There is a simple thesis/antithesis/synthesis process at work. The success of Linux is creating forces that oppose its own further success.
Already last fall, one might theorize that Oracle Corp. had decided it had been feeding Linux enough, and that it should start watering some other ecosystems:
You have enough mental acuity to call me a moron. I have enough mental acuity to comprehend the fact that you have insulted me. Doesn't this prove that neither one of us are morons?
I'm not attacking the credibility of the source at all. I have no credentials in this debate at all. I presume the source has better credentials than I do, so my debate is about the idea itself rather than the pedigree of the source.
I have the opinion that the "fence" analogy isn't very useful. I'm questioning the fence analogy at two ends of the spectrum. First of all, what does a "fence" have to do with getting a patent? The analogy is not at all obvious.
Secondly, there are numerous ways to protect or "fence" a piece of software. So the fence analogy doesn't distinguish software from a physical asset.
Let me phrase it this way. Are you willing to say that the ability to "protect" or "fence" a certain category of property is sufficient grounds to make that category of property patentable? If that's the argument, then software would seem to meet this protectability qualification. So the "fence" analogy actually comes out in favor for patenting software, which seems to be the reverse intention.
Software is "real" enough to protect with physical means.
Software and molecules are different. But software is real in all the ways that matter. You can get a job architecting software, designing software, building software, testing software, selling software, etc., etc. Failures in software can have drastic economic consequences and can result in the destruction of property and the loss human life.
If your software project is late, see how far you get by saying "it isn't real anyways".
The dichotomy between software engineering and computer science is well-known. Being a potter doesn't make you a chemist, and vice-versa, being a chemist doesn't make you a potter. Similarly, being a software engineer doesn't make you a computer scientist, and vice-versa, being a computer scientist doesn't make you a software engineer. Don't confuse software engineering with computer science. The foundation of computer science, namely the Theory of Computing, is a branch of number theory.
The concept of software patents makes sense, it's just that the PTO has been way too lenient in applying the definition of novelty. I believe that in order for an invention to meet the standard of novelty, it must be "nonobvious to one skilled in the art".
Many of the points in the article were really stupid.
The analogy about fences protecting pieces of real estate made no sense at all -- putting a fence around your land hasn't enabled anyone to patent their piece of property! Furthermore I could do a pretty good job of keeping people out of my algorithm by building a fence around any implementation (for instance, by burying the algorithm in an antifuse FPGA), but again, this has no bearing on patentability.
The fact that algorithms are compositional and therefore harder to draw boundaries around isn't unique to software either. Many other disciplines, including material science, chemical process design, and the article's own pet area of molecular design itself make use of elements that are compositional. Algorithms are compositions of operations on 1s and 0s, just like chemistry is about C, H, O, N, and friends. Or an algorithm is just a Turing machine, and chemistry is about protons, neutrons, and especially electrons. Pick your level of decomposition, but algorithms and physics are still both compositional in a very fundamental sense.
In a more fundamental sense, Computer Science is a branch of Mathematics - number theory in particular. A mathematical fact is not patentable, but the application of a mathematical fact to solve a particular problem is. So you can't patent 1+1=2, but you could patent the application of 1+1=2 to solve a given problem, as long as the application of 1+1=2 to the problem at hand met the standard for novelty. Thus the use of an algorithm to solve a problem should be patentable as well.
This places mathematics on the same ground as the laws of physics. You can't patent gravity, but you can patent the use of gravity for solving a problem.
I was able to run Solaris 10 as well as Open Solaris on my ASUS K8N-DL with dual-opterons. For SATA, I've used both the WD Raptors as well as a larger capacity Seagate SATA drive (can't remember the model number of the SATA). I didn't use the Silicon Image hardware raid controller, however.
It'd just force everyone to replace the firewall they already have with one that is capable of running the ISP's agent. Nice multibillion dollar, perpetual entitlement from the network Santa Claus.
Seriously, folks, the MySQL/InnoDB combination is rather feature poor in comparison with Oracle 10gR2. That being said, the MySQL/InnoDB combo is here to stay. What better way for Oracle to play in this space than to buy something as pivotal as InnoDB, and then make it better. Improving InnoDB's hot backup capabilities would be a reasonable first step. Then who knows, maybe add shared-disk clustering ala RAC?
We all know that Linux adoption is benefitting to some extent from Oracle's push in that space.
I'd say a brilliant move on Oracle's part, and something that might just benefit the MySQL/InnoDB combo as well.
Large companies, especially with an IT tech focus, want as many patents in their portfolio as possible. It's the IP equivalent of Mutual Assured Destruction - remember the MAD acronym?
Despite the large number of conflicting patents and the generally recognized lack of diligence of the USPTO in screening for prior art, big IT companies pursue the game of collecting patents with a voracious appetite. Sure, they want to protect their IP, but it boils down to "If you sue me, I'll sue you". The larger the patent portfolio, the more nukes each company has in its arsenal for a counter strike.
Continuing the nuclear analogy, maybe there should be a law or some type of voluntary governance to restrict the number of unexpired patents an entity (personal or corporate) could hold -- which could be negotiated downward over time.
Implicit in Asa's article is an assumption that Windows works well for the average user.
Windows works well for the "average" user? You must be kidding. I'll tell you what the "average" user experience in Windows is. The "average" user falls into one of two camps. The "Camp 1" user accepts the fact that his or her system operates with seriously degraded functionality, because it works well enough to satisfy the most important of his or her meager computing demands. "Camp 2 "people routinely reinstall windows when enough stuff breaks; mean time between reinstalls is about six months. How do I know this? I used to do ISP support work, and spent lots of time working with "Joe Sixpack" and his buddies. Sorry Asa, but you're not an "average" user. I'm glad that Windows is working well for you, but that by definition puts you in a category that is definitely not "average".
When will the average user migrate to Linux? Simple. "Joe Sixpack" understands very well that you can't be cheaper than free. Once a critical mass of "Joe Sixpacks" start to realize they now have a free albeit slightly more cryptic option to replace an OS which costs money and tends to be broken most of the time for them.
Promissory Estoppel
What you are referring to in legalese is called the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.
Basically, you can't sue me for relying on a promise that you made to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Already last fall, one might theorize that Oracle Corp. had decided it had been feeding Linux enough, and that it should start watering some other ecosystems:
Oracle Selects Solaris as preferred OS
So being able to protect something has no bearing on patentability. So what is the point of the fence analogy again?
You have enough mental acuity to call me a moron. I have enough mental acuity to comprehend the fact that you have insulted me. Doesn't this prove that neither one of us are morons?
I'm not attacking the credibility of the source at all. I have no credentials in this debate at all. I presume the source has better credentials than I do, so my debate is about the idea itself rather than the pedigree of the source.
I have the opinion that the "fence" analogy isn't very useful. I'm questioning the fence analogy at two ends of the spectrum. First of all, what does a "fence" have to do with getting a patent? The analogy is not at all obvious.
Secondly, there are numerous ways to protect or "fence" a piece of software. So the fence analogy doesn't distinguish software from a physical asset.
Let me phrase it this way. Are you willing to say that the ability to "protect" or "fence" a certain category of property is sufficient grounds to make that category of property patentable? If that's the argument, then software would seem to meet this protectability qualification. So the "fence" analogy actually comes out in favor for patenting software, which seems to be the reverse intention.
Software is "real" enough to protect with physical means.
If your software project is late, see how far you get by saying "it isn't real anyways".
The dichotomy between software engineering and computer science is well-known. Being a potter doesn't make you a chemist, and vice-versa, being a chemist doesn't make you a potter. Similarly, being a software engineer doesn't make you a computer scientist, and vice-versa, being a computer scientist doesn't make you a software engineer. Don't confuse software engineering with computer science. The foundation of computer science, namely the Theory of Computing, is a branch of number theory.
Many of the points in the article were really stupid.
The analogy about fences protecting pieces of real estate made no sense at all -- putting a fence around your land hasn't enabled anyone to patent their piece of property! Furthermore I could do a pretty good job of keeping people out of my algorithm by building a fence around any implementation (for instance, by burying the algorithm in an antifuse FPGA), but again, this has no bearing on patentability.
The fact that algorithms are compositional and therefore harder to draw boundaries around isn't unique to software either. Many other disciplines, including material science, chemical process design, and the article's own pet area of molecular design itself make use of elements that are compositional. Algorithms are compositions of operations on 1s and 0s, just like chemistry is about C, H, O, N, and friends. Or an algorithm is just a Turing machine, and chemistry is about protons, neutrons, and especially electrons. Pick your level of decomposition, but algorithms and physics are still both compositional in a very fundamental sense.
In a more fundamental sense, Computer Science is a branch of Mathematics - number theory in particular. A mathematical fact is not patentable, but the application of a mathematical fact to solve a particular problem is. So you can't patent 1+1=2, but you could patent the application of 1+1=2 to solve a given problem, as long as the application of 1+1=2 to the problem at hand met the standard for novelty. Thus the use of an algorithm to solve a problem should be patentable as well.
This places mathematics on the same ground as the laws of physics. You can't patent gravity, but you can patent the use of gravity for solving a problem.
I was able to run Solaris 10 as well as Open Solaris on my ASUS K8N-DL with dual-opterons. For SATA, I've used both the WD Raptors as well as a larger capacity Seagate SATA drive (can't remember the model number of the SATA). I didn't use the Silicon Image hardware raid controller, however.
It'd just force everyone to replace the firewall they already have with one that is capable of running the ISP's agent. Nice multibillion dollar, perpetual entitlement from the network Santa Claus.
We all know that Linux adoption is benefitting to some extent from Oracle's push in that space.
I'd say a brilliant move on Oracle's part, and something that might just benefit the MySQL/InnoDB combo as well.
Despite the large number of conflicting patents and the generally recognized lack of diligence of the USPTO in screening for prior art, big IT companies pursue the game of collecting patents with a voracious appetite. Sure, they want to protect their IP, but it boils down to "If you sue me, I'll sue you". The larger the patent portfolio, the more nukes each company has in its arsenal for a counter strike.
Continuing the nuclear analogy, maybe there should be a law or some type of voluntary governance to restrict the number of unexpired patents an entity (personal or corporate) could hold -- which could be negotiated downward over time.
Windows works well for the "average" user? You must be kidding. I'll tell you what the "average" user experience in Windows is. The "average" user falls into one of two camps. The "Camp 1" user accepts the fact that his or her system operates with seriously degraded functionality, because it works well enough to satisfy the most important of his or her meager computing demands. "Camp 2 "people routinely reinstall windows when enough stuff breaks; mean time between reinstalls is about six months. How do I know this? I used to do ISP support work, and spent lots of time working with "Joe Sixpack" and his buddies. Sorry Asa, but you're not an "average" user. I'm glad that Windows is working well for you, but that by definition puts you in a category that is definitely not "average". When will the average user migrate to Linux? Simple. "Joe Sixpack" understands very well that you can't be cheaper than free. Once a critical mass of "Joe Sixpacks" start to realize they now have a free albeit slightly more cryptic option to replace an OS which costs money and tends to be broken most of the time for them.
Promissory Estoppel
What you are referring to in legalese is called the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel .
Basically, you can't sue me for relying on a promise that you made to me.