Defamation of character?
Brandon Van Every
--
Cheers, 3d graphics optimization jock
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Experts eliminate the simpler mistakes in favor of the more
complex ones, thereby achieving a higher degree of stupidity. :-)
Brandon Van Every
Jonathan Guthrie wrote in message <7814gc$7g4$2...@news.hal-pc.org>...
>In comp.games.development.industry Brandon Van Every>If they have bookstores or libraries in your part of the world, you can
>just walk in to one of them, go to the proper section (reference
>materials) and look it up in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. That's a whole lot
>more reliable than posting on Usenet.
The reason we have the Internet is to save ourselves the hassle of leaving
our homes. :-)
What I've learned in private e-mail is that:
libel is defamation of character IN WRITING
slander is defamation of character IN SPEECH
Hence, if you're already up on your libel and slander law, then you know
what defamation of character is all about. Nothing new to learn.
I just wanted this clarified because of the wild speculation about the
Dallas Observer article covering the ION Storm fiasco. Since everything
printed was the truth, there's no possibility of libel. Some people were
wondering if the DO could get into trouble for printing what they did, and
the answer is that no, legally speaking they cannot.
Jonathan Guthrie
> What's the legal definition of "defamation of character?"
If they have bookstores or libraries in your part of the world, you can
just walk in to one of them, go to the proper section (reference
materials) and look it up in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. That's a whole lot
more reliable than posting on Usenet.
--
Jonathan Guthrie (jgut...@brokersys.com)
Information Broker Systems +281-895-8101 http://www.brokersys.com/
12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA
Michael Hawash
<780jjb$knt$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>What's the legal definition of "defamation of character?"
>
>
>Cheers, 3d graphics optimization jock
>Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"Defamation of Character" varies from state to state. However, the basic
definition is that it holds a person up to ridicule, scorn or contempt in a
respectable and considerable part of the community. Defamation of character
can have both criminal and civil liability elements. A defamation is that
which tends to injure reputation, diminish esteem, respect, goodwill, or
confidence in which the defamed person (or company) is held, or to excite
adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings against him.
In Texas, defamation of character occurs when an unprivileged false
statement is published (verbal=slander; written=libel) to a third party, and
the statement proximately exposes a person to contempt, hatred, ridicule, or
obloquy. A false statement can enjoy certain absolute and qualified
privileges. However, application of privileges can get complex.
Michael Hawash
Meyer Orlando & Evans, P.C.
Jurie Horneman
>>I just wanted this clarified because of the wild speculation about the
Dallas Observer article covering the ION Storm fiasco. Since everything
printed was the truth, there's no possibility of libel. Some people were
wondering if the DO could get into trouble for printing what they did, and
the answer is that no, legally speaking they cannot.<<
Was it the truth? How do you know? I'm not saying I think it's all lies, it
even sounds plausible, but how do you know it's the truth?
Jurie Horneman
jhorSPAM...@wanadoo.fr
sui...@my-dejanews.com
Jonathan Guthrie <jgut...@weck.brokersys.com> wrote:
> In comp.games.development.industry Brandon Van Every <vane...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> just walk in to one of them, go to the proper section (reference
> materials) and look it up in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. That's a whole lot
> more reliable than posting on Usenet.
> --
> Jonathan Guthrie (jgut...@brokersys.com)
> Information Broker Systems +281-895-8101 http://www.brokersys.com/
> 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA
Why the snide comment? The guy simply asked a question.
Frank
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jason Shankel
Michael Hawash wrote:
>
> "Defamation of Character" varies from state to state. However, the basic
> definition is that it holds a person up to ridicule, scorn or contempt in a
> respectable and considerable part of the community. Defamation of character
> can have both criminal and civil liability elements. A defamation is that
> which tends to injure reputation, diminish esteem, respect, goodwill, or
> confidence in which the defamed person (or company) is held, or to excite
> adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings against him.
>
> In Texas, defamation of character occurs when an unprivileged false
> statement is published (verbal=slander; written=libel) to a third party, and
> the statement proximately exposes a person to contempt, hatred, ridicule, or
> obloquy. A false statement can enjoy certain absolute and qualified
> privileges. However, application of privileges can get complex.
>
I believe that most defamation laws also require that a "reasonable person"
can conclude that the false statements could possibly be true.
Case in point: Falwell vs. Flynt. Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt for libel
for claiming in a fake Campari ad that he (Falwell) committed incest with his
mother. Since no "reasonable person" could confuse this outrageous ad
for the truth, there was no libel.
--
Jason Shankel
Maxis, Inc
s h a n k e l
at
p o b o x . c o m
"Let's teach those robots how to play hardball."
- Laurie Anderson
Geoff Howland
<jhorSPAM...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>I just wanted this clarified because of the wild speculation about the
>Dallas Observer article covering the ION Storm fiasco. Since everything
>printed was the truth, there's no possibility of libel. Some people were
>wondering if the DO could get into trouble for printing what they did, and
>the answer is that no, legally speaking they cannot.<<
>
>Was it the truth? How do you know? I'm not saying I think it's all lies, it
>even sounds plausible, but how do you know it's the truth?
If the emails were fabricated you would have seen Ion Storm
scream to high heaven they were being slandered,
impersonated and defamed. Since they said nothing of the
sort, it basically confirms the letters were correct. (In a
common sense way, not particularly in a legal one)
The statements made in the article were directly taken from
interpretations of the emails and what ex employees etc had
said, which seemed all very in-line to me.
Whehter its legal to print internal emails is quite a
different thing. The owners of Ion Storm obviously had
expectation of privacy, but since this wasnt a government
interferences a lot of the privacy laws count law.
It could definitely be seen as a form of theft, like
copyright theft possibly (email piracy!), of course
IANALawyer.
-Geoff Howland
Lupine Games http://www.lupinegames.com/
Noah Falstein
Jurie Horneman wrote:
> Brandon Van Every wrote in message
> <781cj9$b0s$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> >>I just wanted this clarified because of the wild speculation about the
> Dallas Observer article covering the ION Storm fiasco. Since everything
> printed was the truth, there's no possibility of libel. Some people were
> wondering if the DO could get into trouble for printing what they did, and
> the answer is that no, legally speaking they cannot.<<
>
> Was it the truth? How do you know? I'm not saying I think it's all lies, it
> even sounds plausible, but how do you know it's the truth?
Well, I know the tabloids in Europe print all sorts of trash, but here in the
good old U.S. of A. if it's in the paper, I know it MUST be true!
(note to the sarcasm impaired: that was a joke)
--
Noah Falstein
The Inspiracy
Freelance Interactive Design
http://www.theinspiracy.com
n...@theinspiracy.NOSPAM.com
To reply remove the obvious
Jason Shankel
Geoff Howland wrote:
>
> Whehter its legal to print internal emails is quite a
> different thing. The owners of Ion Storm obviously had
> expectation of privacy, but since this wasnt a government
> interferences a lot of the privacy laws count law.
>
The expectation of privacy protects you against things
like e-mails and phone conversations begin admitted in
court, but they don't bear on the legality of releasing those
things to the public.
Take Linda Tripp (please). The tapes she made of
Monica are probably illegal and would almost certainly
be inadmissible in court. This does not constrain the US
press from publicizing them once they become known.
>
> It could definitely be seen as a form of theft, like
> copyright theft possibly (email piracy!), of course
> IANALawyer.
>
This is an interesting idea. If you post a copyright on
all your internal e-mails, then you might be able to make
an argument restraining their publication. But that
wouldn't stop the press from paraphrasing the e-mails.
You can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an
idea.
Also, there's the question of fair use. You're allowed to
quote copyrighted material in the press in aid of journalism.
Geoff Howland
<see...@bottom.for.address> wrote:
>The expectation of privacy protects you against things
>like e-mails and phone conversations begin admitted in
>court, but they don't bear on the legality of releasing those
>things to the public.
>
>Take Linda Tripp (please). The tapes she made of
>Monica are probably illegal and would almost certainly
>be inadmissible in court. This does not constrain the US
>press from publicizing them once they become known.
Wasnt she possibly being prosecuted in Maryland for illegally making
those tapes?
If this is truly not illegal, then it would be equally legal for
hackers to use private corporate information, such as blueprints or
schematics for their own commercial purposes, or if nothing else, just
to publish like the press.
>This is an interesting idea. If you post a copyright on
>all your internal e-mails, then you might be able to make
>an argument restraining their publication. But that
>wouldn't stop the press from paraphrasing the e-mails.
>You can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an
>idea.
>
>Also, there's the question of fair use. You're allowed to
>quote copyrighted material in the press in aid of journalism.
You dont have to put a copyright notice on anything for it to be
copyrighted, everything is automatically copyrighted after you write
it. The Copyright notice is just there to remind people that you mean
it and that this wasnt just written for fun.
Of course, you can quote copyrighted material, so they just could have
acknowledged the copyright, and of course the ideas maintained in the
emails were of course not copyrighted.
There is the question of corporation secrerts, a long time ago I heard
there was a provision for confidential information, anyone know if
there is any reality to this?
[BTW, this may seem off topic, but obviously (to me) it is about the
business of computer games industry, so it has relevenance to anyone
who is interested in their own/current/employers business.]
Jason Shankel
Geoff Howland wrote:
>
> >Take Linda Tripp (please). The tapes she made of
> >Monica are probably illegal and would almost certainly
> >be inadmissible in court. This does not constrain the US
> >press from publicizing them once they become known.
>
> Wasnt she possibly being prosecuted in Maryland for illegally making
> those tapes?
>
> If this is truly not illegal, then it would be equally legal for
> hackers to use private corporate information, such as blueprints or
> schematics for their own commercial purposes, or if nothing else, just
> to publish like the press.
>
Right. It's two different questions. Linda Tripp is subject to
prosecution for illegal wiretapping. Hackers would be subject
to prosecution for computer crime.
But, once the information gleaned by illegal wiretaps or computer
burglary is made public (like the Monica tapes), the press
presumptively has the right to publish them. Only if a judge
issues a restraining order, which is not all that uncommon, can
the press be prevented from publishing the info.
So, in the case of ION Storm, even if IS does go after whoever
swiped their e-mail, they would have to get a separate restraining
order to prevent the press from publishing those e-mails.
Another case in point, the Church of Scientology. They got all
pushed out of shape when insiders released their "secret" internal
documents describing the (rather wacky) theological basis for
their religion. They claimed that these materials were protected
by copyright. Going after the insiders wouldn't, in itself, prevent
television and web sites from publishing this material. So they
didn't go after the leakers, they went after the publishers.
>
> There is the question of corporation secrerts, a long time ago I heard
> there was a provision for confidential information, anyone know if
> there is any reality to this?
>
"Trade secret" is one of the ways you can protect your intellectual
property. If I remember by pre-law correctly, trade secrets are not
directly protected by law. That is, if someone finds the secret formula
for Coca-Cola, Coke can't restrain people from using the recipe like
they could if they patented the formula.
To protect trade secrets, companies usually make employees sign
NDAs.
A trade secret is kind of a bluff. If you patent something, you have
to put your cards on the table. Coca-Cola can't, for example, patent
the formula for Coke and then refuse to tell us what it is. How would
you enforce such a patent? But, if Coke patented their formula, the
likelihood that someone could replicate their formula very closely without
actually violating the patent increases.
So you balance the risk. Patents give you more protection, but no secrecy
and trade secrets give you secrecy but no protection.
Geoff Howland
<see...@bottom.for.address> wrote:
>Another case in point, the Church of Scientology. They got all
>pushed out of shape when insiders released their "secret" internal
>documents describing the (rather wacky) theological basis for
>their religion. They claimed that these materials were protected
>by copyright. Going after the insiders wouldn't, in itself, prevent
>television and web sites from publishing this material. So they
>didn't go after the leakers, they went after the publishers.
Got it.
>A trade secret is kind of a bluff. If you patent something, you have
>to put your cards on the table. Coca-Cola can't, for example, patent
>the formula for Coke and then refuse to tell us what it is. How would
>you enforce such a patent? But, if Coke patented their formula, the
>likelihood that someone could replicate their formula very closely without
Cool. This will teach everyone to hire better sys admins. ;)
Brandon Van Every
Jason Shankel wrote in message <36A7870E...@bottom.for.address>...
>
>So you balance the risk. Patents give you more protection, but no secrecy
>and trade secrets give you secrecy but no protection.
Well, if you signed an NDA with someone, you've got that protection....
Cheers, 3d graphics optimization jock
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Experts eliminate the simpler mistakes in favor of the more
Jason Shankel
Brandon Van Every wrote:
>
> >So you balance the risk. Patents give you more protection, but no secrecy
> >and trade secrets give you secrecy but no protection.
>
> Well, if you signed an NDA with someone, you've got that protection....
Yes and no. With an NDA you can sue someone for breach of contract if
they reveal your secrets. But, once those secrets are revealed, you can't
prevent others from exploiting them.
Again with Coke. Suppose Joe Sixpack signs an NDA with Coca-Cola and
then becomes disgruntled. If he reveals the secret formula to Coke, Coke
can come after him for breach, but is not likely to recover much in the way
of money.
Meanwhile, the Spishak Cola Company reads the Coke recipe on Mr. Sixpack's
webpage and starts cranking out "New, Improved Spishak Cola" with the
new recipe. Coca-Cola can't do anything to stop Spishak.
If, on the other hand, Coca-Cola patents the formula, then they could prevent
Spishak from using the recipe, even is Spishak developed the recipe
completely independently.
Brandon Van Every
Jason Shankel wrote in message <36A791BC...@bottom.for.address>...
>
>
>Brandon Van Every wrote:
>
>>
>> >So you balance the risk. Patents give you more protection, but no
secrecy
>> >and trade secrets give you secrecy but no protection.
>>
>> Well, if you signed an NDA with someone, you've got that protection....
>
>Yes and no. With an NDA you can sue someone for breach of contract if
>they reveal your secrets. But, once those secrets are revealed, you can't
>prevent others from exploiting them.
>
>Again with Coke. Suppose Joe Sixpack signs an NDA with Coca-Cola and
>then becomes disgruntled. If he reveals the secret formula to Coke, Coke
>can come after him for breach, but is not likely to recover much in the way
>of money.
Ouch! Better sign NDAs only with people who are loaded! :-)
Jason Shankel
Brandon Van Every wrote:
>
> >Again with Coke. Suppose Joe Sixpack signs an NDA with Coca-Cola and
> >then becomes disgruntled. If he reveals the secret formula to Coke, Coke
> >can come after him for breach, but is not likely to recover much in the way
> >of money.
>
> Ouch! Better sign NDAs only with people who are loaded! :-)
>
It's not just about money, though that's a big part of it. Even if Joe Sixpack
is
Bill Gates, there's the problem that Coca-Cola has to show real monetary
damages. Juries are usually skeptical of claims of vast financial loss by
a big company levied against and individual.
Take Kevin Mitnik (please). Mitnik was sued by AT&T because he
supposedly stole (by rummaging through garbage) a phone manual worth
"millions of dollars." AT&T arrived at this figure by multiplying the average
salary of the employees involved in developing the manual by the number
of years it took.
At trial, Mitnik's lawyers pointed out that AT&T offered this same manual
for sale through their catalog for $10 US.
Shows to go you, it's hard to put a pricetag on intellectual property.
Michael Hawash
>Brandon Van Every wrote in message
><781cj9$b0s$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>>>I just wanted this clarified because of the wild speculation about the
>Dallas Observer article covering the ION Storm fiasco. Since everything
>printed was the truth, there's no possibility of libel. Some people were
>wondering if the DO could get into trouble for printing what they did, and
>the answer is that no, legally speaking they cannot.<<
>
>Was it the truth? How do you know? I'm not saying I think it's all lies, it
>even sounds plausible, but how do you know it's the truth?
>
>jhorSPAM...@wanadoo.fr
>
>
Aaaahhhhhhhh....the spectre of perpetual litigation is rearing its ugly head
once more. The Dallas Observer does not generallly have any legal liability
for printing the "truth." Nor does the Dallas Observer have any liability
for printing "opinions" (subject to some exceptions which are probably not
applicable). What is the "truth" is a fact question which Ion Storm can
have a jury or judge decide if it so chooses.
Michael Hawash
>
>
Brandon Van Every
RuthAndMark wrote in message <78gi89$mrl$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>>You can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an
>>idea.
>
>
I'd suggest cranking up DejaNews. I know we've had pretty extensive
discussions on that in *.industry.
RuthAndMark
>idea.
What's a patent then?
mark
Russ Williams
Something that isn't copyright. Duh.
---
Russ
Arbe
Williams" <ru...@algorithm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
====
geez- try this definition-- which is not really a legal one but should get
the point across..
A patent is an unique idea/concept reduced in a timely manner to
reality/practice
It would be tough to copyright a 'wheel" but you could patent it .
Of course you have to show reasonable diligence in reducing it to
something tangible, and within about a year after you first use it in
"commercial" practice or outside of a closed environment ( ie a lab ) --
So caveman Og could have patented it - and you could not even though his
patent expired a few thousand years ago.. because by now it wouldn't be
considered unique.. unless you used it in a new fashion - like making ice
cubes ..
--
<* ARBE -- SP2 --
<* Spammers and Forgers Note I am a Resident of Washington State
<* Damages limited to what you paid me for my opinion
Jason Shankel
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> RuthAndMark wrote in message <78gi89$mrl$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
> >>You can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an
> >>idea.
> >
> >
> >What's a patent then?
>
Patents and copyrights are two very different things.
Traditionally, a copyright is used to protect a specific expression of an
idea.
For example, George Lucas owns a copyright on Star Wars. That means
that no one can write about Han Solo or Luke Skywalker without Mr.
Lucas' permission.
But, you can put your own story about a naive kid from the farm and a
hardened mercenary teaming up with a princess, a wizard and a couple of
robots to bring down an oppressive regime. Sure, it might not be all that
original, but as long as the characters and the dialog are different, such
a
ripoff would not be actionable.
A patent is designed to protect a unique process or invention. So, if you
find a low energy way to remove salt from seawater using low-powered
lasers and household magnets, then no one else can profit from your
process,
even if they invent it independently without even knowing about you, if you
get to the patent office first.
In the past, copyrights and patents were apples and oranges. They never
really addressed the same issues. Alexander Graham Bell wouldn't think
of trying to "copyright" the telephone nor would Herman Melville seek to
patent the process of writing whale stories.
The problem is that software doesn't fall clearly in one camp or the other.
Program source code can be considered a "work of art" (in a legal,
if not an esthetic sense) and can therefore be copyrighted. This copyright
however, only protects developers against having the source code to their
programs published without permission. It does not protect developers
from having their work independently duplicated.
Courts have held that algorithms can be deemed as "inventions", which
means developers can patent algorithms. But algorithm patenting is a
sticky issue. In the physical world, it is usually fairly clear if someone
is
violating your patent. If you put an internal combustion engine into a
vehicle, then Henry Ford (or whoever) can open the hood see for himself.
How do you prove that software is implementing a patented algorithm?
Also, in the physical world, limiting and individual's access to a patented
process can be bothersome, even anti-competitive, but it rarely threatens
to cripple an entire industry. If, however, I were to patent the process
of
using a computer to sort a list of numbers, then *no* software could be
written without my permission.
It has been fairly clear for some time that computer software needs its
own category of intellectual property protection. Something more relevant
than copyright but less restrictive than patents.
Jonathan Guthrie
patents on algorithms.
In comp.games.development.industry Jason Shankel <see...@bottom.for.address> wrote:
> Patents and copyrights are two very different things.
Yes. Patents are intended to make sure that new ideas are shared with
everyone. Copyrights are not because, since they are used to protect
works of art, (and other "expressions") they are valueless to the owner
unless they are shared.
> Also, in the physical world, limiting and individual's access to a patented
> process can be bothersome, even anti-competitive, but it rarely threatens
> to cripple an entire industry. If, however, I were to patent the process
> of using a computer to sort a list of numbers, then *no* software could be
> written without my permission.
Yes, and it would remain that way until the patent expires (which is 17
years, in the United States.) I used to buy in to the "if we let
algorithms be patented, nobody will ever be able to write any programs
without being in violation of at least one patent" argument, but I don't
any more.
The reason for this is simple: Patents expire. They MUST expire in
order to do the job of encouraging people to share ideas. (The promise of
an absolute monopoly on an idea can be a powerful inducement to publish
the innards of inventions. Otherwise there is little or no incentive to
share true inventions.)
So, suppose that you were to submit a patent for the process you describe
above. The patent examiner may throw the patent out as "obvious", or the
people that comment on the patent may demonstrate "prior art" and so cause
the examiner to throw out the patent, the patent examiner may find a
patent describing an identical process from 30 years ago, or the patent
examiner may grant the patent. Only in the last case does anyone have to
worry about you enforcing the patent, and you still may have to defend
the patent against claims of obviousness or prior art.
Even if you are granted and successfully defend the patent, then the
patent goes away after a while. At that time, that idea, that algorithm
can NEVER be patented again. From then on, anyone who wants to can freely
use that idea and not pay you dime 1. While I will stipulate that many of
the so-called "software patents" that have been granted protect ideas that
you or I would consider "obvious" it is less clear how you or I are harmed
by this, especially in light of the fact that the oldest of those patents
have long since expired.
While there may still be plenty of obvious ideas that aren't covered by
prior art and so, potentially, can be patented and prevent people from
writing their own programs, the examiners will, no doubt, get more savvy
over time and put a stop to that sort of thing.
No matter how you slice it, this fear that someone can use a "software
patent" to prevent everyone from programming without paying a royalty is
pure bunk. The proof is this: I've been writing programs for almost 20
years (it will be 20 years this November) now. If someone were to patent
some process fundamental to all programming, I can testify that there
exists prior art. So can IBM. QED.
Yes, it is inconvenient to have to pay, say, RSA Data Security, $2500 per
server to use PGP ("that's three times what I paid for the computer!" I
said when they told me the price) but I only have to worry about it until
September 20, 2000, at which time their prices become irrelevant. (So do
they, probably.)
--
Jonathan Guthrie (jgut...@brokersys.com)
Brokersys +281-895-8101 http://www.brokersys.com/
Thatcher Ulrich
> Some disclosure: I'm currently named as the inventor in two pending
> patents on algorithms.
Disclosure: I have my name on a few patents, although they all involve a hardware
component in addition to the software parts. I refuse to file any software-only
patents, and have no plans to file any more software/hardware patents, either, because
I just don't think they're appropriate protection for algorithms.
> The reason for this is simple: Patents expire. They MUST expire in
> order to do the job of encouraging people to share ideas. (The promise of
> an absolute monopoly on an idea can be a powerful inducement to publish
> the innards of inventions. Otherwise there is little or no incentive to
> share true inventions.)
Patents expire... after SEVENTEEN YEARS! That's a ridiculous amount of time in the
world of software. If IBM, Microsoft, etc had gotten on the patent bandwagon in a big
way in the 80's, our industry might be very different today, and I doubt it would be
for the better.
> So, suppose that you were to submit a patent for the process you describe
> above. The patent examiner may throw the patent out as "obvious", or the
> people that comment on the patent may demonstrate "prior art" and so cause
> the examiner to throw out the patent, the patent examiner may find a
> patent describing an identical process from 30 years ago, or the patent
> examiner may grant the patent. Only in the last case does anyone have to
> worry about you enforcing the patent, and you still may have to defend
> the patent against claims of obviousness or prior art.
Or, in reality (as you may soon find out first-hand), the examiner brings up some
related prior art, you change some wording in the claims and buy him lunch, and the
patent is allowed.Also, the definition of "obvious" as used by the patent office is a
joke. Most (if not all) of the algorithms claimed in the patents that bear my name are
pretty darn obvious.
> Even if you are granted and successfully defend the patent, then the
> patent goes away after a while.
After SEVENTEEN freaking YEARS! That's an eternity in software.
> At that time, that idea, that algorithm
> can NEVER be patented again. From then on, anyone who wants to can freely
> use that idea and not pay you dime 1.
True enough.
> While I will stipulate that many of
> the so-called "software patents" that have been granted protect ideas that
> you or I would consider "obvious" it is less clear how you or I are harmed
> by this, especially in light of the fact that the oldest of those patents
> have long since expired.
Huh? I can't argue in court that last year's obvious software patent shouldn't be
enforced, because some obvious patent from the 70's has expired.
> While there may still be plenty of obvious ideas that aren't covered by
> prior art and so, potentially, can be patented and prevent people from
> writing their own programs, the examiners will, no doubt, get more savvy
> over time and put a stop to that sort of thing.
Only if we complain loudly enough. They won't do it by themselves, at least not in
this universe.
> Yes, it is inconvenient to have to pay, say, RSA Data Security, $2500 per
> server to use PGP ("that's three times what I paid for the computer!" I
> said when they told me the price) but I only have to worry about it until
> September 20, 2000, at which time their prices become irrelevant. (So do
> they, probably.)
IMHO, your arguments are fine, if a little optimistic, when applied to mechanisms,
electrical circuits, industrial processes, etc, and I think the history of the patent
system will generally bear you out. Algorithms are a different beast, though. On a
legal basis alone, the USPTO pulled a fast one by deciding to allow algorithm patents,
provided they could be stored on a floppy disk or other electronic media. I mean,
that's pretty ridiculous in light of the fact that abstract ideas aren't supposed to be
patentable.
From a practical standpoint, software patents are inappropriate for two other reasons.
1) the protection lasts for 17 years, and 2) the process of obtaining a patent is too
"heavyweight" in light of the current pace of software innovation. The average good
programmer probably comes up with two or three patentable algorithms every month. It's
just not practical to identify all those algorithms, let alone file a patent on them.
More appropriate methods exist for protecting routine innovation (oxymoron? :) in
software (e.g. don't give out the source code). Also, there have been proposals for a
special category of legal protection of software innovations that would cost less to
file and last for a shorter time than patents, which seem sensible to me.
-Thatcher
Geoff Howland
<ulr...@world.std.com> wrote:
>From a practical standpoint, software patents are inappropriate for two other reasons.
>1) the protection lasts for 17 years, and 2) the process of obtaining a patent is too
>"heavyweight" in light of the current pace of software innovation. The average good
>programmer probably comes up with two or three patentable algorithms every month. It's
>just not practical to identify all those algorithms, let alone file a patent on them.
>More appropriate methods exist for protecting routine innovation (oxymoron? :) in
>software (e.g. don't give out the source code). Also, there have been proposals for a
>special category of legal protection of software innovations that would cost less to
>file and last for a shorter time than patents, which seem sensible to me.
Personally, I think one of the problems with patenting when
something is "obvious", is that I have been told the average
cost to refute an obvious patent is $50,000. The onus is on
the one being sued as well, so any small company or
individual will basically be out of luck with someone else
who has gotten a patent and is deciding to sue people over
it.
Most likely they can just easily look over Microsoft using
the same technology and sue smaller companies into licensing
the technology from them, as its cheaper than trying to
refute an obvios priot art patent.
Russ Williams
>Some disclosure: I'm currently named as the inventor in two
>pending patents on algorithms.
Grrrrrr.
>Jason Shankel <see...@bottom.for.address> wrote:[...]
>> Also, in the physical world, limiting and individual's access to a
patented
>> process can be bothersome, even anti-competitive, but it rarely threatens
>> to cripple an entire industry. If, however, I were to patent the process
>> of using a computer to sort a list of numbers, then *no* software could
be
>> written without my permission.
>
>Yes, and it would remain that way until the patent expires (which is 17
>years, in the United States.)
Yes.
HELLO! Remember what the computer industry looked like in
1982? PCs have gone from hobbyist toys to essential business,
communication and entertainment tools.
Do you consider that to be a reasonable length of protection?
Wouldn't it have been cool if IBM had patented the original PC
design? We might just start having people cloning them about
now...
>I used to buy in to the "if we let algorithms be patented, nobody
>will ever be able to write any programs without being in violation
>of at least one patent" argument, but I don't any more.
Feh! Hear about mp3.com? They've just been hit from some
totally-unheard-of company in Pennsylvania who have a patent
(from the 1990s) on transferring payment and data across a
telecommunications line. And of course, Fraunhofer and
Thomson are trying to get royalties on DATA from a patent on
encoding technology.
>The reason for this is simple: Patents expire.
Yeah. In as long as the x86 architecture has existed.
>They MUST expire in order to do the job of encouraging people
>to share ideas. (The promise of an absolute monopoly on an
>idea can be a powerful inducement to publish the innards of
>inventions. Otherwise there is little or no incentive to share
>true inventions.)
Traditionally, software innovations have been revealed through
published articles and papers. It's not like there's some
desperate shortage of ideas, either.
[...]
>Even if you are granted and successfully defend the patent, then
>the patent goes away after a while. At that time, that idea, that
>algorithm can NEVER be patented again.
It can never be patented at all, once published. (Well, maybe for
a year after publication, if you're the inventor).
>From then on, anyone who wants to can freely use that idea and
>not pay you dime 1. While I will stipulate that many of the
>so-called "software patents" that have been granted protect ideas
>that you or I would consider "obvious" it is less clear how you or I
>are harmed by this, especially in light of the fact that the oldest of
>those patents have long since expired.
Like LZW? That is one of the lamest LZ derivatives and it's *still*
protected.
How about the universal mantra of developers? "Ideas are a
dime-a-dozen" (or two-a-penny). Patents on software imply
that the very idea is worth something - which is basically never
the case. That's why copyrights are far more appropriate - it
then needs some actual skill to make the idea into a product.
>While there may still be plenty of obvious ideas that aren't
>covered by prior art and so, potentially, can be patented and
>prevent people from writing their own programs, the examiners
>will, no doubt, get more savvy over time and put a stop to that
>sort of thing.
They've shown no sign of doing that so far...
>No matter how you slice it, this fear that someone can use a
>"software patent" to prevent everyone from programming
>without paying a royalty is pure bunk. The proof is this: I've
>been writing programs for almost 20 years (it will be 20 years
>this November) now. If someone were to patent some process
>fundamental to all programming, I can testify that there exists
>prior art. So can IBM. QED.
This involves going to court. That involves hiring lawyers. That
involves (lots of) money. Prior art or not, can you afford to fight?
>Yes, it is inconvenient to have to pay, say, RSA Data Security,
>$2500 per server to use PGP ("that's three times what I paid for
>the computer!" I said when they told me the price) but I only have
>to worry about it until September 20, 2000, at which time their
>prices become irrelevant. (So do they, probably.)
Yeah, pretty amusing, actually. RSA was invented at Bletchley
(under a different name, naturally). Of course, due to that being
a top-secret military installation, no-one knew about it until long
after RSAs patent was granted. (Source: DDJ).
---
Russ
Jason Shankel
some
interesting points were made, I think I may not have been clear.
I take issue with copyrights and patents for software not because they are
inherently dangerous but because I think that they're not appropriate fits
for what software is.
Copyrighting software is mostly harmless, but it does not, IMHO, adqequately
protect software developers since you can only copyright source code and
software content. Copyrights for software are probably most appropriate in
games and entertainment because games and entertainment are so content-
oriented. But copyrights were useless in preventing Microsoft from imitating
Apple's GUI or in preventing Apple from imitating Xerox Parc's GUI.
I'm not sure where I stand on whether Apple had a case against MS or
Xerox against Apple, but it is clear from the bad blood and the
misunderstandings
that a less-ambiguous law (even if it specified that developers have *no*
rights)
would have made the situation a little easier.
Patenting software is a bad idea not just because it prevents (if even for a
paltry
17 years) others from sharing in innovation. Patenting software is a bad
idea because it creates a revenue focus in software development that
has nothing to do with providing superior products to customers. I've actually
been in a situation where a company wanted me to file patents on trivial
design concepts so they could make money licensing these concepts to
competitors. I'm not talking about pennicilin or the internal combustion engine
here, I'm talking about fairly routine (though possibly original and therefore
patentable) stuff.
I don't pretend to have an answer to the question of the best method of
intellectual property protection, but I do know that it doesn't seem to be
patents.
Look what happened to Unisys when they tried to enforce their patent on LZW
(GIF) compression. Half of the web community igorned them and the other
half moved to JPG (now GIFs are rarely used on the net). What about
Compton's and their supposed patent on multimedia? Where are they now?
Yet Windows, Lotus Notes, Quicken, TurboTax, FileMaker, FoxPro, &c
are good strong cash cows for their respective companies with nary
a software patent (or patent enforcement case, anyway) between them.
I guess my point is that I'm not calling for software patents to be outlawed,
any more than I would call for smashing yourself in the head with a ball-peen
hammer to be outlawed. I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to me to be
in the best interests of developers to pay too much attention to patents.
On the other hand, I don't think that software patents are the great evil
everyone feared. Software companies have a piss-poor record actually
getting their patents enforced, so the question is mostly moot.
Russ Williams
[...]
>adqequately protect software developers since you can only
>copyright source code and software content. Copyrights for
>software are probably most appropriate in games and
>entertainment because games and entertainment are so content-
>oriented. But copyrights were useless in preventing Microsoft
>from imitating Apple's GUI or in preventing Apple from imitating
>Xerox Parc's GUI.
Should they have the right to that protection, though? How much
of a GUI is actual innovation? Isn't it like saying that Shakespeare
should have been able to protect the idea of writing plays in iambic
pentameter?
>I'm not sure where I stand on whether Apple had a case against
>MS or Xerox against Apple, but it is clear from the bad blood
>and the misunderstandings that a less-ambiguous law (even if
>it specified that developers have *no* rights) would have made
>the situation a little easier.
Well, that's what exists now - Apple (and Lotus) lost, so there is
now conclusive proof that look-and-feel is not protected.
[...]
>I don't pretend to have an answer to the question of the best
>method of intellectual property protection, but I do know that it
>doesn't seem to be patents.
Agreed.
>Look what happened to Unisys when they tried to enforce their
>patent on LZW (GIF) compression. Half of the web community
>igorned them and the other half moved to JPG (now GIFs are
>rarely used on the net).
Animated GIFs are still popular on web pages - PNG and JPG
just don't offer the same functionality :(
>What about Compton's and their supposed patent on multimedia?
>Where are they now?
They lost the court case (and hence the patent). Dunno what
happened to them after that, but I haven't heard anything of them
in ages... Karma, perhaps?
>Yet Windows, Lotus Notes, Quicken, TurboTax, FileMaker,
>FoxPro, &c are good strong cash cows for their respective
>companies with nary a software patent (or patent enforcement
>case, anyway) between them.
>
>I guess my point is that I'm not calling for software patents to be
>outlawed, any more than I would call for smashing yourself in the
>head with a ball-peen hammer to be outlawed. I'm just saying
>that it doesn't seem to me to be in the best interests of developers
>to pay too much attention to patents.
Perhaps the best thing to do with software patents is to destroy
the system from within. Instead of saying "Don't take out patents",
take out as many as possible. With an appropriate cross-licensing
agreement, signatories could have free use of all these patents
and enough bargaining power force free access to everyone else's
patents, too. Don't know how practical that would be, though :(
---
Russ
Jason Shankel
Russ Williams wrote:
>
> Perhaps the best thing to do with software patents is to destroy
> the system from within. Instead of saying "Don't take out patents",
> take out as many as possible. With an appropriate cross-licensing
> agreement, signatories could have free use of all these patents
> and enough bargaining power force free access to everyone else's
> patents, too. Don't know how practical that would be, though :(
There actually was a consortium of companies working on this. The
idea was, as you said, to take out as many patents as they reasonably
could and release them under some kind of GNU-like public licensing
scheme.
The problem was that as soon as the profit motive went out of patenting,
no one wanted to spend the time and money to actually pursue patents.
I tend to think of software patents and the nuclear weapons of software
development. No one knows how to get rid of them, some people
argue that they're necessary, but no one is ever praised for using them.
JC
...Atari patented virtually everything we use today, from background
scrolling, sprites, exclusive-oring method of sprites, joysticks, etc.
Literally every fundamental part of games development.
Thankfully the only people they have actioned apon have been the big boys
like Nintendo and Sega, and I believe their patents have now expired.
Peter Seebach
Jonathan Guthrie <jgut...@weck.brokersys.com> wrote:
>Yes, and it would remain that way until the patent expires (which is 17
>years, in the United States.)
My guess is that the majority of the problems with software patents come
down to one of the following:
1. It takes too long to get the patent, with respect to the industry. It
can take 25-50 internet years to get a patent, yes? (I'm guessing "about
a year" is an optimistic estimate.)
2. The patent lasts too long with respect to the industry. 17 years is
what, 850 internet years?
3. The patent office may not have the resources to comprehend the issues
involved, which can lead to...
4. It may be too expensive to defend a patent against, e.g., Microsoft or
someone else large enough to have lawyers slow you down.
5. It may be too expensive to demonstrate that a patent held by a large
enough entity is invalid.
If, say, the loser in such a case always absorbed legal fees and damages,
those wouldn't be problems, but other, worse, problems might be created.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Send me money - get cool programs and hardware! No commuting, please.
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Nathan Mates
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>My guess is that the majority of the problems with software patents come
>down to one of the following:
>1. It takes too long to get the patent, with respect to the industry. It
>can take 25-50 internet years to get a patent, yes? (I'm guessing "about
>a year" is an optimistic estimate.)
>2. The patent lasts too long with respect to the industry. 17 years is
>what, 850 internet years?
When patents were set up centuries ago, nobody thought of "internet
years" or any other compressed timescale. Who's to say that the
tremendous boom of growth won't flatten out soon so 17 years might be
"17 years" soonish? If you don't want to wait the 17 years for a
patent to expire, or author's life + 75 years for a copyright, then
ASK the owner to have things changed. If they say no, DEAL WITH IT.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Network Programmer, Battlezone 2: see http://www.pandemicstudios.com
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios or Activision, ONLY myself
# "What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein
Peter Seebach
Nathan Mates <nat...@visi.com> wrote:
> When patents were set up centuries ago, nobody thought of "internet
>years" or any other compressed timescale.
Right. This is why they are working so badly in practice now.
>Who's to say that the
>tremendous boom of growth won't flatten out soon so 17 years might be
>"17 years" soonish?
Well, historically, there hasn't been a lot of reversing of the technological
trend.
>If you don't want to wait the 17 years for a
>patent to expire, or author's life + 75 years for a copyright, then
>ASK the owner to have things changed. If they say no, DEAL WITH IT.
Oh, certainly, it's *livable*. But we're right on the edge, now, of the
point at which we'd get better distribution of information and technology,
and more net benefit to the inventors, with no patent system at all, at least
in the software industry. The huge costs of people dancing in circles around
patents that have lasted "too long" are hurting us a lot...
Of course, to really make progress, we need to fix ITAR too.
Jim Williams
from a university... some of those end up in gov't and f* up the country. :(
>Anybody who gets his legal education from a dictionary is dangerous.
>
romb...@compuserve.com
> Yet Windows, Lotus Notes, Quicken, TurboTax, FileMaker, FoxPro, &c
> are good strong cash cows for their respective companies with nary
> a software patent (or patent enforcement case, anyway) between them.
Just as a clarification, there was at least one patent controversy involving
FoxPro. Back around 1990 a small company named Loadstone or something like
that claimed that the "Rushmore" optimization technology introduced in FoxPro
1.0 infringed on a patent that they (Loadstone) had already been granted.
There were a few articles in the computer press written about this, but I
never found out what finally happened. I was working at Ashton-Tate at the
time, and we ordeded a copy of Loadstone's patent out of curiosity.
Also, this was about three years before Fox Software was acquired by
Microsoft.
Tom Rombouts
Redondo Beach, CA
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own