Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
Sometimes you can't win for trying. Like when you politely ask the kid sitting next to you on the subway who is playing his music a little loud to please turn it down. Just to be contrary, he responds by cranking it up even more. In my March 15 column, Lowering the Volume in the Software Patent Debate, I suggested with the best of intentions that it might help everyone to lower the volume in the software patent debate. Naturally, I received some very LOUD responses to that column.
Re: No Really, Lower the Volume Already
Posted by: redcurrant 2005-03-30 23:55:35 In reply to: Philip H. Albert
Sometimes you can't win because of editorial policy (a polite way of saying 'censorship' where I live). Why was my comment for Mar 15 not posted? There was no shouting on my part, simply references to sets of papers and journals. Out here in the real world, linuxinsider is seen simply as a mouthpiece for the pro-patent lobby.
Re: No Really, Lower the Volume Already
Posted by: redcurrant 2005-03-30 12:12:18 In reply to: Philip H. Albert
Was there really a lot of noise in response to the Mar 15 column? I can see only one comment posted. Or was there? I posted a comment pointing out the factual errors regarding patents, innovation and economics. That is, that there is no positive correlation between patents and innovation or between patents and an improved economy. I referred to academic papers and journals. My comment did not appear. No doubt, the volume is being turned down - but not by software professionals. Only by those deluded into believing software patents are a good thing...
Re: No Really, Lower the Volume Already
Posted by: J_W_W 2005-03-30 14:07:24 In reply to: redcurrant
I concur with this comment. I don't think the volume was too loud the last time. And now it looks like there is really no debate. As yet there are no replys as explaining and/or rebutting the position of those that are against software patents. Being against software patents is a valid explaiable position. All the people speaking against software patents are not all yelling, some of them are saying thoughtful things.
So where's the debate here?
So where's the debate here?
Re: No Really, Lower the Volume Already
Posted by: abominog 2005-03-29 20:49:34 In reply to: Philip H. Albert
The problem that I see with the author's "...opposing patents on noninventive concepts," idea is simply that the patent office isn't equipped to deal with the question of what's inventive and noninventive.
So, until it is possible for the patent office to make such determinations with a resonable amount of accuracy, I feel that patents on software inventions should not be granted.
So, until it is possible for the patent office to make such determinations with a resonable amount of accuracy, I feel that patents on software inventions should not be granted.
Re: No Really, Lower the Volume Already
Posted by: J_W_W 2005-03-29 15:43:27 In reply to: Philip H. Albert
The problem really boils down to that fact that, in my opinion, software patents are destructive. That is, they are used to stop competitors and detstroy free markets for software. Most software patents are not really inventions, but features of software that some company wants to own. There's nothing truly intuitive about "one-click" shopping on the web.
To extrapolate. Imagine if we had always had patents on computing. Someone could have patented the process of putting an impression of a character on a piece of paper, for example. They would essentially owned the process of printing using a computer. Patents like this are what are being created for software, and patents like this are being used to sue competitors out of business. The free market is suffering for this. In my example one company would own printing. Lets just say that their printer was a stupenduously slow daisy wheel printer. No other printers would have come into being, even though we know throug hindsight that there are much better ways to print. Nope, this example would have the patent holder owning the very transmission of a character to a printer, which could have locked every other printer creater out of the business.
Does that example sound too far fetched. Well, what about e-commerce? There are so many patents trying to say that they have a unique way to do x, y, or z. But really its still just a logical extention of the storefront.
Algorithms should not be patentable, because algorithms are just expressions of thought, and while expressions of thought should be copyrightable in their content, patenting the thouoght of one particular function or another is patently ridiculous.
To extrapolate. Imagine if we had always had patents on computing. Someone could have patented the process of putting an impression of a character on a piece of paper, for example. They would essentially owned the process of printing using a computer. Patents like this are what are being created for software, and patents like this are being used to sue competitors out of business. The free market is suffering for this. In my example one company would own printing. Lets just say that their printer was a stupenduously slow daisy wheel printer. No other printers would have come into being, even though we know throug hindsight that there are much better ways to print. Nope, this example would have the patent holder owning the very transmission of a character to a printer, which could have locked every other printer creater out of the business.
Does that example sound too far fetched. Well, what about e-commerce? There are so many patents trying to say that they have a unique way to do x, y, or z. But really its still just a logical extention of the storefront.
Algorithms should not be patentable, because algorithms are just expressions of thought, and while expressions of thought should be copyrightable in their content, patenting the thouoght of one particular function or another is patently ridiculous.
Re: No Really, Lower the Volume Already
Posted by: Kagehi 2005-03-29 11:27:19 In reply to: Philip H. Albert
Hmm. Ok. Valid points, however if this:
"(you cannot patent something that already existed before you invented it) and inventiveness/nonobviousness (even if it did not already exist, but an obvious variation of it did, you still cannot patent it)"
-
is really true, then Microsoft is in some really serious trouble. I would guess that they have patents on a lot of stuff in Windows that also exist on other GUI desktops, some even before MS got involve in such things. Their favorite method of killing competition is taking an 'existing' protocol, making a trivial and often unnecessary change to it, then patenting that. Then their is the latest concept of patenting software in combination of hardware, specifically thinks like having one button check your email on a mobile device or similar stupidities, which are hardly new ideas, unless you include the device itself, which is 'only' hardware. Patents on such trivial combinations mean that even if you figure out how to still different software on the device, you 'might' be breaking a patent by just puting different software on it and anyone that links that one stupid key to email is 'definitely' breaking the patent. This is quite insane. I don't expect anyone to sell me a car with the patent saying I can only use 'their' chip in the engine or that if I use a different one I am not allowed to use the wind shield wipers, because they patented a chip that routes windshield wiper control through the damn chip. Why should I find it reasonable for someone to pull that kind it BS on me with a PDA?
-
But its not 'ease' of creation that is at question here. Its ease of discovery and available functionality. No one can patent a law of physics. Why? Not because someone didn't discover it first or how to use it, but because attempting to solve a problem using any other method that tries to defy that law it probably going to fail. Maybe rockets could be built to operate from a huge amgnetic rail gun or a giant water cannon, but the first of those would probably take more power to use than most cities, while the second would probably not even work, so we use rockets. Patent a rocket? Yes. Patent the 'idea' of a rocket? That gets to be a bit more problematic. Patent the idea of propelling object using onboard fuel sources and directional thrust (which can even cover the water idea of you pressurize it onboard)? Now you have a *major* problem. This is the situation you get in software quite often. There is only one 'right' idea that could work with the resources available and only one or a very small few effective way to do it. Its not about 'ease' of creation, its about the impossibility in some cases of finding usable alternative solutions. The more people there are that hoard such things, the fewer there are to improve on or use them and at some point the development of a project could become prohibitively expensive, especially if 'everyone' patented, no one gave anything away for free use and ten years from now some new type of compute comes along, most 'old' solutions are no longer viable and you have to pay royalties for 5,000 patents, just to turn the damn things on. So yeah, bad patents are the problem, but a bigger problem seems to be recognizing when they are bad. The profiteers will argue that 'any' code is patentable, even if its somethings are trivial as clicking a bloody speaker to play music, because they where too cheap to include a synth chip, and the patent office would probably grant it, while completely missing the fact that the same technique has been used since the days of the Apple II. But, they will now argue, this is clicking the speaker on a PDA, not a computer, so it still should be patentable. Right....
As I said, you have a valid point that it is 'bad' patents that are a problem, but the people deciding what 'bad' constitutes are under staffed and badly trained patent clerks, big corporations, special interest groups funded by big companies and lawyers. Three of the four have no qualifications to make such determinations, though the first of them are supposed to, while the companies have no real incentive to argue against the bad ones, unless they are too small to pay up to those that have patents or hire their own lawyers to fight the same. The privateers have all the ships and their answer to every problem is "Make them pay ransom or walk the plank." This understandibly tends to upset people that can't do the former and don't think it should be legal to let companies make them do that later.
"(you cannot patent something that already existed before you invented it) and inventiveness/nonobviousness (even if it did not already exist, but an obvious variation of it did, you still cannot patent it)"
-
is really true, then Microsoft is in some really serious trouble. I would guess that they have patents on a lot of stuff in Windows that also exist on other GUI desktops, some even before MS got involve in such things. Their favorite method of killing competition is taking an 'existing' protocol, making a trivial and often unnecessary change to it, then patenting that. Then their is the latest concept of patenting software in combination of hardware, specifically thinks like having one button check your email on a mobile device or similar stupidities, which are hardly new ideas, unless you include the device itself, which is 'only' hardware. Patents on such trivial combinations mean that even if you figure out how to still different software on the device, you 'might' be breaking a patent by just puting different software on it and anyone that links that one stupid key to email is 'definitely' breaking the patent. This is quite insane. I don't expect anyone to sell me a car with the patent saying I can only use 'their' chip in the engine or that if I use a different one I am not allowed to use the wind shield wipers, because they patented a chip that routes windshield wiper control through the damn chip. Why should I find it reasonable for someone to pull that kind it BS on me with a PDA?
-
But its not 'ease' of creation that is at question here. Its ease of discovery and available functionality. No one can patent a law of physics. Why? Not because someone didn't discover it first or how to use it, but because attempting to solve a problem using any other method that tries to defy that law it probably going to fail. Maybe rockets could be built to operate from a huge amgnetic rail gun or a giant water cannon, but the first of those would probably take more power to use than most cities, while the second would probably not even work, so we use rockets. Patent a rocket? Yes. Patent the 'idea' of a rocket? That gets to be a bit more problematic. Patent the idea of propelling object using onboard fuel sources and directional thrust (which can even cover the water idea of you pressurize it onboard)? Now you have a *major* problem. This is the situation you get in software quite often. There is only one 'right' idea that could work with the resources available and only one or a very small few effective way to do it. Its not about 'ease' of creation, its about the impossibility in some cases of finding usable alternative solutions. The more people there are that hoard such things, the fewer there are to improve on or use them and at some point the development of a project could become prohibitively expensive, especially if 'everyone' patented, no one gave anything away for free use and ten years from now some new type of compute comes along, most 'old' solutions are no longer viable and you have to pay royalties for 5,000 patents, just to turn the damn things on. So yeah, bad patents are the problem, but a bigger problem seems to be recognizing when they are bad. The profiteers will argue that 'any' code is patentable, even if its somethings are trivial as clicking a bloody speaker to play music, because they where too cheap to include a synth chip, and the patent office would probably grant it, while completely missing the fact that the same technique has been used since the days of the Apple II. But, they will now argue, this is clicking the speaker on a PDA, not a computer, so it still should be patentable. Right....
As I said, you have a valid point that it is 'bad' patents that are a problem, but the people deciding what 'bad' constitutes are under staffed and badly trained patent clerks, big corporations, special interest groups funded by big companies and lawyers. Three of the four have no qualifications to make such determinations, though the first of them are supposed to, while the companies have no real incentive to argue against the bad ones, unless they are too small to pay up to those that have patents or hire their own lawyers to fight the same. The privateers have all the ships and their answer to every problem is "Make them pay ransom or walk the plank." This understandibly tends to upset people that can't do the former and don't think it should be legal to let companies make them do that later.
