For your information, patents protect technological innovations. Pure math is not patented, only its application to some specific problem.
If you disallow software logic claims for anti-lock braking system, you will essentially destroy any protection for it.
Perhaps, more relevant example for open-source crowd is Transmeta. Linus himself admitted that their chips are 1/3 hardware and 2/3 software (Code Morphing Software, patented by Transmeta, of course)
And you want to remove patent protection for software? How are they going to protect their chip designs from being stolen? Do you have a better alternative? Just don't say "copyright". I am tired of explaining why copyright is not adequate for protecting software.
Mr. Mueller:
I have an advice for you: go back to school and take some basic computer science and EE classes, which you apparently skipped...
This will make you realize that there is absolutely no difference between hardware patents and software patents, as far as computer science is concerned.
Hear me? ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL !!!
Write it on your forehead!
This is called Turing equivalence, The First Law of Computing, if you will.
Read this, if you don't believe me:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lsi.cad/msg/00 71ce40aeb97379?hl=en&
ANY computational algorithm can be implemented entirely in hardware, as
part of chip design, or it can be implemented as an executable code for
programmable DSP, or it can be written in any general-purpose
programming language, e.g. Java, to be run on any general-purpose
computer.
The decision to implement certain computation in hardware or in
software is influenced by a number of practical considerations, such as
intended use, speed of execution, size, power consumption, cost to
manufacture, future upgrade plans etc.
Of course, nobody is suggesting hardware implementation of, e.g. e-mail client,
or, at the opposite end, a software implementation of a core speech
compression algorithm as an add-on Java program for cell phone, but it
can be done, right?
So, tell me, Mr. Florian Mueller, why you keep brainwashing those err... poor and under-educated young people in "No Software Patents" T-shirts running around the Parliament and screaming "Freedom!"
How the hell does a truly unique and unobvious algorithm patent, e.g. RSA patent, interfere with their freedom?
I have always thought that people who write computer games for too long eventually become mentally handicapped... just joking... nothing personal...
"Try selling that to Microsoft"
Yeah, show them your stuff...
They also would like you to write and file
complete patent application at your own expense,
so they can read about all the details and implement your ideas,
patented or not, they don't care...
I did try to offer them some ideas, after filing
US patent application (still pending) and
their standard response was "Get Lost ! We are
not interested !"
They didn't even attempt to offer me a job or
something, to start conversation...
I am pretty sure they are busy now implementing
ideas from my patent application into their products.
Expect more cases like this in the future...
This is why they want patent reform now -
to get away with stealing other people's stuff
(One of the key changes proposed is making
injunction more difficult to obtain for small
entities, so MS can get away with stealing IP)
It is troubling to see so many mindless f**** here
What do you, Slashdot people, know about the amount of original research needed to develop,
for example, an advanced speech recognition system ?
It's all software, a bunch of mathematical algorithms if you want.
And it took decades of research at
places like Bell Labs and IBM to achieve the
present state-of-the-art.
The "productive" people in your definition are
people who do not produce and publish original algorithms, but just code existing published algorithms into products without feeling any need to compensate the original inventors.
That's why software patents are needed.
Of course, I am talking about real software inventions, the likes of RSA, LZW, Karmarkar etc.
Well, you are not quite right in describing the
situation.
The BIG guys will simply copy your idea (assuming
it's a good idea) and implement it in their commercial products, once your paper or patent
application is published (18 months after filing)
They will not even bother to talk to you about
licensing. It will be up to you what to do next.
Patent requires a commitment, both financial and
phychological. You will probably not see any money
for 5-10-15 years until you are able to find
a law firm which will litigate on a contigency basis. And then be prepared to hear all of them
screaming "AH, what a bad guy! He is trying to stifle innovation !"
The Slashdot public, in particular, will be very
angry at you for claming your constitutional
right to "exclude others from manufacturing your
invention for a limited period of time"
And the last thing you want to do is actually manufacturing and selling something, because the BIG guys will immediately gang together and sue you for violation of their patents, so they can
have your patent for free.
Better stay a paper company, they will have no
ground for suing you.
What kind of idiot are you ?
I think that at least some Slashdotters could use some education (including some basic familiarity with the Patent Law)
to stop them from posting such idiotic statements.
Although it might be too late for this particular case...
Mr. Oppendahl, you are 100% right, as usual, but you are just wasting your thoughtful comments here.
The majority of people here are just unable to
think. This is why we cannot have direct democracy: allowing general public to pass (or significantly influence) decisions
on such critical issues inevitably leads to horrible long-term concequences.
From my experience, I can only tell that
PATENT IS THE ONLY THING that matters when you are a small independent inventor trying to advance the state of the art in some particular field (In my case, it is digital signal processing as applied to speech recognition etc.)
Copyright doesn't provide any protection at all
for true algorithmic discovery. Trade secret is not an option either. Everything can be easily reverse engineered by big companies with resources, especially if it's just one tiny critical part of a program that really matters.
So, the alternative to patent protection for small
independent inventors (and start up companies with
no resources) is to stop inventing altogether.
Those anti-swpatent activists (including Linus and
RMS, with all due respect) are NOT INVENTORS.
If they were in small inventor's shoes they would
say something different.
I say: Fix the patent system, do not destroy it.
Yes, it is true that the majority of patents (not just software patents, by the way) are junk patents. Those mostly come from big corporations and used to protect their own products.
An independent inventor usually can afford only one patent, so it'd better be a "killer" patent.
Long-time software engineer turned independent inventor.
Slashdot Mirror
>Are electrons physical?
...
YES, they are, IDIOT !!!!!!!!!!!
As well as protons, neutrons, mesons, muons, positrons, quarks etc.
>Electrons and numbers are part of this closed space.
>LIGHT has no MASS. Organization of light is not patentable.
Einstein rests
Why don't you just shut up, for God's sake ?
Are
you
happy
now?
For your information, patents protect technological innovations.
Pure math is not patented, only its application to some specific problem.
If you disallow software logic claims for anti-lock braking system,
you will essentially destroy any protection for it.
Perhaps, more relevant example for open-source crowd is Transmeta.
Linus himself admitted that their chips are 1/3 hardware and 2/3 software
(Code Morphing Software, patented by Transmeta, of course)
And you want to remove patent protection for software?
How are they going to protect their chip designs from being stolen?
Do you have a better alternative?
Just don't say "copyright".
I am tired of explaining why copyright is not adequate for protecting software.
Mr. Mueller: I have an advice for you: go back to school and take some basic computer science and EE classes, which you apparently skipped... This will make you realize that there is absolutely no difference between hardware patents and software patents, as far as computer science is concerned. Hear me? ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL !!! Write it on your forehead! This is called Turing equivalence, The First Law of Computing, if you will. Read this, if you don't believe me: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lsi.cad/msg/00 71ce40aeb97379?hl=en&
ANY computational algorithm can be implemented entirely in hardware, as
part of chip design, or it can be implemented as an executable code for
programmable DSP, or it can be written in any general-purpose
programming language, e.g. Java, to be run on any general-purpose
computer.
The decision to implement certain computation in hardware or in
software is influenced by a number of practical considerations, such as
intended use, speed of execution, size, power consumption, cost to
manufacture, future upgrade plans etc.
Of course, nobody is suggesting hardware implementation of, e.g. e-mail client,
or, at the opposite end, a software implementation of a core speech
compression algorithm as an add-on Java program for cell phone, but it
can be done, right?
So, tell me, Mr. Florian Mueller, why you keep brainwashing those err... poor and under-educated young people in "No Software Patents" T-shirts running around the Parliament and screaming "Freedom!"
How the hell does a truly unique and unobvious algorithm patent, e.g. RSA patent, interfere with their freedom?
I have always thought that people who write computer games for too long eventually become mentally handicapped ... just joking... nothing personal...
"Try selling that to Microsoft" Yeah, show them your stuff ...
They also would like you to write and file
complete patent application at your own expense,
so they can read about all the details and implement your ideas,
patented or not, they don't care...
I did try to offer them some ideas, after filing
US patent application (still pending) and
their standard response was "Get Lost ! We are
not interested !"
They didn't even attempt to offer me a job or
something, to start conversation...
I am pretty sure they are busy now implementing
ideas from my patent application into their products.
Expect more cases like this in the future...
This is why they want patent reform now -
to get away with stealing other people's stuff
(One of the key changes proposed is making
injunction more difficult to obtain for small
entities, so MS can get away with stealing IP)
It is troubling to see so many mindless f**** here What do you, Slashdot people, know about the amount of original research needed to develop, for example, an advanced speech recognition system ? It's all software, a bunch of mathematical algorithms if you want. And it took decades of research at places like Bell Labs and IBM to achieve the present state-of-the-art. The "productive" people in your definition are people who do not produce and publish original algorithms, but just code existing published algorithms into products without feeling any need to compensate the original inventors. That's why software patents are needed. Of course, I am talking about real software inventions, the likes of RSA, LZW, Karmarkar etc.
Well, you are not quite right in describing the situation. The BIG guys will simply copy your idea (assuming it's a good idea) and implement it in their commercial products, once your paper or patent application is published (18 months after filing) They will not even bother to talk to you about licensing. It will be up to you what to do next. Patent requires a commitment, both financial and phychological. You will probably not see any money for 5-10-15 years until you are able to find a law firm which will litigate on a contigency basis. And then be prepared to hear all of them screaming "AH, what a bad guy! He is trying to stifle innovation !" The Slashdot public, in particular, will be very angry at you for claming your constitutional right to "exclude others from manufacturing your invention for a limited period of time" And the last thing you want to do is actually manufacturing and selling something, because the BIG guys will immediately gang together and sue you for violation of their patents, so they can have your patent for free. Better stay a paper company, they will have no ground for suing you.
What kind of idiot are you ? I think that at least some Slashdotters could use some education (including some basic familiarity with the Patent Law) to stop them from posting such idiotic statements. Although it might be too late for this particular case...
Mr. Oppendahl, you are 100% right, as usual, but you are just wasting your thoughtful comments here. The majority of people here are just unable to think. This is why we cannot have direct democracy: allowing general public to pass (or significantly influence) decisions on such critical issues inevitably leads to horrible long-term concequences. From my experience, I can only tell that PATENT IS THE ONLY THING that matters when you are a small independent inventor trying to advance the state of the art in some particular field (In my case, it is digital signal processing as applied to speech recognition etc.) Copyright doesn't provide any protection at all for true algorithmic discovery. Trade secret is not an option either. Everything can be easily reverse engineered by big companies with resources, especially if it's just one tiny critical part of a program that really matters. So, the alternative to patent protection for small independent inventors (and start up companies with no resources) is to stop inventing altogether. Those anti-swpatent activists (including Linus and RMS, with all due respect) are NOT INVENTORS. If they were in small inventor's shoes they would say something different. I say: Fix the patent system, do not destroy it. Yes, it is true that the majority of patents (not just software patents, by the way) are junk patents. Those mostly come from big corporations and used to protect their own products. An independent inventor usually can afford only one patent, so it'd better be a "killer" patent. Long-time software engineer turned independent inventor.