Software Patents

[Mystic]

aarghh, i just been reading and this really annoys me:

http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index.html

the only people that want this to pass is microsoft, they are probably paying off the politicians, i wish someone would murder bill gates damnit

for those of you who dont know, i think this may help,

Say i made a piece of software that done a certain thing, it would stop a kind open source developer creating something that does the same, i think this is microsofts attack at linux, i knew microsoft hated linux


I think this quote apllies to microsoft and linux:

"In those segments, the incumbent market leaders are large corporations from outside the EU. They own huge numbers of patents and could use them against open-source software in order to defend their monopolies and oligopolies. ("Oligopoly" means the market belongs to a very few.) "

microsoft as the as the large corporation and the open source software linux, damn, this cant happen

 

[armstrong]

This issue is very relevant in my country, where a group of large companies (MS included) are lobbying for the passing of a law covering software patents. IMHO, patents were (or should have been) established for one purpose alone: to encourage innovation. They were not put in place specifically to enrich people. So in deciding whether or not software patents should be granted, gov't has to determine which path would lead to more innovation.

Considering that big companies like MS already have enough avenues for protecting their IP, software patents would lead to stagnation IMHO. This is because programming is a very dynamic, fast-moving field (unlike something like car production, for instance). I can imagine the frustration if a programmer spends several thousand man-hours on a great program, then is informed after launch that it infringes on one of MS' software patents, even if MS does not have a similar product in the market. If every programmer needs to consult a patent attorney before diving in and "just doing it", then software production at the micro level would grind to a halt.

The result? Software monopolies and rich patent attorneys. As for software innovation -> R.I.P. 8-X

 

[liam_d]

Image all us people with php websites which allow people to download our scripts were all pretty ****ed when patents come in, im developing a forum (which im selling off) but if i was still doing it then someone like invision board or vbulletin could get a patent and then goodbye my forum, goodbye phpbb etc

 

[armstrong]

This from a mailing list i browse:

The same applies to all other forms invention. Drugs may be based on plants picked from a rainforest but the pharmaceutical firm had to go through a large investment of resources to turn this into a practical product. Even the lightbulb - a truly revolutionary product - required many hours of investment at Edison's laboratory.

Do note that even if Edison did patent the incandescent bulb, it
didn't stifle innovation of the flourescent lamps as the core science
behind illumination through the use of electricity wasn't patented.
Try reversing it - patent the science - and there goes innovation.

The same is similar with patenting software - essentially you'd be
patenting the math (the IDEA) behind software. Patenting the science
behind software would really cripple innovation in the software field.

 

[primacomputer]

MHO, patents were (or should have been) established for one purpose alone: to encourage innovation.

Washington, Jefferson, et all agree. Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

There's nothing in there about protecting the profit margins of large companies who spend a lot of money exploiting other peoples resources.

 

[Zeeble]

In most industry's, patents are important to ensure that ideas are not stolen, and to encourge further innovation and entrepreneurialship.
However, the software industry is different. If every peace of software was patented, we would have no competetion in the software industry at all, leading to large cash rich company's doing nothing to enrich the consumers experience because they would be the sole producers, suppliers and sellers of their software. This would lead to inneficency in the market, and we would not be any where near as far as we are now.

 

[Mystic]

exactly, if photoshop was the only the graphics program around they wouldnt improve there software

 

[LeeRyder]

ohhh how do i put this for him to comprehend it..., again..using cars circa 1920 ase a template..

Back in the early years of automotive history, Ford was a monster. sure there were "also rans" out there, but none able to truly give Ford a run for his money.

Also, cars were unreliable (bad software), roads shoddy(bad infrastructure)..etc.

But to fix these two issues, the governemt did NOT penalize FoMoCo or render patents, trademarks or copyrights of theirs invalid, nor did the govt(s) insist that Fords car be.. some type of open source vehicle.

It was fixed by other companies getting good enough to truly compete.

Non competition is bad. Making any law the discourages competition is moronic and harmful not only to the industry, but to society as a whole in the long run. You want the entire world to be open source this or that..but it doesnt work that way.

people work to become wealthier.. not to make sure you have a solid operating system. Those that do provide these open source licenses are merely extreme hobbyists..and Im pretty damned sure that I dont want a bunch of hobbyists with no colusion, no formal direction and no absolute agreement on goals walking our world down the hell in a handbasket of tomorow for the sake of..free software.

Imagine, going back to autodom.. had this been implemented. roads of varying sizes to accomodate the different brands of cars, no set safety standards, no agreement on which is the right side of the road (yes Britan, your wrong! )etc etc.

I mean, your not even getting into the real workings here. Lighting patterns, emissions, oil weight guidelines and standards, octane..geess... virtually every aspect.

imagine going to a gas station with 40 types of fuels... or worse.. 40 different gas stations to find the one iwht gas suitable for your brand.

your just way way over simplifying life, tech, people and logic. The world has direction and directors..without it.. well.. look at mexico.

 

[Zeeble]

ok, Im not going to direct this at Lee because I am on his ignore list for being "ignorant".

You CANNOT in anyway compare the automotive industry, especially the 1920's to the software industry, for obvious reasons.

Allowing software patents would stifle competition, rather than create more of it.
Software patents would lead the way for companies such as MS to have monopolies in more areas than just OS.
No patents does not mean "free" either. Just look now, whats wrong with the software market atm? Nothing! Thats because patents have not stifled competition. We are seeing higher standards and better benchmarks being set every month, due to competetion, if you add patents to the equasion, then we could end up with large companies, unmotivated by consumer wants and needs, and more obsessed with maximising profits.

The EU commision recently ruled that Software patents were a no-go, and for good reason. An organisation like the EU comission does not make such decision without a lot of forethought.

 

[armstrong]

Lee, if you wish to continue using the car analogy, then think of it this way. The software patent laws seek to patent basic science, so if it were applied to the auto industry, it would be like Ford patenting the factory line (he couldn't have patented the automobile, since there was prior art). Can you imagine how hobbled American manufacturing would have been?

people work to become wealthier.. not to make sure you have a solid operating system. Those that do provide these open source licenses are merely extreme hobbyists..and Im pretty damned sure that I dont want a bunch of hobbyists with no colusion, no formal direction and no absolute agreement on goals walking our world down the hell in a handbasket of tomorow for the sake of..free software.

Saying that opensource has no direction is absurd. Of course there's direction, through the RFC process, via formal entities like the Free Software Foundation, large opensource-friendly companies like RedHat, etc. Bad ideas get torn to bits, while good ones are adopted and improved upon.

IMO, the reason Opensource continues to succeed despite the vast array of economic power working against it is because OS is an expression of our personal freedom. For the programmer, OS is the ultimate democracy, seriously. :tu:

 

[LeeRyder]

ok a good example is Linux, Apple and Windows compatability.

there's only 3 and yet they cant even interact on some very basic levels (though it is getting better).

imagine if MS didnt have as much control over this and it was pretty much an open field with 50 didnt players all on equal footing.. the mess that would ensue.

when the 3 mentioned above can get it together then perhaps my point will be moot.

as per the auto thing, i think saying it's an assembly line is wrong... not talking about the way computers are made are we? just the programming right?

 

[Mystic]

lee, nobody is forcing you to use the free software, the open source, the paid will always be here, there will just be competition from open source alternatives

and lee, the software industry is nothing like the car industry

 

[LeeRyder]

ok, im going to attempt to reword this because i think my point is just not getting accross for some unknown reason here.

competition is good. However, you need either govt standards, an unofficial agreement -or- a powerhouse with enough influence with the public to determine the goals, languages, systems..etc..virtually EVERY aspect for others to follow.

the reasoning is because if you have (as an example) 20 different major operating systems using 20 different formats, youll have other software makers (open source or otherwise) that have to create their stuff for each independant source.

ever try to find the latest new game available for an Apple? good luck... and Apple is #2!

now, since we know that even with two major players things dont cooperate, it stands to reason that having a greater number of people out there writing from a base code (presumably MS's..i think thats a given) and changing structures and architecture.. your going to have major compatability issues...major.

examples can be seen in systems like MRP, MRPII and many (dozens i've seen like seagull..etc) of business programs... where you have people internally messing with the programs and causing compatability issues.

if someone wants to compete with MS with a source they've created..awesome..best of luck! But to ask MS to give up it's rights as creator in the profits and exapnsion of such a thing is negligent at best due to the extreme levels of corruption possible.

not only this.. but imagine when the hackers, script writers and every other junky out there gets a hold of this..the damage they can do... isn't it bad enough having such things protected?

 

[armstrong]

Linux and Apple/Mac coders are already trying to achieve some kind of interoperability, allowing MSOffice-generated docs to run on their systems via simulators and exporting tools. Its MS that is resisting. If MS would open it up its sourcecode for viewing, then Linux and Apple would probably achieve close to 100% compatibility, at least for standard document formats like word/excel/powerpoint.

as per the auto thing, i think saying it's an assembly line is wrong... not talking about the way computers are made are we? just the programming right?

Its a close enough analogy. The point is that with software patents, something like "an online forum" can be patented, which would mean that anyone who wanted to develop such (VB, phpBB, Invision, etc.) would have to pay for licensing, if they even know about it.

Some absurd examples of software patents:

1. "Natural Order Recalc Patent" - covers the way spreadheets work; owned by a company that does nothing but invest in patents, suing anyone who develops spreadheets, without actually producing anything.
2. subdomain patents - http://thewhir.com/features/subdomain.cfm

From above (and there's more if you need them), you'll see that software patents appear to have been issued for the most obvious of things, contrary to the patenting tradition. Unlike in the auto industry, programming ideas are easy to develop. The difficult part is in implementing them into useful form.

You could say that the solution would be to install more competent software-knowledgeable patent attorneys. But even if that happens (unlikely in my opinion), you'd still have a culture of programmers needing to consult with patent attorneys prior to doing any actual programming, which would lead to an intolerable working situation for programmers. We're like writers, in a sense. Can you imagine the situation if writers were required by law to consult with a copyright attorney prior to (and likely during and after as well) writing a new novel or poem? That would be where we would end up once software patents are fully-implemented.

The EU commision recently ruled that Software patents were a no-go, and for good reason. An organisation like the EU comission does not make such decision without a lot of forethought.

Independent programmers in countries with no software patents would have a distinct competitive advantage compared to programmers in countries that do. If the US continues along this path, it will mean the loss of their edge vs. other countries. IMHO.

 

[LeeRyder]

...I gotta do some thinking on this, I'll try to reply asap...

 

[labrocca]

It's dumb legislation. Also all open source would have to do is charge 1 penny.

 

[armstrong]

Straight from the mind of a guy you admire, Lee:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."

"A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."

Bill Gates (1991)

 

[primacomputer]

Also, cars were unreliable (bad software), roads shoddy(bad infrastructure)..etc.

But to fix these two issues, the governemt did NOT penalize FoMoCo or render patents, trademarks or copyrights of theirs invalid, nor did the govt(s) insist that Fords car be.. some type of open source vehicle.

Dude. Ford didn't invent the car. He didn't patent it. Your whole car analogy argument is based on a week of history lessons you apparently slept through.

Non competition is bad. Making any law the discourages competition is moronic and harmful not only to the industry, but to society as a whole in the long run.

This is why we have anti-trust legislation and restrictions on what can be patented.

You want the entire world to be open source this or that..but it doesnt work that way.

Who does? A search of the thread finds the only reference to this in your post?

people work to become wealthier.. not to make sure you have a solid operating system. Those that do provide these open source licenses are merely extreme hobbyists..and Im pretty damned sure that I dont want a bunch of hobbyists with no colusion, no formal direction and no absolute agreement on goals walking our world down the hell in a handbasket of tomorow for the sake of..free software.

Then better take down your website dude cuz it running on Apache! I can't believe it. Lee sells out to not-corporate not-greed!

Imagine, going back to autodom.. had this been implemented. roads of varying sizes to accomodate the different brands of cars, no set safety standards, no agreement on which is the right side of the road (yes Britan, your wrong! )etc etc.

And you are claiming that all this is because of patents? WTF! It is because these things could not be patented. Who patented driving on the right side of the road. Please do tell.

I mean, your not even getting into the real workings here. Lighting patterns, emissions, oil weight guidelines and standards, octane..geess... virtually every aspect.

imagine going to a gas station with 40 types of fuels... or worse.. 40 different gas stations to find the one iwht gas suitable for your brand.

Guess you slept through some chemistry lessons as well.

ok a good example is Linux, Apple and Windows compatability.

An excellent example of the abuse of intellectual property. And before you disagree with me let me point out that courts around the world back be on this. Imagine how bad it would be be Microsoft had patented all these technologies so that people could not interact with them even if they re-wrote the whole system from scratch.
Despite this I can't think of a single windows application (not game) that I can't run under Linux.

 

[LeeRyder]

ohhh..a flame post to reply too.. and all so easy to nail to the wall..this will be fun :D

Dude. Ford didn't invent the car. He didn't patent it. Your whole car analogy argument is based on a week of history lessons you apparently slept through.

Please, show me where I stated ford invented the car?
or are you insinuating Ford holds no patents? Surely you dont think that there arent patents on various automotive technologies! Please... Cars are my thing... you dont even want to get into automotive history with me.

Then better take down your website dude cuz it running on Apache! I can't believe it. Lee sells out to not-corporate not-greed!

so my website is going to rule the world?!?!?! SWEET!

And you are claiming that all this is because of patents? WTF! It is because these things could not be patented. Who patented driving on the right side of the road. Please do tell.

ok play close attn here because it seems you need special attention:

Auto manufacturers had to decide on left or right hand drive vehicles, the benefits and public preferances. Deciding formats is legislation both on the corporate and govt levels. I am pretty sure I've made this clear... not sure what part of that you are having difficulty grasping..
hmm.. maybe I can draw it out in pictures to help...

Guess you slept through some chemistry lessons as well.

do me a favor, do NOT be ignorant. If you think your gasoline powered car will run on diesel or vice virsa.. then by all means, try it.
How about ethanol? Methanol? Hydrogen? How about the steam cars that used purified water? or electric cars?

tell me, which of those has interchangable fuels?
Perhaps the short bus didnt make it all the way to your chemistry classes?

Despite this I can't think of a single windows application (not game) that I can't run under Linux.

Mapics, MRP, SeaGull to name 3 of the major ones I used in the office.

 

[armstrong]

Mapics, MRP, SeaGull to name 3 of the major ones I used in the office.

Did you try using a windows emulator in Linux? Which Linux flavor did you try it on? Any links to the softwares you mentioned so maybe a Linux user from here can try his hand?

And what about all the anti-competitive effects of software patents I labored to lay out for you? Given them any thought yet? As well for chairman Bill's quoted opinion?

 

[Mystic]

even me who has had linux under 2 weeks can run any program i need with little tweaking, so thats incompatibilty for you, who cares if theres 200 different formats? shouldnt we get the choice, i would hate it if you were a politician, take some time to actually consider the facts, we dont want to all use softwarr that big huge companies make, i think some free software is better than paid, Gimp is much better than photoshop, and talk about incompatibilty, it actually opens jpegs and all other stuff MSpaint opens, and more, WOAH!!! [sarcasm]now anyone using gimp would have a lot of compatibibly issues[/sarcasm]lee, we deserve the choice, not all suffer under micro$oft windows or other corporate giants, who the hell is forcing you to use the so called lower quality software, why is it loqwer quality? because they have passion to do it for free, its same quality if not better, with patents, if microsoft made some stupid technology that done something special, nobody could use anythign but microsoft, thats just stupid, no competition, which means it will crush all smaller software businesses trying to sell software to make a livin, result, microsoft richer, a few people out of a job, patents have a lot of negative sides and i see no positive, and by the results of the poll, i think not a lot of people agree

and lee, you keep comparing software to cars, let me clear this up for you, cars are completely different to software, ok?