Linux.com

"What programmers need, in order to do their work safely, is the abolition of software patents."

The same argument could be made for all intellectual property. However the risk/reward conundrum applies as much to creations in the digital domain as it does in the physical one. Maybe what software patents need is a higher standard than other patents, and a shorter time. So that research that gave us MP3 and other technology can go on, and yet programmers can do what's needed sooner.

BTW as the PNG and OGG efforts have shown software patents can be a good thing in that others will innovate instead of "safely" riding your coat tails.

#

I think your confusion comes from the use of the term "intellectual property". <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml</a gnu.org>

#

The crux of the problem is that open/free source are _clearly_ providing solutions that further the sciences and arts. As a result, what right does a patent (a monopoly created in the hope of promoting science & arts) have to countermand the rights of open/free software (proven promotion of science/arts without the need for a monopoly).

#

Your argument could be turned 180 and one could ask "what right does open source have to deprive a patent holder of their rights"? The argument isn't one of superior/inferior, but of compromises for all concerned.* I've already made my suggestion, as well as showing that innovation happens as much from barriers as it does from coattails.

*The "all or nothing" attitude of stallman doesn't always work.

#

Your argument could be turned 180 and one could ask "what right does open source have to deprive a patent holder of their rights"?

The patent system isn't about rights, it's about encouraging innovation. The fact that rights fit into it was a fortunate coincidence but as soon as innovation is threatened (patents holding back open development), the system has to change.

#

Unfortunately the people who use the "holding back" argument, use a really loose definition. Not that OSS has really been all that innovative to begin with. More derivative actually. Now when OSS is actually doing the R&D instead of the coattails, then I'll buy your "holding back" argument.

#

"The same argument could be made for all intellectual property."

No, it could not.

If I happen to write some text that is substantially the same as some text you wrote, and I had no way of knowing what you wrote, I am OK.

With patents, this is not true.

If I want to check if I am infringing wrt material I am using, I simply find the origin of that material and check the license. If I am the origin of the material, the search is a no-op.

With patents this is not true.

Forget the cost of challenging an absurd patent, the biggest problem with software patents is the cost of researching whether your software does anything that has been patented.

Get back to me when you have solved that one.

#

Hi,

I'm currently attending to this meeting, and thought that I'd give *my* view of this project:

> Such a project cannot really protect programmers
> from software patents,

correct

> it focuses only on absurd software patents --
> those that could be legally denied or
> invalidated based on prior art.

also correct

> However, the greatest danger comes from
> patents that are not absurd, those for which we
> have no prior art.

absolutely right

> The project is not just incomplete -- it can
> backfire, too.
> [..]
> If the worst thing about the project were its
> inability to solve the whole problem, it would
> still be better than nothing. But given that it
> can also backfire, it can be worse than nothing.

Here I disagree:
You should never hold back any information, just because it *could* be bad. Isn't that one of the basics of free software?
If we would start to hide our projects, or wouldn't agree on a project whose only goal is to make software easier to find ( for everybody, including the USPTO), then we would be definitely on the wrong way!

> Some large companies are starting to recognize
> the problem that software patents cause; but
> since they have research labs and large patent
> portfolios, they do not want to eliminate
> software patents. They only want to get rid of
> the absurd ones that are likely to cause trouble
> for them.

jupp, that's right

> So they now call for measures to "improve patent
> quality." The OSDL project responds to this
> appeal, but it doesn't serve the needs of
> software developers and users in general.

Well, I think it really does. But it's not a political project that tries to get rid of software patents general.
If you wanna do this, please support the ffii (<a href="http://www.ffii.org/" title="ffii.org">http://www.ffii.org/</a ffii.org>) just as I do.

Jan Kechel

PS: As soon as someone really proofes that I'm wrong on this, I'll be happy to leave.

#

"Here I disagree:
You should never hold back any information, just because it *could* be bad. Isn't that one of the basics of free software?"

I think you're missing the point on this. It isn't about withholding information, it's about using it in the most effective way.

If prior art is disclosed through this open system, Richard suggests it will be used to work around the example. After being reviewed by the patent office, a judge will probably not allow this prior art to be discussed further.

If on the other hand prior art is revealed only when necessary (and not sooner) it will be both more effective and shared. The judge will be more likely to consider it when rejecting a patent, and it will not be "held back" any longer.

#

I would say it could be compared to protecting Free Software with CCTV cameras. You can either make them obvious and tell everyone where they are in the hope that an offense won't be committed (but this implies telling people which areas are not protected, thus directing actions to unprotected areas), or you can keep them hidden and only release the tapes in court, which should stop most offenses but would not reduce the number in the short term.

As far as new software patents are concerned, I agree that it is important to stop any getting through. The OSDL's initiative does nothing to stop software patents, it only "fixes" the current implementation. Kind of reminds me of Mr Stallman's comments on Open Source DRM, that Open Source advocates itself as an efficient development model whilst DRM is the one thing that should remain bug-filled and broken.

#

"You should never hold back any information, just because it *could* be bad. Isn't that one of the basics of free software?"

It's not about withholding information versus telling the truth. It's about, should a bunch of people expend significant effort to research and catalogue information, or should they not.

#

This 'Prior Art' database for defense against patents idea has been around for years, and it's as stupid and misguided today as it was then. One should never give an opponent, an itemized list of ones strong points.
It just translates into a time saver. "For Them!"

#

I understand well the points about software patents, but I wanted to get some opinons about copyright. What if a programmer decided to write closed source software, would be okay if he/she decided to copyright their work?

The way I understand it, patents can keep others from doing a particular task (they are so broad when it comes to software), while copyright would keep somebody from using a particular set of code to complete a task.

Am I off base here? What do you think of copyrighting code?

#

Copyright is almost automatic in the US -- if you can be identified as the creator of something you can be assigned copyrights to it.

If you work creating closed source (proprietary) software then ownership of copyright is a business issue. Your employer will have a policy or contract describing work you produce that they claim ownership rights to.

If you have copyrights to an original piece of work, you can decide how to license it for public consumption, for the duration of your exclusive rights. That's what the GPL is: a license for distributing copyrighted material.

There is a lot of discussion about Public Domain and other licenses. Many argue that the existence of copyright is sufficient to protect software. It qualifies fo copyright, not patenting, by virtue of the fact that any time a program is executed much if not all of it is copied to memory, and reproduction typically involves a copy on magnetic or optical storage.

#

I think you don't understand copyright.

#

The biggest problem with patents is the process called evergreening.

You Patent once. When that gets near its end you Patent again just with different wording.

Yes this is legally wrong. But its happening.

What we need is a mirror list. Patented in one list. Public Domain in another. If a company Patents something covered by the Public Domain list they are guilty of IP thieft. And have to provide patents to the Public Domain pile as payment. If have no other Patents must provide working documentation/source code public domain to everything they made that depended on the patent.

It will work because it hurts to break it.

#

A couple of years ago, Richard Stallman provided a link from his home page <a href="http://www.stallman.org/archives/2004-may-aug.html" title="stallman.org">http://www.stallman.org/archives/2004-may-aug.htm<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> </a stallman.org> to a 9/11 article on the forum of www.globalresearch.ca that I have since posted on <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/</a coconia.net> and <a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/" title="domaindlx.com">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/</a domaindlx.com>, namely:

"The World Trade Center Fires - Proof that 9/11 is a Gigantic Lie."

<a href="http://linux.coconia.net/gr/523.htm" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/gr/523.htm</a coconia.net>
<a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/gr/523.htm" title="domaindlx.com">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/gr/523.htm</a domaindlx.com>

On his website he states "I am not knowledgeable enough to judge the validity of these arguments, but if the 9/11 investigation does not consider them carefully, it is bogus."

I would like Richard to tell me if he has come to any conclusions yet (concerning the article).

#

Wow, thought you'd go for the shock tactics did you? Just thought I'd say that 1) How can Richard Stallman come to any "conclusions" about something he has apparently claimed is in an area beyond him and 2) What the hell kind of propaganda are you into that advocates near-religious upholding of one idea at the damnation of all others? If an argument is obviously bogus then surely it can be countered completely in an instant, and if it can't be countered then it must have some form of validity.

Why don't you spread your hate somewhere else?

PS: I am not Richard Stallman

#

"1) How can Richard Stallman come to any "conclusions" about something he has apparently claimed is in an area beyond him"

Sorry turkey, but Richard made this comment OVER 2 years ago.

It is possible that Richard has come to some conclusions in the intervening years. He may have even read a couple of books on engineering, who knows?

As for the rest of your post,... I'll just assume you are an idiot.

So why don't YOU (yes you turkey) spread your hate somewhere else?

#

I don't really get it. Appart from the abuse of bolding, what is wrong with the first post? Was it meant to be a character attack on Richard by pointing out that he is willing to consider all possibilities and also knows the limits of his ability to pass judgment on a piece?

If so, I don't get it. That's a complement, right? Or are we now living in a land of sacred cows? I, having stumbled across that particular article about the WTC colapse a couple of months ago, and not being able to say ya or nay as I also am not a structural engineer, would like to hear some more as well. At the time of the colapse, I remember being quite amazed they fell (after having stood for so long after being hit) and that they fell so cleanly into their footprint.

I find it disturbing that there are apparently experts who are also amazed. And, yes, if the 9/11 investigation did not seriously consider everthing, then it is also my opinion that it (the investigation) is bogus. Personally, being heavily involved in computational mathematics, I am not at all pleased to hear they apparently had to seriously muck their model in order to get the results they wanted.

What is the point of an inquiry where the outcome is determined a prior?

#

Well as an engineer I'll reserve judgement on the "evidence". However I do fail to see of what relevence Stallmen is to the article. Last I checked he's not an engineer, and especially not a structual engineer. Am I missing something?

#

Why don't you go to <a href="http://www.stallman.org/" title="stallman.org">http://www.stallman.org/</a stallman.org> find his email address and ask him directly? Could it be that you have another intention in mind than merely gathering the information you claim to be after? That's certainly what a reasonable person might gather from your post.

#

The lobbyists on the side of big soft corps are doing their work in order to see the European Litigation Patent Agreement passed in Europe.
Proposals to pass software patentability have been tried 4 or 5 times in the past and always defeated.
But they keep trying and this time, the software patent bill is disguised inside a more general schema.
We must stop this.
Hope that the EFF is already fighting on this one.
Here you can find up-to-date info on the ongoing patent wars in Europe:

<a href="http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/" title="no-lobbyists-as-such.com">http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-muell<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> r-blog/</a no-lobbyists-as-such.com>

<a href="http://consultation.ffii.org/" title="ffii.org">http://consultation.ffii.org/</a ffii.org>

#

I am surprised and extremely disappointed that patent-litigation defendants have been left out of this discussion. Perhaps I am the only one who has been on the receiving end of a patent shakedown ring.

The key thing you need to understand about patent shakedowns is that that "shakers" have years in which to stare at code in preparation for the shakedown. In contrast, the "shakees" will have perhaps 30-60 days in which to either gather invalidating prior art or to prove that they do not infringe. If they fail to do so, they will likely be hit with a preliminary injunction that will shut them down, regardless of whether or not the "shakers" had a legitimate case. The "shakees" need all the help they can get -- and annotating prior art (including FOSS packages) can be extremely helpful to the "shakees".

Perhaps you just don't care about these "shakees". That would be your choice (a bad one in my opinion, but your choice). However, you most certainly should care about the fact that every successful patent shakedown puts more money in the "shakers" pockets. No doubt some of this money will be wasted on high living, but much of it will go into creating even more patents and into resisting badly needed patent reform -- for example, into resisting abolition of software patents. Preventing the patent shakedowns that are already happening all around us is clearly extremely important. Tagging prior art is one very good way of preventing patent shakedowns.

But what about the possibility that the identification of prior art will result in stronger and more dangerous patents? This danger is quite real. However, it is not immediate, since it takes years to create a new patent, years in which significant reform might be possible. In contrast, the very large number of low-quality or just plain invalid patents that exist today are already dangerous, and, as we have seen, that danger will be exploited to generate the money required to resist the reforms that are so badly needed.

So, yes, tagging FOSS prior art might well be dangerous. However, failing to do so will be even more dangerous, both immediately and in the longer term. In particular, failing to resist the ongoing "shakedowns" will make real reform, up to and including abolition of software patents, even more difficult. Let's all face up to the fact that the multi-hundred-million-dollar judgements and settlements we have seen can -- and will -- buy an incredible amount of resistance to patent reform. Sad, but very true nonetheless.

Finally, what of the danger that a partial solution will remove motivation for further reform? Each one of us can ask ourselves that question. And if you think that pervasive tagging of prior art would sap your motivation for further patent reform, then please, please, please rethink your priorities. On the other hand, if pervasive tagging would -not- sap your motivation, then there is no problem!!!

Paul E. McKenney
(My personal opinions herein -- if you think I obtained approval to say these words on behalf of my employer, please let us all know what you are smoking!)

#

Stallman, take your GPL an go to your own Planet. You are to fuckin stupid to live on this world.

#

Considering the depth and quality of your remarks, I was wondering what we all should address you as. Mr. President, Senator, General, or just Your-Honor.

#

Nothing left to say. Ban GPL. Freedom for all.

#

I hope you are trying to be funny. That's like saying, "Ban the bill of rights -- freedom for all"...

Yeah, there are things the bill of rights does not permit people to do (and hence it is not a bill of freedom in the ultimate sence). However, if it didn't exist, there are those who would quickly exercise those additional freedoms the bill of rights takes from them to take away everyone else's freedom.

Understand that, and you will understand the GPL.

#

Although I strongly disagree with Stallman on this particular issue, I do recognize and honor his massive contributions to F/OSS. I expect that either (1) Stallman or one of his people will show me the error of my ways or (2) I will learn that Stallman was simply having a bad day (the man is human, after all!).

Either way, the parent post is completely out of line and completely inappropriate. It is impossible to overstate the value of Stallman's GPL, so I would much prefer that Stallman at least leave a copy of GPL on this planet.

As to calling Stallman "stupid"... This is so far out of line that words completely fail me.

Any chance of moderating the parent post? It certainly qualifies as inflammatory, inappropriate, and offensive (to me, anyway).

Paul E. McKenney (speaking for myself, not necessarily for my employer)

#

While I agree with Stallman on this issue and certainly most software issues (in a free society information needs to be freely available to all classes of people). I haven't heard any other good ideas for making that happen.

I strongly agree with the rest of your statements.

#

"(in a free society information needs to be freely available to all classes of people)"

Making content creators slaves to the "free" masses might work. Abolish all forms of IP, and just wait for the "free" work to roll in. After all it's rolling in now (those darn artists just can't help themselves), and history shows us that artists had it really good in the "good old days". When men were men, and patrons paid all the bills, then gave it to the masses (those patrons had exquisite taste). Or artists sat around streetcorners, hat in hand, playing their instruments, and begging like a commoner. Yes this present system is bad, allowing artists to be equals with their "physical goods" bretheren. Back to the "bit" mines with them.

#

"Making content creators slaves to the "free" masses"

While currently content creators are slaves to the megacorps and rarely retain the rights to their own creations. We sure have come a long way, eh?

The few artists that make megabucks are vastly outnumbered by the many who just make a living. Just like sports players that are payed megabucks. I don't feel my life is enriched by those few as much as it is by the many who play for fun and get by on a living wage instead of a multimillion dollar salary.

#

"While currently content creators are slaves to the megacorps and rarely retain the rights to their own creations. We sure have come a long way, eh?"

Well at least IP law allows a content creator to have something to negotiate with when creating a contract with a "megacorp". Abolishment of IP would take away even that.

"Just like sports players that are payed megabucks. I don't feel my life is enriched by those few as much as it is by the many who play for fun and get by on a living wage instead of a multimillion dollar salary. "

Well that's an aspect of "contract law", not IP. And the wonderful thing about our system is that those who DO feel that sports players (and other megastars) are worth it, aren't penalized by the judgemental who don't.

A fairer system than anything the "I don't like IP" crowd could ever come up with.

#

Stallman is a GENIUS.
The GPL is brilliant.

Stallman & 9/11?????

Jade @ <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/</a coconia.net>

#

Dear Mr. Stallman:
Is someone from the FSF(or FSFEurope)fighting on the issue of the EPLA European Patent Litigation Agreement. Please, publicise it in order to alert anyone who could be interested in/affected by this issue.
How about a campaign the like of "DRM defective by design.org" or the "Patent Busting" campaign not long ago of the EFF??
Maybe a joint effort of EFF+FSF is worthwhile on this issue, and could spearhead a general movement against software patents worldwide and further atempts on the side of pro-patent lobbyies in the EU to avoid democratic control.
We have a very good opportunity to stop the proliferation of Software Patentes worldwide and stop its worldwide adoption as "established unavoidable unchangeable thruth"!
The technological independence against big technology corporations of member countries of the European Union and the advancement -maybe survilval- of Free Software is at stake as well!!!

<a href="http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/" title="no-lobbyists-as-such.com">http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-muell<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> r-blog/</a no-lobbyists-as-such.com>
<a href="http://press.ffii.org/Software_patent_news" title="ffii.org">http://press.ffii.org/Software_patent_news</a ffii.org>
<a href="http://wiki.ffii.org/EplaQuestionsEn" title="ffii.org">http://wiki.ffii.org/EplaQuestionsEn</a ffii.org>

#

<a href="http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/swpat.en.html" title="fsfeurope.org">http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/swpat.en.<nobr>h<wbr></nobr> tml</a fsfeurope.org>
<a href="http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/the_future_of_the_patents_battle_and_the_july_12th_hearing" title="fsfe.org">http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_s<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> ftware_notes/the_future_of_the_patents_battle_and<nobr>_<wbr></nobr> the_july_12th_hearing</a fsfe.org>

#

I don't normally agree with RMS on too many things (read: I like the bsd license) but I don't like this patent fighting strategy either. The open source world has come up with a number of strategies that are based on seemingly logical premises but end up being plain stupid.

For instance, there was an article in Linux Magazine a while ago that talked about an organization that would stockpile patents to safeguard open source developers but would turn around and use them as weapons against anybody that sues an open source project. I was dumbfounded that anybody could actually think this was a good way to fight patents (as if creating an ever-growing nuclear arsenal is a good way to promote peace...).

In general I'm pretty suspicious of anything that claims to fix a problem with the proprietary world by playing along. Kinda like accepting binary drivers.

#

What patent-fighting strategy do you suggest? Sure, it would be nice if we could wave a wand and make software patents go away, but I know of no such wand. As noted earlier, if patent shakedown rings continue to gain easy money from those who cannot afford a court battle, some of this easy money will be used to resist reform, up to and including abolition of software patents.

Paul E. McKenney (My opinions, not necessarily those of my employer)

#

Just a note to say, the top posts in this thread have really ignorant comments.

I think they may be deliberately "stupid", the logic is terrible, compared with the actual writing.

I hope there is a ratings system here that works effectively. It's very easy in a forum such as this one to top-post propoganda, knowing that any reply that corrects your idiocy will probably not be read by the 90% of people reading the forum who will be suckered in by "ignorant" opinions.

When posting replies to replies, it is helpful if you put some comment in your subject at the very least.

And when reading forums, you should be aware of tactics like this going on, that if you are not very tuned in yourself to the issue, you really should take anything with a grain of salt and check the replies people have made to each comment.

#

as described at <a href="http://infoanarchy.org/en/Totally_Evil_Patent" title="infoanarchy.org"> Totally Evil Patent</a infoanarchy.org>.

A "totally evil" patent has three properties:

1. It is valid, i.e. not invalidated by prior art.


2. Disclosure provides zero or close to zero value to society, because the invention is not important at the time of disclosure, and when it becomes important, it also becomes more obvious, and is reinvented and disclosed by other inventors.


3. The patent holder's ability to prevent use of the patented invention results in extreme disaster, for example the destruction of all human life.

#

If we refuse to work on any but perfect solutions in this imperfect world, we will be stuck in the current situation. In addition, there is room for multiple approaches.

In the case of the totally evil patent, the remedy available under current law would be for government to exercise its right of eminent domain in order to force the patent holder to back off. And in fact there is precedent for governments to confiscate private property as needed to deal with disasters. Cute example, though!

Paul E. McKenney (my opinions, not necessarily those of my employer)

#

<a href="http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html" title="threeseas.net">http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html</a threeseas.net>

Developing the proof is apparently not in accord with the vested interest of either the proprietary developers or the open source developers.

Its like the proprietary development method promotes a flat world and the open source method promotes either a two sides world or a square box.

But the World is a sphere where the process of programming is not different than any other act of building abstractions and manipulating them. Everybody gets to do it. Its a natural quality and characteristic of being human. And its a duty also as it is how we improve our environment, technologies, and social qualities.

As to 9/11. do the research! Start with following the money!!!
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stockmarket.html" title="pbs.org">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stoc<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> market.html</a pbs.org>

Money is an abstraction too, man made. Wrongful manipulation of it is no different than wrongful, fradulent claims about software being patentable.

Mans ability and persistance with promoting wrongs has been proven by example, to falsely constrain advancement. Galileo exonerated some 350 years after he was suppressed by the catholic church (199?).

Those who place false constraints on others also do themselves an injustice, as they prevent developments that might have otherwise extended their life and improved its quality.

NOBODY has the right to take that opportunity away from others.

Richard, proof of the abstraction physics nature of software that makes it not patentable, is the only thing having enough weight to cause the change. Everything else is secondary application of abstraction physics.

Once its established its only a matter of spreading the recognition of Abstraction Physics in application. Where popular use cannoty be stopped anymore than Proprietary efforts have been able to stop the spread and growth of consumer choice of open source development and use.

Got an illness you want to cure, address the cause, not the symptoms!

Anon. because I don't frequent NewsForge enough, but you can find me on slashdot "3seas"

#