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]

Just dug up this gem - Microsoft's patent on "online bill payment" :

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,839,687

so now anyone int the US thinking of developing a an automatic billing system needs to dance around this patent.

More patent insanity here - http://pcbuyersguide.com/editorials/Editorial-Patent_insanity.html - cover such common things like multimedia (now rescinded), "pay per use", electronic shopping cart, Secure Commerce by mobile phone, etc. The article gives a perfect example of "patent war":

Adobe in May 2002 won its court case against Macromedia, in which a jury upheld its claim to a pair of patents on tabbed palettes, which provide a user interface for displaying several sets of information in the same space. Macromedia countered with a claim that Adobe infringed on Macromedia's patents for a draw-based editor for Web pages and a hierarchical structure editor for Web sites -- a suit that resulted in Macromedia winning $4.9 million from Adobe only eight days later. Critics of the verdict say GUI lawsuits will have a chilling effect to not only programmers but webpage designers and interactive content creators.

What happens when these big companies start squeezing small companies and individuals who don't have patents of their own with which to fight back? This is precisely the situation implied by chairman Bill.

 

[Mystic]

patents are evil

 

[primacomputer]

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.

You made numerous analogies to the car industry and software with respect to patents. You claimed that the one of the main reasons cars developed was because of Ford patents. So what exactly did you mean by this? How does this relate to software patents?

Since cars are your thing you clearly must know that one of the main reasons for Fords initial success was because he fought the Selden patent for a decade and eventually had it declared unenforceable. It is, in fact, due to Fords opposition of patents not his collection of them that lead to mass production of the Model T.

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...

What does any of this have to do with patents. How was it enhanced of facilitated by them? Patents are the subject of this thread. Changing the subject won't make your position on software patents right.

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?

So you DO understand the fact that we do not have 40 types of fuel at the pump is it's largely because of chemistry and has nothing to do with patents? I'm sorry I ignorantly assumed you didn't when you said that without patents we would be stuck “with 40 types of fuels... or worse.. 40 different gas stations to find the one iwht gas suitable for your brand”. My bad.

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

I don't use Mapics, but according numerous reviews I found on Google it runs on Linux.
MRP is a type of software, of which Mapics is one brand. I'm not sure what software you are referring to when you say “MRP”.
I'm also not sure what Seagull software you are referring to. Is it perhaps these guys?
http://www.seagullsoftware.com/about/media/pressreleases/181.html

Gimp is much better than photoshop, and talk about incompatibilty, it actually opens jpegs and all other stuff MSpaint opens, and more, WOAH!!!

The GIMP is awesome. So are Open Office, Firefox, Evolution, and of course Linux. All examples of high quality reliable free software whos development would be seriously inhibited if Microsoft were allow to patent anything they wanted.

 

[Mystic]

yeah, he should try it, use xandros:

http://xandros.com

:D

 

[LeeRyder]

You made numerous analogies to the car industry and software with respect to patents. You claimed that the one of the main reasons cars developed was because of Ford patents. So what exactly did you mean by this? How does this relate to software patents?

I was referring to the Parallels to the automotive industry and the computer/online industry.
I wasnt saying the reason why we drive is cause ford got patents.. Im saying it was a unifying force to ensure that the greater of autodom went in the same direction.

This related to S/W in that they (as Im sure most industries) run along certain guidelines... save the.. as the auto industry in 1909, the computer industry today is run by consumer input more than..say..the movie / tv industry today that is run by what is profitable.

**Apollo.. I'll get to your stuff shortly.. let me refresh my memory of the thread**

 

[primacomputer]

I was referring to the Parallels to the automotive industry and the computer/online industry.
I wasnt saying the reason why we drive is cause ford got patents.. Im saying it was a unifying force to ensure that the greater of autodom went in the same direction.

You are going to have to point out these parallels and provide examples of how patents helped the industry then. You need to provide solid WWWWWH examples not vague generalizations. It's a well established fact that patents, in particular the Seldon patent, stunted the development of the US auto industry. If you can provide examples of how a patent during that period helped the industry grow I'd love to hear it, in particular if it helped by establishing some sort of “direction” or “standards”. Perhaps you can list some of these Ford patents you are referring to?

This related to S/W in that they (as Im sure most industries) run along certain guidelines... save the.. as the auto industry in 1909, the computer industry today is run by consumer input more than..say..the movie / tv industry today that is run by what is profitable.

The software industry of today does not run along the same guidelines as the auto industry of 1909. The auto industry of 1909 was not run by consumer input. Fords unconditional opposition to changing the Model T based on customer input is legendary. The auto industry of 1909 was driven by a vision to stamp out enough identically designed black Model Ts to get production costs down to the price where every man, woman, and child could afford one. It was not until 15 years later that consumers started wanting more. It was GM who then stepped in to provide this while Ford closed down his factory for half to year to do an emergency design of a new model.

It's all interesting history, but the fact remains that none of this was significantly (if at all) aided by patents.

 

[LeeRyder]

You are going to have to point out these parallels and provide examples of how patents helped the industry then

OK stuff like the standard widths of automobiles/trucks..etc to make it so all vehicles will "fit" within the lanes..thereby forcing the govt to make lanes 12ft in width.

gasoline standards

Lighting standards

gearing ratios which allowed the vehicles to run at speeds compairable to what was achievable of the day (back then, 25mph was fast, gearing a car to go 12mph would have been a safety hazard..etc)

etc etc etc

The auto industry of 1909 was not run by consumer input. Fords unconditional opposition to changing the Model T based on customer input is legendary.

which is why Ford lost the majority of the market in the 30's. consumers wanted more choices, styles, colors, engines, room, configurations..etc.

chevy, dodge brothers, Hoopmobile..etc.. all filled this nitch. Ford then realised the errors of their ways but not before falling from the #1 spot.

 

[armstrong]

OK stuff like the standard widths of automobiles/trucks..etc to make it so all vehicles will "fit" within the lanes..thereby forcing the govt to make lanes 12ft in width.

Looks to me like no one's stopping anyone from creating wide or thin vehicles, unless they make them unsafe in some way. Plus I've seen enough roads in different countries to know that lane widths do in fact vary. Just a day's drive in San Francisco would make this painfully obvious.

Anyway, the way I see it there really is no need to try to draw parallels between the software and the auto industry from 100 years ago. All this is doing is taking the thread off topic.

Instead, why not focus this discussion on the actual theoretical process of software development? Like I said, it is detrimental to an individual programmer's productivity to need to refer to a lawyer every time he hits on what seems like a promising new idea, then during development to gingerly examine all his code to see if maybe the way he made some small part of the program steps on another trivial patent, then after product launch to prosecute others copying his idea (remember that failure to do so would dilute his own possible patent claim). Since patents were put in place to encourage new ideas, then what's the point of retarding software development via software patents? Just to make a few mega-rich corporations even richer?

 

[primacomputer]

OK stuff like the standard widths of automobiles/trucks..etc to make it so all vehicles will "fit" within the lanes..thereby forcing the govt to make lanes 12ft in width.

gasoline standards

Lighting standards

gearing ratios which allowed the vehicles to run at speeds compairable to what was achievable of the day (back then, 25mph was fast, gearing a car to go 12mph would have been a safety hazard..etc)

etc etc etc

Again, for your analogy to hold any water you are going to have to provide examples of patents and how they helped. So far we have -1 patents in favour of your argument.

Who patented the width of a car or lane? The “standard” (which is by no means an official nation wide standard) of 12 feet is based on the width of rail cars, which pre-date cars. Lanes typically range between 8 and 18 feet, and there are no doubt some are even smaller and perhaps larger.

Who patented gasoline standards, lighting standards, etc, etc?

Anyway, the way I see it there really is no need to try to draw parallels between the software and the auto industry from 100 years ago. All this is doing is taking the thread off topic.

I agree 100%. This is going nowhere. This is not a discussion of the merits of software standards, it is a discussion of software patents. But apparently it is easier to try to change the subject than to try to come up with examples of patents that helped early auto development.

Instead, why not focus this discussion on the actual theoretical process of software development?

Or even the real world harm that has been done by software patents. Remember the US has had them in some form since the mid 80s.

A good example is the RSA patent. A simple mathematical formula developed in 1976, and used widely, ends up being patented. The result was to create a cryptography monopoly at the exspense of nearly all other develolpers.

Or how about a few years back when British Telecom announced that they had a 1989 patent for “hyperlinks”, and decided they wanted to start charging the whole world royalties for every click. Fortunately they eventually backed down to keep from making themselves look like total asses. What would have happened if a more blood thirsty company (ie MS) had such a patent and decided to enforce it?

The GIF patents are also a good example. Still more evil patent spawn of the 80's, in the mid 90s the owners decided they would start charging after they had been being widely used for over a decade. Fortunately they have now expired and we have PNG, but IBM/Unisys effectively blackmailed the entire GIF dependant internet for a decade.

 

[Rowan W]

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

Well he's on my ignore list. :p

Anyway, I'm completely against Software Patents.

Take Blender 3D for example, simply the best value-for-nothing program available. Not to mention all the other 3D programs around, it's a good thing the 3D industry is relatively patent-free.