margin high by the monopoly power that the patent grants, not to mention keeps competitive pressure to improve quality low.
They simply don't point to the conclusion "software patents stifle innovation." At most, they point to the conclusion "software patents may have a negligible effect on innovation".
I don't believe any evidence have been provided by you that suggests the amount of the effect is negligible. The only thing I'm seeing in this branch of the comment thread is both sides offering their opinion and rtfa-troll's opinion appears to be just as valid as yours. Not that I agree with all of the points offered by the activist website that rtfa-troll linked.
For example, contrary to their first (and strongest) point about VCs ignoring patents, that's simply incorrect. There are 14 million hits [google.com] on Google for valuation of patents, and, as a patent attorney who works with VCs in the software industry, I can tell you that patents and other intellectual property are the primary value of a company.
I agree. A patent does provide an economic benefit to its holder but doesn't necessarily translates into promoting the art that is software development. A crude example would be me having a picture of a powerful politician fucking a goat. This picture would be very valuable to me and any of my associates that could benefit from my having leverage over the politician. However the existence of the picture isn't beneficial to the political system as a whole. Like the picture, a utility patent is leverage that can be used against other participants in the software market for monetary gain.
Bearing in mind that we're talking about infringement, not validity, if the claim says "web interface" and you didn't have a web interface, you can't infringe. It's like if I got a patent with a claim that said "a computing device, comprising a red outer case," and you made a computer that was blue - you can't infringe, regardless of whether a "red" case is obvious or not. Here, the claims require a web interface, as well as a paper-wide fixed inkjet head. You didn't have those, so you don't infringe, by definition.
You can't use design patents as an example of how you can't be found infringing a utility patent. I can be found liable for infringing a patent on the basis that my invention is equivalent to the claim. Look up the doctrine of equivalents.
That is true, but you still have to meet each and every element of the claimed invention in order to infringe. If you did an identical turnkey system that instead used a laser printer, you wouldn't infringe...
Again I refer you to the concept behind the "doctrine of equivalents" as applied to US patent law.
This is a liability minefield with more mines being laid every day. WIth the potential customers for this small niche market being small, I'm certain that competitors would use any patent advantage possible to maintain some unfair market advantage (Or better yet what prevents me from doing the same to another person and keep the price of this software artificially high?).
I can probably look at my whole software portfolio and do a "what if I published it today?" scenario and see potential for patent infringements lawsuits in the majority of them. I'm not even considering the patenting of software features within mobile computing operating systems on commodity wireless telephony equipment.
The above examples aside, if you're saying that you can come along after someone else has patented a technology, do the same thing, and expect a patent infringement suit or have to take a license, then, yeah. But I fail to see how that supports the proposition that innovation is being stifled - you're not the innovator in those situations, rather, the inventor on the patent was.
No my point is that I can create something to solve a particular problem and attempt to market it and get clobbered by someone who has a patent that is written very vaguely or by someone who claims that my software infringes portions of their "submarine patent". Who pays for my defense? Is it worth while for me to market my software? Don't believe me, just google for all the patent infringement cases that come up in Texas courts.
The best evidence for patents stifling innovation would be that no research was being done in software development, or that the pace of patent filings had slowed since these infringement suits, or that the number of products on the market now was fewer than was on the market in the 1980s, or that students were turning to other engineering fields on the grounds that software is tapped out, etc. The argument that there are many existing patents to infringe instead points to a great deal of innovation in recent history.
I disagree. Your argument of some research is still being done in software development then software patents aren't harming the progress of the advancement of the science seems flawed since the existence of research doesn't equate to amount of progress being done. What evidence can be collected on research not being done due to software patents? How much money is being lost on patent searches and litigation? Not to mention that not all patents awarded are that innovative! Does "single click to buy" deserve a patent? How about extendable XML? You imply that lofty ideas are being patented while the legal docket at the courthouse in Marshall, Texas seem to indicate differently.
As for the pace of software patents: The number of patents filed do not indicate quality and may reflect a ill-conceived system in a feedback loop caused by people filing defensive patents, people filing submarine patents, and people filing patents as a metric of their work performance in a corporate environment. This metric seems to be more of a measure of how lucrative the market is for patent attorneys than a measure of how beneficial the system is to the software development ecosystem.
BTW just so you know, students ARE turning to other engineering fields on the grounds that software is tapped out or more accurately don't have as good a prospect for employment than other fields of study. So I don't think you really intended to use that metric to support your argument.
Certainly not. That patent requires a web form as part of the claims, and your program in 1987 was not on the web. Thus, it could not possibly infringe the claims. Additionally, that patent requires a plurality of fixed ink jet heads that span the width of the sheet. Your software program was not a printer with a plurality of ink jet heads, so again, you could not infringe the claims.
My program ran from a central computer in a multiuser environment. Why should the "web" differentiate between my application and the patent filer especially since the only difference is the protocol used between the web (HTML) today and the ascii terminals in use back then? Excuse me for not clarifying when I used the term "turnkey solution" I meant a self contained system that included a printer. There is no non-patent related issue that prevents me from putting the CPU board, Drives, print logic board, and print engine in the same chassis. Of course I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that concepts (business methods) are protected by the patent claims and not the implementation details meaning that using a different method to accomplish what is claimed in the patent award doesn't necessarily relieve me from liability due to infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
They are pandering for votes. Why would they admit to being for something that is currently getting a lot of negative press? Especially when he can come up with a "valid rational reason" to reconsider after he is elected. They flip-flopped on every topic so far, why should this one be any different?
You're correct. "Not rare" was a totally inaccurate description for passenger service. However, I've know of several cargo vessels breaking up at sea, capsizing near ports, or crashing into natural features (like coral reefs). So I meant to say that maritime accidents do occur and there's a trade of professionals dedicated to handle it. I didn't mean to say that this was a common occurrence.
Actually they want to make sure that there aren't any encumbrances on the concept/idea that you signed over to them. This way they are free to use any part of your idea without fear of legal liability from a third party. If it's found that there is a third party claim to your idea, then I'm sure this phrasing allows Walmart and their sponsors to seek compensation for any legal fees.
IANAL but if you are thinking of entering this contest you may want to get you one.
Thanks! Now Blue Oyster Cult is out of my head. "Come on down and meet your maker, come on down and make your stand..." Crap!
I thought the same thing too. For those who didn't catch it - it's a reference to Stephen King's "The Stand".
Now I have Blue Oyster Cult stuck in my head...
You're correct the Dockwise Blue Marlin probably can't handle the load of the whole ship (which leaves option #2) or as you suggest towing to the nearest dock. However the Dockwise Vanguard possibly can. It's scheduled maiden voyage is later this year.
(disclosure) I used to be a vessel owner agent for them...
You're correct "Cottage industry" was the incorrect term. I meant a specialized part of the marine bunker industry.
They only have to debunker what authorities identify as a credible environmental risk. While it's true that the MGO will be easier to debunker than the MDO or MFO (depending on age of ship) due to the viscosity, oil recovery equipment does exist and there are marine petroleum recovery services trained and equipped to handle the task.
Debunker (pump out) the fuel from cruise ship to bunker barges. From there they can either:
1. Cut the vessel into easier to handle parts and load the still quite large size parts onto a vessel designed for carrying other vessels like the ones from Dockwise. The parts will then go to a scrap yard.
2. Attempt to float the vessel using buoyancy bags to where if could be either loaded on the Dockwise ship or onto a portable dry dock where it can be disassembled.
Seriously a year to remove the vessel? Accidents like these aren't a rare occurrence, there is a whole cottage industry that handle these situations.
You may want to look that one up yourself. Diamond was a automatic plastic mold and Bilksi was an attempt to patent software that implemented a business method for hedging losses in the energy sector.
So patents on software based memory management, just in time compilation, caching of data based on forecasted events (like the one mentioned in TFA) do not exist?
Virtual Memory Management: (Java VM) 7475214, (Virtual Storage Dynamic Translation) 5058003
Just in time compilation: (Sun's Application still pending) 11/864,847, (Hybrid JIT) 6332216
caching of data based on forecasted events: (The article itself): 8082342
I defer that to the wikipedia entry (I found it by googling Diamond v Diehr, then Parker v. Flook, and wound up at Gattschalk v. Benson. I admit it would have been quicker to consult wikipedia first, but at least I can verify its accuracy. No since paraphrasing Gattschalk when wikipedia did it well enough):
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." That would be tantamount to allowing a patent on an abstract idea, contrary to precedent dating back to the middle of the Nineteenth Century. The Court added "it is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold." The case was argued on October 16, 1972 and was decided November 20, 1972.
Does software exist outside of a computer?
You're trying to move the goal posts. I already conceded the validity of Diamond v Diehr in my original reply:
Diamond v. Diehr arose from Diamond's desire to patent (from the patent itself) "Rubber-molding presses, which are closed manually upon installation of pieces of rubber compound, are opened automatically by a system which continuously calculates and recalculates the correct cure time and is actuated when the calculated cure time equals the elapsed cure time.". The court found in favor of Diamond since an otherwise patentable machine doesn't become unpatentable simply because a computer is involved. I'm surprised you brought up Diamond v Diehr since I already stated that machines based on computers can be patented.
I think "Gottschalk v. Benson" and "Bilski v. Kappos" are more relevant to the discussion. Since they are software patent related.
Anyway my argument is that just because you make an application that has a "web based" user interface or make a version of an application that runs on a phone, it doesn't become patent worthy. Also the software only applications that I mentioned earlier do not appear to satisfy the "machine-or-transformation" tests yet they were awarded a patent. I maintain that we should abolish these software only patents.
I'm not stumped. I'm just trying to figure out what your question is. We both agree with the merits of Diamond v. Diehr and you seem to believe that "software algorithms or software-only applications are already unpatentable".
I gave examples of patents that I feel aren't being properly addressed by Diamond v Diehr or the other two. Why do these patents exist?
So patents on software based memory management, just in time compilation, caching of data based on forecasted events (like the one mentioned in TFA) do not exist?
The reasons for absurdity have been mentioned countless times on this site and others by more than just me.
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: I see nothing wrong with patents for machines that are a combination of specialized hardware and software (e.g. Medical equipment like MRI, Equipment used in manufacturing, Household appliances, Automotive accessories, Specialized (aka Novel) telecommunication hardware). However the patenting of software algorithms or software only applications are absurd and should be abolished.
With the exception of the large software corporations, who has the money to patent every obvious thing out there? How many of these people can afford to defend their patent?
Bill Gate's greatest fear was that someone in a garage was already working on the next online revolution. Software patents like the one that was mentioned in the TFA puts most of those fears to rest. If you reduce the number of potential competitors by making it expensive to enter the market while making it a liability minefield, you make it easier to forecast what your current competitors are doing and work to stay ahead of them.
Software patents mostly benefit the established market holders (e.g. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, etc.), lawyers, venture capitalists, and investors in technology portfolios (patent trolls). I see nothing wrong with patenting a specialized machine which is controlled by software (ie. some hardware/software combination), but I believe patents for software only solutions (ie. algorithms) should be abolished.
It's not apple and oranges. I was comparing a loss of a potential sale due to copyright infringement to a loss of a potential sale due to shoplifting. I did not make any assertions that copyright infringements equates to theft so there is no need to use that meme.
It's nice to see someone fantasizing about a world without the need for commerce.
Thanks for your slogan and the links to the opinion pieces. I think you'll find a lot of people question the "not intellectual" part of your assertion as well as the property part. I think technically if you produce something like a painting and believe it to be yours then by definition it is "intellectual property". I believe you really question the need for intellectual property laws but the assertion that intellectual property doesn't exists is false and doesn't really add anything to your case.
Irrelevant. It's not the number that is being shared but the digital representation of the work that is being shared. Paintings, photographs, and literature are not simply a composition of numbers. Of course your assertion is plain silly since you are attempting to justify forfeiting someone's right to copyright protection based on how that work is represented in it's stored state. Analog recordings and digital recording deserve the same level of copyright protection.
Trade is either archaic thinking or a new ideology put in place by people who can't have enough. Which is it? You seem to be contradicting your #2 point in the first half of your comment. By the way, trade laws are recorded within the code of hammurabi which was written in 1772 BC. The ancient greeks and romans had merchants that sold books. Aristotle and Plato have paid for books.
I think they are charging because they like to be able to pay for their expenses. I could easily say that people who infringe copyright do it out of lust and a false sense of entitlement but I don't think that adds much to the conversation about the need for copyright protection.
Actually greed is the *cause* of the abuses and none of the examples you listed involve copyrights. The very low number of independent quality film studios gives the industry the ability to set the price of goods. Evidently you find this price fixing unacceptable. The lack of copyrights would actually make the problem worse since it would lower the number of studios that are able to afford to produce the blockbusters you desire to an even lower number (maybe even zero).
I believe that we are in a period of potentially huge change in that industry since we have technology giving everyone the ability to produce their own show/movie and the internet giving them an non-monopolized resource to distribute it to their audience. This will eventually solve the apparent price fixing, but really good movies aren't cheap to produce and the creator needs to have methods and laws in place that enables them to recoup their expenses and make a little money.
The question I have is why you feel the creator of a work doesn't deserve the ability to make money for that work or have a say in how it's distributed?
So you based your argument for abolishing the copyright system on one industry's alleged ability to make money despite the absence of copyrights? You act like nobody else uses copyrights to protect their works. You also act like the movie industries solely use copyrights to protect their market shares. Who owns the distribution system? The television stations? The radio stations?
I'm just asking you to reconsider the cause for the alleged abuses by the movie industry. A lot of industries depend on the existence of copyrights and they don't have the same power as movie moguls to control their market.
So this has turned into an argument between two straw men?
Strawman #1: People don't follow the copyright laws anyway so what harm can come from simply abolish them?
Well evidence does show that the majority of the public do respect the current copyright laws. They don't do it because they're scared of the movie/record/software industry lawyers; They do it because they think they are paying what the work is worth and support the idea of the creative artist/programmer getting paid for the effort. Sure it looks like a lot of people pirate but that could simply be because the squeaky wheel gets the grease meaning that people who do buy songs from iTunes/Amazon or purchase software don't go around making a big deal out of it.
Let me put it another way. People shoplift. A lot of shop keeps experience revenue loss from "shrinkage" which is the term they use for inventory that left the store without payment. Does this mean that we should abolish our current system of commerce? No. I find the Pirate Party's argument just as ridiculous.
Strawman #2: Copyright are only for those on the corporate side of the copyright-based industries.
This looks like an attempt to engage in a fictional class war where only the wealthy evil corporations have copyrights and the common man is being oppressed by them. Give me a break. There are many independent artists/programmers that depend on copyright laws to protect their interests, and unlike the other forms of intellectual property protections (patents), copyright doesn't require a substantial investment in legal fees just to make your work public. Not to mention, most of our favorite open source licenses depend on copyright laws to give there terms legal protection. What you thought corporations followed the GPL out of the kindness of their hearts and to protect their honor?
If you need something to fight against then please take up the cause to abolish software only patents. Now that does nothing but to serve corporate interests, venture capitalists, and their lawyers.
That is the point. My copyright doesn't prevent you from making a similar product and we have to compete with each other based on software quality and customer service. Sure you can make a knock off but if you don't understand your customer needs or satisfy them well enough, then in theory I could still make money because I would have the reputation and the market lead to remain competitive. You act like foreign companies don't already infringe patents with impunity and only wealthy companies can afford the legal expenses needed to defend the knockoffs from entering the US market.
Except that the entry into market with copyrights is substantially lower. Protection from either mechanism is expensive, however with copyright I can at least make some money. You must admit only wealthy corporations or corporations backed by VCs interested in eventually acquiring the said patent can afford this protection, so by definition it seems that patent protection limits market access to those that can afford them. Copyright does not.
I agree with the theory of "re-invention" and wasted man hours. However the quality of the patents being granted needs to be assessed, and some would question the real cost of re-invention since the patent infringement cases seem to be with products that already exist and assumed to have unintentionally violated a patent.
That should be "remain patentable?"
Thanks for the clarification. Would an attorney advise me to have my patent cover my specific implementation detail or would that attorney advise me to make my implementation details generic enough to stifle competition yet specific enough to remain competitive?
Depends on your definition of innovation. I couldn't help but notice that we're omitting competition from the argument and only talking about "innovation". I have yet to see an argument that software only innovations need more protection than what is provided by copyright. Competition means more jobs, more features being added to competing products, improved quality, and cheaper prices. Software patents only serve to benefit a single holder and his licensees and keep the profit margin high by the monopoly power that the patent grants, not to mention keeps competitive pressure to improve quality low.
I don't believe any evidence have been provided by you that suggests the amount of the effect is negligible. The only thing I'm seeing in this branch of the comment thread is both sides offering their opinion and rtfa-troll's opinion appears to be just as valid as yours. Not that I agree with all of the points offered by the activist website that rtfa-troll linked.
I agree. A patent does provide an economic benefit to its holder but doesn't necessarily translates into promoting the art that is software development. A crude example would be me having a picture of a powerful politician fucking a goat. This picture would be very valuable to me and any of my associates that could benefit from my having leverage over the politician. However the existence of the picture isn't beneficial to the political system as a whole. Like the picture, a utility patent is leverage that can be used against other participants in the software market for monetary gain.
You can't use design patents as an example of how you can't be found infringing a utility patent. I can be found liable for infringing a patent on the basis that my invention is equivalent to the claim. Look up the doctrine of equivalents.
Again I refer you to the concept behind the "doctrine of equivalents" as applied to US patent law.
No my point is that I can create something to solve a particular problem and attempt to market it and get clobbered by someone who has a patent that is written very vaguely or by someone who claims that my software infringes portions of their "submarine patent". Who pays for my defense? Is it worth while for me to market my software? Don't believe me, just google for all the patent infringement cases that come up in Texas courts.
I disagree. Your argument of some research is still being done in software development then software patents aren't harming the progress of the advancement of the science seems flawed since the existence of research doesn't equate to amount of progress being done. What evidence can be collected on research not being done due to software patents? How much money is being lost on patent searches and litigation? Not to mention that not all patents awarded are that innovative! Does "single click to buy" deserve a patent? How about extendable XML? You imply that lofty ideas are being patented while the legal docket at the courthouse in Marshall, Texas seem to indicate differently.
As for the pace of software patents: The number of patents filed do not indicate quality and may reflect a ill-conceived system in a feedback loop caused by people filing defensive patents, people filing submarine patents, and people filing patents as a metric of their work performance in a corporate environment. This metric seems to be more of a measure of how lucrative the market is for patent attorneys than a measure of how beneficial the system is to the software development ecosystem.
BTW just so you know, students ARE turning to other engineering fields on the grounds that software is tapped out or more accurately don't have as good a prospect for employment than other fields of study. So I don't think you really intended to use that metric to support your argument.
My program ran from a central computer in a multiuser environment. Why should the "web" differentiate between my application and the patent filer especially since the only difference is the protocol used between the web (HTML) today and the ascii terminals in use back then? Excuse me for not clarifying when I used the term "turnkey solution" I meant a self contained system that included a printer. There is no non-patent related issue that prevents me from putting the CPU board, Drives, print logic board, and print engine in the same chassis. Of course I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that concepts (business methods) are protected by the patent claims and not the implementation details meaning that using a different method to accomplish what is claimed in the patent award doesn't necessarily relieve me from liability due to infringement.