Good News! Software Patents are in Jeopardy
biject
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don't make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM
David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"
WTShaw
> I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
> But I notice many
> people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
> computer world there are
> many patents that don't make cents. Neither does this post but check
> out u tube
> you will either like it or hate it.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM
>
> David A. Scott
The thinking here is a multiedged sword. Consider trade secrets which
would only be so when they are held secret. If something is available
for inspection and a software secret can be discovered, there would be
no trade secret. That is a hacker's dream. Hardware might be
simulated in software and for whatever reason, such software could not
be protected. If crypto could be broken and the method was generally
known, even reduced to some software package, the "hack" could not be
prevented.
On the other hand,the argument that all computers are and act alike is
bogus. These days, computers are individually identified and with
consumer choice become uniquely different or could be made so. If
systems are updated on like, computers may be selectively be made
different and the details by default be selectively out of reach of
the owner.
George Johnson
news:9b33f338-5eaa-4a4d...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com
There is nothing top prevent the Patent Office posting the unencrypted
descriptive generic details for the public with the specific coding talent
files encrypted for protection of the complex aspects to prevent easy
rip-off spin-offs.
Boon
> In the computer world there are many patents that don't make cents.
Why apply for a patent if one can't even make one cent from it?
Peter Fairbrother
Wishful thinking
Pride
Defense (so no-one else can stop you)
Attack (in order to stop someone else)
Charity (you give it away)
... and so on.
Thomas Richter
Patents are nowadays not made to make money. They are used to defend
your company. It's not usual that company A approaches company B to
collect some money (patent submarining), now if B has patents, B will
check whether there's anything that can be applied to A's technology, so
B has to negotiate. It's a silly game, invented by patent lawyers, but
once this game has started, there's no longer a way
to get around it. You *have* to have patents for this situation, so you
get them.
So long,
Thomas
Unruh
You do not understand what the purpose of patents is. It is NOT simply a
monopoly grant. It is a tradeoff. The patentee provides a complete
description of their patent, so that anyone CAN improve on it. The law in
exchange for that public disclosure grants a monopoly on exercising that
process,... for a fixed time. Having part of the patent be secret is a
complete betrayal of the whole purpose of patents.
It is that tradeoff which is crucial --
otherwise patents simply become like the ancient kings granting of
monopoly rights to their friends to make them rich. The discovery of the
past 100 years ago is that society benefits far more from competition.
Corrupt governments grant monopolies.
Whether or not the tradeoffs in patents is really worth it could be
debated. In copyright the balance has definitely shifted to the corrupt end
of the scale-- I give you money for political donations and you allow me to
gouge your fellow citizens-- especially in software. But that is another
arguement.
Peter Fairbrother
> Boon wrote:
>> biject wrote:
>>
>>> In the computer world there are many patents that don't make cents.
>>
>> Why apply for a patent if one can't even make one cent from it?
Wishful thinking (it might be worth something someday)
Pride (I have a patent!)
Fraud (our crypto snakeo algorithm is patented)
Defense (so no-one else can stop you doing it)
Defense (so no-one else can sue you doing it)
Attack (in order to stop someone else doing it)
Attack (in order to be able to sue someone else for doing it)
Charity (you give it away)
charity (this is obvious!, I won't let MS/Google/Chaum control it's use
with a later patent)
>
> ... and so on.
more?
WTShaw
> You do not understand what the purpose of patents is. It is NOT simply a
> monopoly grant. It is a tradeoff. The patentee provides a complete
> description of their patent, so that anyone CAN improve on it.
In looking at many patents, we see that which many here reject,
"Security by Obscurity." Very far from complete descriptions, many are
sketchy, even obviously misleading.
> The law in
> exchange for that public disclosure grants a monopoly on exercising that
> process,... for a fixed time. Having part of the patent be secret is a
> complete betrayal of the whole purpose of patents.
> It is that tradeoff which is crucial --
If that is the real purpose, I agree.
> Corrupt governments grant monopolies.
It's difficult to find one who has virginal feet, surely not ours of
late.
>
> Whether or not the tradeoffs in patents is really worth it could be
> debated. In copyright the balance has definitely shifted to the corrupt end
> of the scale-- I give you money for political donations and you allow me to
> gouge your fellow citizens-- especially in software. But that is another
> arguement.
The fuzzy separation here with patents and copyrights would lead us
far afield as openness to abuse any worthy goals is generally
available for those that look for legal realities, often
contradictory, not to be confused with academic freedom which
sometimes even exceeds a gasp for its own survival.
Ari
Correct and as our patent attorneys say, "A patent isn't worth a shit
until it is defended legally."
--
http://www.bushflash.com/idiot.html
Andrew Swallow
> I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
> But I notice many
> people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
> computer world there are
> many patents that don't make cents. Neither does this post but check
> out u tube
> you will either like it or hate it.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM
So if you wish to break a digit electronics patent just implement in
software.
Andrew Swallow
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| [Unruh wrote:]
| > monopoly grant. It is a tradeoff. The patentee provides a complete
| > description of their patent, so that anyone CAN improve on it.
|
| In looking at many patents, we see that which many here reject,
| "Security by Obscurity." Very far from complete descriptions, many are
| sketchy, even obviously misleading.
Without full disclosure, the patent is technically fraudulent.
[More on this below...]
+---------------
| > The law in
| > exchange for that public disclosure grants a monopoly on exercising that
| > process,... for a fixed time. Having part of the patent be secret is a
| > complete betrayal of the whole purpose of patents.
| > It is that tradeoff which is crucial --
|
| If that is the real purpose, I agree.
+---------------
As <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent> notes:
Etymology
The word patent originates from the Latin patere, which means
"to lay open" (i.e., to make available for public inspection) ...
and:
Rationale
...
2. In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent,"
patents facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations
into the public domain for the common good. If inventors did
not have the legal protection of patents, in many cases, they
would prefer or tend to keep their inventions secret. Awarding
patents generally makes the details of new technology publicly
available, for exploitation by anyone after the patent expires,
or for further improvement by other inventors. Furthermore, when
a patent's term has expired, the public record ensures that the
patentee's idea is not lost to humanity.
And <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficient_disclosure> is more explicit:
Most patent law systems require that a patent application disclose
a claimed invention in sufficient detail for the notional person
skilled in the art to carry out that claimed invention.
...
The disclosure requirement lies at the heart and origin of patent
law. A state or government grants an inventor, or the inventor's
assignee, a monopoly for a given period of time in exchange for
the inventor disclosing to the public how to make or practice his
or her invention. If a patent fails to contain such information,
then the bargain is violated, and the patent is unenforceable.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
jules Gilbert
I am amazed that each of you post and not one of you get's it; That
researchers do 'work', just as a grocer or a mailman and that each are
due compensation for value performed. (One of you did manage to get
near this concept.)
I have long been astounded at the ignorance of this group. But I'm
not so smart either -- I figured out how to represent a message in a
synchronized pseudo-random stream at the RCVE site years ago, (now
some of you are getting near that.) And I still can't find a way to
sell it effectively.
So it looks like I lose to.
--jg
Unruh
>On Jul 27, 6:58=A0am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> biject wrote:
>> > =A0I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
>> > But I notice many
>> > people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
>> > computer world there are
>> > many patents that don't make cents. Neither does this post but check
>> > out u tube
>> > you will either like it or hate it.
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DDyc_oFc4fVM
>>
>> So if you wish to break a digit electronics patent just implement in
>> software.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>I am amazed that each of you post and not one of you get's it; That
>researchers do 'work', just as a grocer or a mailman and that each are
>due compensation for value performed. (One of you did manage to get
>near this concept.)
?? No. a) There is no "right to compensation". I know many volunteers who
put in huge amounts of work and get paid nothing. Many wives and mothers
put in huge amounts of work and get paid nothing. There is no "right to
compensation". IF someone hires them to do research or anything else than
whoever hired them has a duty to pay them, but if a person does it on his
own, where did this right come from?
Secondly, patents are NOT rights to compensation. They are monopoly rights.
They grant the inventor a monopoly on the product for a certain period.
This carries with it no "right to compensation". It is a monopoly. It is as
if Starbucks if it opened a coffee shop in a city were granted a monopoly
on coffee shops in that city for the next 10 years. Anyone else who opened
one could be sued by Starbucks. That is what a monopoly is. It is an
anti-competitive vehicle.
Thirdly, the granting of monopoly rights may be of ultimate benefit to
society. In software it is far from clear that this is true. There are
enough people would would do it on their own, for free ( See Linux and the
15GB of software it has produced). Is the granting of an anticompetiive
monopoly justified in order to encourage work in the field? To me it is
unclear, not least because so few software things ARE patented.
>I have long been astounded at the ignorance of this group. But I'm
>not so smart either -- I figured out how to represent a message in a
Agreed.
>synchronized pseudo-random stream at the RCVE site years ago, (now
>some of you are getting near that.) And I still can't find a way to
>sell it effectively.
>So it looks like I lose to.
So the patent (you did take out a patent didn't you) brought you
compensation, which you claim it is for?
>--jg
Paulo Marques
> [...]
> I am amazed that each of you post and not one of you get's it; That
> researchers do 'work', just as a grocer or a mailman and that each are
> due compensation for value performed. (One of you did manage to get
> near this concept.)
The problem with software is that progress is usually made by very small
increments over existing technology and the patent system works really
bad in this progress model.
A patent serves 2 purposes:
1 - protect the invention from getting lost (or simply forgotten)
2 - protect the invention from being copied by competitors
Point 1 is guaranteed, because you can always disassemble a program to
see how it works. So, in software no invention is ever "lost".
Point 2 is already protected by copyright law. Anyone copying "the idea"
will already be too late in the game when the software is released.
Software patents have certainly been doing more harm than good and there
are several economic studies to show that.
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."
Unruh
>jules Gilbert wrote:
>> [...]
>> I am amazed that each of you post and not one of you get's it; That
>> researchers do 'work', just as a grocer or a mailman and that each are
>> due compensation for value performed. (One of you did manage to get
>> near this concept.)
>The problem with software is that progress is usually made by very small
>increments over existing technology and the patent system works really
>bad in this progress model.
>A patent serves 2 purposes:
> 1 - protect the invention from getting lost (or simply forgotten)
> 2 - protect the invention from being copied by competitors
>Point 1 is guaranteed, because you can always disassemble a program to
>see how it works. So, in software no invention is ever "lost".
Completely untrue. It is extremely difficult to "disassemble a program" to
see how it works-- simply too long and at times to complicated. Have you
ever tried disassembling a forth program for example. And software is often
lost so it cannot be disassembled.-- almost all the programs distributed on
floppies are not lost-- they are unreadable both because the floppy drives
have disappeared and because the magnetic material has degraded.
>Point 2 is already protected by copyright law. Anyone copying "the idea"
>will already be too late in the game when the software is released.
Copyright law protects only the actual expression, not the idea. And
copying the "idea" of the IBM bios was what made the whole clone industry
work. Far from being "too late" it drove the market.
But it is also a blunderbus. Who in the world needs 75 year protection in
the software industry?
>Software patents have certainly been doing more harm than good and there
>are several economic studies to show that.
That may well be true. But your reasons are weak.
Jim Leonard
> Completely untrue. It is extremely difficult to "disassemble a program" to
> see how it works-- simply too long and at times to complicated. Have you
> ever tried disassembling a forth program for example. And software is often
> lost so it cannot be disassembled.-- almost all the programs distributed on
> floppies are not lost-- they are unreadable both because the floppy drives
> have disappeared and because the magnetic material has degraded.
You clearly haven't cracked games, then :-) It is relatively easy to
disassemble a program and see how certain parts of it work (you don't
bother with all of the program, since nobody cares about how the text
handling or datafile loading works, that's not part of the
invention). It is also easy to modify it. And as for "software is
often lost", that's the exception and not the rule. Floppy drives
have hardly "disappeared".
I understand you're trying to make a point, but you should probably
pick a different metaphor.
Paulo Marques
> Paulo Marques <pmar...@grupopie.com> writes:
>[...]
> Completely untrue. It is extremely difficult to "disassemble a program" to
> see how it works-- simply too long and at times to complicated. Have you
> ever tried disassembling a forth program for example. And software is often
> lost so it cannot be disassembled.-- almost all the programs distributed on
> floppies are not lost-- they are unreadable both because the floppy drives
> have disappeared and because the magnetic material has degraded.
Ok, then give me an example of a worthwhile software whose brilliant
implementation has been lost and no one was ever able to recreate it again?
>> Point 2 is already protected by copyright law. Anyone copying "the idea"
>> will already be too late in the game when the software is released.
>
> Copyright law protects only the actual expression, not the idea. And
> copying the "idea" of the IBM bios was what made the whole clone industry
> work. Far from being "too late" it drove the market.
And this is bad because?
My point is that IBM got a few years milking its BIOS invention before
clones came in, and that is all it should be entitled to do...
(and this is a very weak example, because IBM actually created the
_hardware_ that ran that BIOS, so we're not talking only software here
anymore)
> But it is also a blunderbus. Who in the world needs 75 year protection in
> the software industry?
You won't get any argument from me here. Copyright in software could be
just 15 or 20 years, and I don't think it would made a big difference.
Heck, even 10 years would probably be ok.
>[...]
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"This version has many new and good features. Sadly, the good ones are
not new and the new ones are not good."
Industrial One
Yeah, GAMES. Try cracking uTorrent. It's possible despite the closed-
source but all that debugging and re-compiling takes hours per day for
weeks. Way more effort than it's actually worth.
And people still use floppies? Wow.
WTShaw
>
> And people still use floppies? Wow.
Big and more is not always better. Simplicity can be its own reward.
As a means of imposing a substantial physical firewall, something like
a floppy or low content thumbdrive usually contains only known stuff,
easily erased, stored, transported, and likely can defeat many network
bleeds by simply not relying on strange interconnects and wayward
sharing functions. Data security means doing some functions offline
and with a minimum of windows, pun, for a would be intruder.
Industrial One
Agreed... but what exactly are you speaking against? Optical media?
With the advent of 4 GB thumb drives, I see no reason why them slow
floppy pieces a shit are still in use. My brand (circa 2004) has no
floppy drive, so I'm assuming manufacturing is discontinued.
Mark Nelson
> Software patents have certainly been doing more harm than good and there
> are several economic studies to show that.
Although I'm no fan of software patents, I personally think that
anyone taking this position is going out on a limb. It's just not
possible to imagine the IP landscape if no software patents were being
granted. Things would be very different, but I don't think anyone has
a good enough crystal ball to say HOW different. Could be worse? I can
certainly see it.
- Mark Nelson - http://marknelson.us
Paulo Marques
According to the current law (although maybe not the current practice)
there are no software patents in Europe, and we are doing just fine,
thank you :)
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"There cannot be a crisis today; my schedule is already full."
Jim Leonard
USE them, no. Read them, yes. Your example was in the context of
archiving data, and computer historians have many floppy drives still
working to archive data that would otherwise be lost.
Unruh
>> But it is also a blunderbus. Who in the world needs 75 year protection in
>> the software industry?
>You won't get any argument from me here. Copyright in software could be
>just 15 or 20 years, and I don't think it would made a big difference.
>Heck, even 10 years would probably be ok.
I would say 5 years, with an additional 10 years if the full source code is
published.
Unruh
I have some 5 1/4 floppies here. Anyone tell me how to read them?
Jim Leonard
>
> I have some 5 1/4 floppies here. Anyone tell me how to read them?
Mail them to someone who has a 5.25" drive. Or get a drive off of
ebay. Or hell, an entire old computer off of ebay (both the drive and
the computer will be roughly under $20, but of course the drive will
have cheaper shipping).
But what does this have to do with patents and/or compression? Were
you trying to make a point?
Unruh
Yes. The claim was that software never gets lost, so the fact that patents
preserve the invention is irrelevant to software. It can alwys be read and
disassembled to recover the invantion. I dispute that.
Industrial One
Floppies got a limited lifespan. Hell, even CDs do. If they had any
sense they'd make backups on DVDs or Flash drives.
jules Gilbert
Don't everyone gasp at once but I have decided to leave the
compression field (it's not like I have clients using my products.)
But wait. Wait for it. I just may change the landscape yet. I'll
know within a few days and if you hear about something next week,
you'll know.
Show of hands, please: How many of you would honor a perpetual
compression patent? My guess is one, maybe two. Mark and maybe one
other person. Who knows, maybe two.
But notice what I said: "wait for it." I just might have the means
to tacitly force European courts to begin issuing/honoring software
patents -- I don't know. This is a subject I know so little about --
but I did do something.
And this isn't really about perpetual compression, it's about
something else entirely.
--jg
Jim Leonard
> Yes. The claim was that software never gets lost, so the fact that patents
> preserve the invention is irrelevant to software. It can alwys be read and
> disassembled to recover the invantion. I dispute that.
I would say that the invention is never lost as long as binary code
that demonstrates the invention exists and works. This is because the
invention can be derived from the code. Whether or not it is "easy"
or not is irrelevant -- if it executes and works, it can be
disassembled, traced, examined, etc. to recover the invention.
Jim Leonard
> > > And people still use floppies? Wow.
>
> > USE them, no. Read them, yes. Your example was in the context of
> > archiving data, and computer historians have many floppy drives still
> > working to archive data that would otherwise be lost.
>
> Floppies got a limited lifespan. Hell, even CDs do. If they had any
> sense they'd make backups on DVDs or Flash drives.
They do. I did write "computer historians...archive data that would
otherwise be lost."
Sportman
> Most patent law systems require that a patent application disclose
> a claimed invention in sufficient detail for the notional person
> skilled in the art to carry out that claimed invention.
> ...
> The disclosure requirement lies at the heart and origin of patent
> law. A state or government grants an inventor, or the inventor's
> assignee, a monopoly for a given period of time in exchange for
> the inventor disclosing to the public how to make or practice his
> or her invention. If a patent fails to contain such information,
> then the bargain is violated, and the patent is unenforceable.
Or monopolists take seeds from nature and patent them, then force you
to eat it and suddenly they own your body:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNezTsrCY0Q
and more detailed Massachusetts School of Law:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8098965482866581381
Industrial One
That is just sick... does anyone but me question the value of a
greenback piece of paper? There isn't. Any worthless illiterate fuck
can become one of 'em multinational chiefs if they've developed a
genius for manipulating the economy and not actually contributing
anything to society.
Btw, I puked after finishing my spaghetti, as if someone dropped a rat
in the sauce during manufacturing. As always, I blame the jews.