»Software patents suck. Here is why...«
|
|||
 A new link regarding the idiocy of software patents (OK, hardware patents are idiotic too, but software patents are just brain cancer):  posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)Software patents suck. Here is why... |
|
|||
 So I checked out the site and on the first page you get a load of doom an gloom about why this will destroy companies and cost jobs and stuff. This is all suported by the statement Click here for a quick explanation of why software patents have the aforementioned effects Which takes you to a page which includes the overview Software patents would give large corporations a strategic advantage over small and medium-sized ones, and a potentially destructive weapon against open source. But then tells you Those effects are explained in greater detail on other pages of this website. 
So curious to why it matters, off I go in search of the scandal, only to find stuff like; 1. The patent professionals want more money and influence. Copyright is free, so you don't need patent offices and lawyers to obtain it. Those potentially make money on writing and processing patent applications, and on patent litigations. A fast-growing branch of the "patent mafia" specializes on squeezing money out of the innocent by alleging patent violations
2. Some large corporations want a powerful weapon against small but innovative competitors, or against open-source software. What they dislike about copyright is that it only helps against criminals. They want a legal instrument with which they can harm honest people. Oh so Patent people are like "Right Wing" capitalist types and Copyright people are "Lefties" 
But no seriously, what's the problem? Patents Are Weapons
When a gun goes over the counter, the seller and the buyer will always say that it's only for protection. In reality, many guns are used to rob, to kidnap, to murder, or to wage wars. It's the same with patents. Each patent is a means to prohibit that others apply certain knowledge for 20 years. That's why patents have ever less to do with true innovation, and ever more with the blocking of market segments. For instance, there are so many patents on all aspects of Internet telephony that it's almost impossible to write an Internet telephony program without "violating" a number of related patents. If you're a software company, or just a software user, then patents can be pointed at you like a gun. The patent holder can shoot at you, or at the users of your software. Sometimes he'll do that right away. Usually he'll force you to pay protection money, or to stay out of a market he wants to own. Even if you're not sure whether the gun is loaded, you can't risk your life to find out... ...A patent holder can be ruthless and selfish, and he has practically no legal obligations to society. No really, what's the reason? A single patent can put an entire company out of business, overnight. It can happen to the most honorable company that never stole anything from anybody. The injustice is that a patent is an absolute right against everyone else, for up to 20 years. I feel there is an explanation somewhere Cold War
There is no protection against the patents of your competitors other than a massive counterthreat. It's all about balance of terror, like in the Cold War. Large patent arsenals are also like nuclear weapons. Between the large corporations, there are formal and informal non-aggression pacts concerning patents. Patents turn software publishing into the privilege of a few Some large corporations want to use software patents against smaller competitors and open-source software. The "patent mafia" extorts protection money in a way that is amazingly similar to real-world racketeering. Some patent lawyers say that companies should simply allocate a certain level of resources, such as 10% of their profits, for patent protection. But wait, what's this The most profitable investments in software companies are attributable to copyright law, not patent law. Ah! so it's a site by Copyright lawyers
No, I got bored with all the doom and gloom and never actually found out how these patents are ginna destroy the world. Did anyone else? posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Marl64: Did anyone else? It is a bit unclear for me why you don't see the danger. You cannot breach copyright laws unless you COPY what someone else has made. But you can breach easily patent laws by inventing something slightly similar (even when you were the first to invent it). Let me give you an example: You plan a city map software. Someone types in the address and you DISPLAY the route. This is patented. The patent holder may come to you and charge you $10000 per year so you are ALLOWED to display the route. (And in fact that happened). Adobe sued a competitor for displaying the floating menus. Amazon sued Barnes and Noble for using cookies. I don't know why you don't see the danger here. Quote: No, I got bored with all the doom and gloom and never actually found out how these patents are ginna destroy the world. As soon as software patents in EU are allowed Microsoft has approx 10000 potential patent infrigements against Linux and others. That would be the end of Linux. End of Firefox. Probably end of this forum (which runs on phpBB and MySQL and php, all of which have to face attacks). Even if Linux survives they had to charge you for it, since Microsoft demands $. Software patents are the greatest threat to industries these days. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The pro-copyright attitude of that site is merely an expression for the belief that copyright is already ENOUGH. Bill Gates became billionaire thru copyright. What does he need patents for? Let me make something else clear: I also believe that hardware patents are a menace. But the real reason for hardware patents is a hidden one: The country grants you protection if you patent something and in return they gain knowledge of security sensitive developments (because you have to describe your patented machines exactly). Thus if they notice: "Oops, he invented something that could be dangerous for our country (ray guns,...)" they can immediately step in. (And actually they do. You get a notice that your patent has been seized by the government). There is also another reason: A country can buy patents and then suppress developments (ray guns, cheap fuel). So both reasons are valid but hidden. There can be no doubt that hardware patents are one of the greatest obstacles for development. Except for a very few branches (pharmaceuticals, bioengineering) there is no need for patents at all. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Technicly i can sue you all when someone quotes me, you are reproducing my sentence i created without my permission
posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Crossfade: Technicly i can sue you all when someone quotes me No really. A quote is a quote. Copyright only protects what is worth protecting. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are you saying my sentences arent worth quoting knn? you make me cry! 
posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Crossfade: Are you saying my sentences arent worth quoting knn? I didn't say that. What I said is that you can't FORBID quoting. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: It is a bit unclear for me why you don't see the danger. Well the site doesn't help with terms like "Patent Mafia" and it's out and out political style approach. I thought I was looking at a Michael Moore Site
Patents are something I am aware of, but have never really bothered too much about, I remember a couple of stories on the subject that is all. Like the fact that we spent so much effort trying to crack the Enigma machine in WWII, only to discover later that the (ever efficient) Germans had patented it and they had a copy of the patent in the London Pattent office
And that leg hair removing thingy for Women that plucks hairs out of your legs - the company that made it tried to sue a rival for patent infringement (for something that was clearly a copy) and lost. The rival maintained that although it achieved the same results, the WAY it plucked hairs out was different. The first one shows one benefit of patents, the second how patents don't stop innovation and don't prevent competitors from getting at your markets. Based on what you've said, and what bits I could pick out from between the propaganda on the site, I have to say I'm still unsure. Guess I don't know enough about Patent law - and for me that's not a bad thing  Quote: The patent holder may come to you and charge you $10000 per year so you are ALLOWED to display the route. (And in fact that happened).
Adobe sued a competitor for displaying the floating menus. Amazon sued Barnes and Noble for using cookies. To me this is more a problem of the letigious attitude of the world we live in (thanks to the good ol' US of A). In a world where Fat people can sue Fat Food resteraunts (yeah I meant to say Fat), it takes some work to convince me that the problem is with Patent Law, rather than just Law in General. Quote: Software patents are the greatest threat to industries these days. I hate to say it, but that's a pretty bold statement and will take some backing up. knn: Except for a very few branches (pharmaceuticals, bioengineering) there is no need for patents at all. Why make exceptions? Surely any law worth it's salt should apply to all or to none. And anyway, we do have Patents in Europe, so what's gonna change? [CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE] posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: Like the fact that we spent so much effort trying to crack the Enigma machine in WWII, only to discover later that the (ever efficient) Germans had patented it and they had a copy of the patent in the London Pattent office Your example is funny but has nothing to do with patents per se. Marl64: And that leg hair removing thingy for Women that plucks hairs out of your legs - the company that made it tried to sue a rival for patent infringement (for something that was clearly a copy) and lost. The rival maintained that although it achieved the same results, the WAY it plucked hairs out was different. Please note that you give HARDWARE examples here. That is an entirely different topic. Marl64: The first one shows one benefit of patents, the second how patents don't stop innovation and don't prevent competitors from getting at your markets. Nope in both cases: 1) Only if a court decides that there is no infringement. In other words. If there is you ARE stopped. 2) Even if you win in front of the court you don't get your court costs back (which usually are between 100'000 and 1'000'000) 3) If you lose you pay the court costs AND the infringement. 4) Who do you think paid for the legal costs? The consumer. IBM alone makes billion$ by threatening others. This billions go into the pockets of IBM instead of investments. 5) Usually patent infringements don't go in front of courts. Actually the court cost are pretty much equal (or higher) than the patent licencing costs. In other words: Software patents work as the threat to squeeze your money out. THAT's what is meant by patent mafia. By the way, Dell has been sued these days. A guy claims he has the patent for e-commerce. Yes, from anything that is sold over the internet he wants money. "Oracle is forced to channel a significant portion of its financial resources into patent protection of its assets, rather than using those resources in further innovating and expanding its computer software products." Others have been sued over the use of .gif files. Marl64: Why make exceptions? Let me explain: If you invent the toaster then noone can copy it (because there are no Star Trek beam machines). Thus you can only PATENT it. If you write software then you have the COPYRIGHT. There is an alternative and that is CLOAKING: You invent a toaster and as soon as someone tries to unscrew it (to find out how it works so he can produce his own brand) it would destroy itself. However, if you design new pharmaceuticals, you can neither claim Copyright (since they are neither copied 1:1 OR they already exist in nature) nor can you cloak (since their chemical formula must be known for scientists to check sideeffects). Thus the only thing left are patents. MOREOVER developing a new drug costs millions/billions (1 new drug = approx 800 million Euro research costs) while your competitor may produce it very cheaply (once he knows the chemical formula). Thus pharma-industry and bioengineering have a valid interests in patents. Marl64: And anyway, we do have Patents in Europe, so what's gonna change? Software and functions are not patentable so far. Marl64: I hate to say it, but that's a pretty bold statement and will take some backing up. I mentioned it already: Microsoft could shut down ALL of its competitors. I don't know why you don't see it as a threat. IBM could do the same. Except for competitors that are big enough to have tenthousands of own patents to sue back. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Marl64: ...Enigma machine ... Your example is funny but has nothing to do with patents per se. Apart from it demonstrates a benefit. The same benefit that governments would gain from patents on software encryption. But don't fall into the trap of beleiving that registering how something works, immediately opens up the door for people to "bypass security" as is maintained by the above site. A good example would be PGP, which the US government declared "a weapon" because they couldn't crack it - despite the fact it's methology was public knowledge. knn: Marl64: And that leg hair removing thingy... Please note that you give HARDWARE examples here. That is an entirely different topic. Perhaps, but as an example of how the law deals with patents it is still relevant. knn: 2) Even if you win in front of the court you don't get your court costs back.
3) If you lose you pay the court costs AND the infringement. Again this is a general legal issue and not specifically related to patents. knn: A guy claims he has the patent for e-commerce. Yes, from anything that is sold over the internet he wants money. But this is a term, not a software routine as such. I could understand someone claiming rights on any standard used by e-commerce, but not the term itself - surely that would be a trademark issue. knn: Others have been sued over the use of .gif files. This was actually because GIF uses LZW compression which was patented by Unisys and IBM. And just to clarify, people weren't sued for using GIF files, it was people who produced software to create GIF files who didn't have a licence to do so. If you had spent years (and tons of money) working on an efficient compression format, then when it's done, everybody and his uncle incorporates this in commercial software, wouldn't you want a piece of that? knn: Marl64: Why make exceptions? If you invent the toaster then noone can copy it (because there are no Star Trek beam machines). Thus you can only PATENT it. If you write software then you have the COPYRIGHT. You have copyright on the source code and the object code only - not on the functionality of the code. Someone could take the source code, look at how it works, rewrite it, tweak it, tune it etc. then recompile it and there is no copyright infringement. (I can't beleive it sounds like I'm arguing for Patents - guess I must be )knn: MOREOVER developing a new drug costs millions/billions while your competitor may produce it very cheaply (once he knows the chemical formula). Thus pharma-industry and bioengineering have a valid interests in patents. Surely the same applies to software. knn: I mentioned it already: Microsoft could shut down ALL of its competitors. I don't know why you don't see it as a threat. IBM could do the same. Except for competitors that are big enough to have tenthousands of own patents to sue back. When I used to be a programmer, I wrote my own code. I didn't take other peoples code and tweak it to achieve the same results. Perhaps that's why I don't see it as a problem. I think we have to make some clear distinctions in what we're talking about. Source code (the text that the programmer types in) and object code (the finished executable program) are covered by copyright - as has been stated. The Algorythms (the methology by which the program solves the problem) are not. Isn't this what software Patents are intended to address? Certainly this was what all the LZW (GIF) fuss was about. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Marl64: Apart from it demonstrates a benefit. The same benefit that governments would gain from patents on software encryption. 1) What was the benefit of the enigma patent? (Not the benefit of the machine, but the benefit of the _patent_) 2) The alorithms for encryption are known. There is no gain in that. Marl64: Perhaps, but as an example of how the law deals with patents it is still relevant. Not really. Look, if I am a toaster producer and I patent some toaster functionality then who could infringe that? Practically only another toaster producer. That's a big difference to software: Every software programmer can face lawsuits. Marl64: Again this is a general legal issue and not specifically related to patents. That's only half of the truth. To register a patent it costs you approx. 30'000 Euros. Thus an alleged infringement can go into the millions immediately. You hardly have any other part of the law where you have to face such amounts for something that took you 1 minute to program. Marl64: But this is a term, not a software routine as such. I could understand someone claiming rights on any standard used by e-commerce, but not the term itself - surely that would be a trademark issue. OK, maybe I put it wrong. This guy claims he has INVENTED e-commerce, resp. has invented something on which online trading is based. It's not about terms. Marl64: just to clarify, people weren't sued for using GIF files, it was people who produced software to create GIF files who didn't have a licence to do so. Yes, but that was solely because of the decicion of Unisys. They could have sued you. And actually it doesn't matter. It made the software prices rise and Adobe even cut off gif support from photoshop. The same applied for .tif and other compression formats. Marl64: If you had spent years (and tons of money) working on an efficient compression format, then when it's done, everybody and his uncle incorporates this in commercial software, wouldn't you want a piece of that? 1) Whether you spend years and millions or seconds and pennies is totally irrelevant. A patent holder can sue you. 2) The guys from Unisys waited for years until .gif was spread to start to sue. 3) Moreover THEORETICALLY trivial patents (= too simple patents) are forbidden by law. However the reality is that EVERY patent is accepted. As far as I know from the millions of patents only 20 or so were ever forced to stop in the US. Marl64: You have copyright on the source code and the object code only - not on the functionality of the code.
Someone could take the source code, look at how it works, rewrite it, tweak it, tune it etc. then recompile it and there is no copyright infringement. Decompiling a code and analyzing it costs you more time than writing it yourself. And again you are NOT talking about the typical issue here. Patents are NOT used against "reverse engineers" but against the normal programmers (Linux, MySQL) that never ever decompiled anything. Marl64: knn: MOREOVER developing a new drug costs millions/billions while your competitor may produce it very cheaply (once he knows the chemical formula). Thus pharma-industry and bioengineering have a valid interests in patents. Surely the same applies to software. No. Software is already copyrighted. Pharmaceuticals are not. Marl64: When I used to be a programmer, I wrote my own code. I didn't take other peoples code and tweak it to achieve the same results. Perhaps that's why I don't see it as a problem. Wait a second. THAT is exactly the problem. To infringe a patent YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE someone's code (using someone's code would be a copyright issue). You may never heard of a competitor until he sues you. Did you use a progress bar in your programs? Some functions that use double-clicks? Both, progressbars and double-clicks are patented. You could be sued. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let me also add that the original idea behind patents was the following: Someone spends huge amounts of time and money to find an innovation. You can save this time and money by simply reading what he publishes. You simply pay him a fee. But this idea got perverted. Even if you invent something PRIOR to him (but he registers it earlier) you can be sued. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Probably the most impressive visualization of the issue has been produced by the FFII. The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure created an image of what looks like a pretty normal Internet-based shop. That hypothetical webshop "infringes" upon 20 software patents that the European Patent Office has already granted. It's now up to politicians whether such absurd patents become enforceable or not. Read more at:  posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Probably one of the better proofs to show that patents are not needed (except in the areas mentioned above) is to check an area where there are no patents: Food/Recipes Yearly approx. 20'000 new food products come into your supermarkets. The best proof that patents are not needed: Food is cheap and very diversified. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 08:20 php B.B. |