Are there any techie SUPPORTERS of software patents left?
phil swenson
Ricky Clarkson
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:40 PM, phil swenson <phil.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2011/08/time-to-really-deal-with-the-broken-software-patent-system.html
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
>
mP
primarily because patents are a weapon of the elite to further their
own interests rather like the Bible and other so called holy books.
On Aug 8, 4:47 am, Ricky Clarkson <ricky.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Only Cedric Beust that I know of.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2011/08/time-to-really-deal-with-the-...
Cédric Beust ♔
Only Cedric Beust that I know of.
Cédric Beust ♔
I wonder if religious people support patents more than non religious,
primarily because patents are a weapon of the elite to further their
own interests rather like the Bible and other so called holy books.
Kirk
Casper Bang
> software patent system is a buggy implementation.
debate? ;)
Jon Kiparsky
mP
On Aug 8, 3:06 pm, Kirk <kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> amazing to see you being wrong ;-)
>
> Dig aside, there are many industries that function quite well without patent protection and IMHO, software is one of them. Google does not need patents to protect what it is doing, neither does facebook. How many patents protect TestNG and how many have copied your work? It is my believe that software is a utilitarian product and the mistake is that this exception to the rule that you cannot patent utilitarian products has been broken. So using your interface analagy, GIGO....
>
matter if a better face book comes around tomorrow, what matters is
whats people associate deep in their minds. It is for this very
reason, they could almost give away all their software as FOSS and the
status quo would remain unchanged.
mP
statements. Go back and forth thru many of the discussions that
involve patents and im wagering that the same people say the same
thing regardless of what others are stating even when they are wrong.
People just never change their opinion regardless of whether they are
right or even wrong.
On Aug 8, 1:58 pm, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com> wrote:
Carl Jokl
religion.
I thought this group was comprised of technologists and other 'so
called' professionals
who would be expected to understand how offensive that kind of remark
could be to many people. I don't know about whether my taking
exception to it checked or unchecked.
Chris Adamson
1. People who believe in software patents without reservation.
2. People who believe in the idea of software patents, but with
exceptions or reservations; i.e., they're fine with software patents
in theory, but not with how the US grants patents on trivial, obvious
ideas without implementations, and then allows for trolling through
expensive litigation.
3. People who do not believe in software patents in any case.
Depending on what kind of programming you do and what social circles
you hang out in, you may be exposed disproportionately to certain of
these groups. If you listen to the Java Posse and read /. twice a
day, you're going to get a lot of #3 and virtually none of #1. But if
you worked at a big, old company, like an IBM or Oracle, I bet you'd
at least rub shoulders with #1 a lot more.
Like a lot of people I've long been #2 but am drifting towards #3.
--Chris
Josh Berry
> I think there are three main bodies of belief on the subject:
>
> 1. People who believe in software patents without reservation.
> 2. People who believe in the idea of software patents, but with
> exceptions or reservations; i.e., they're fine with software patents
> in theory, but not with how the US grants patents on trivial, obvious
> ideas without implementations, and then allows for trolling through
> expensive litigation.
> 3. People who do not believe in software patents in any case.
Sadly, I think there is a much much much larger group that really just
hasn't even thought of it at all. They are often introduced to
patents in a "you don't want to rob inventors of their due, do you?"
In that regard, is it really any surprise that most people initially
fall in favor of them?
I'm glad that some of the louder voices in the industry are starting
to speak up about the topic. Hopefully this is the start of a
productive dialog. If there truly is a #2 position that would work,
we should be able to find it.
Carl Jokl
place that has Software Patents? Is that true? If that is the case
then if they are so important why don't other countries also have
them.
I think I take the stance of looking at what the whole system is
supposed to be achieving and what it is actually achieving. It was
supposed to promote innovation. It seems to be doing the opposite.
What I see is a bunch of big evil corporations trying to muscle out
anyone from competing with them. Patents are supposed to protect
things that those companies invented but so many of the patents now
are not things that those companies invented but patents stockpiled
through acquisitions. It feels like the big players want to have the
market so stitched up that no-one can do anything without infringing
someones patent.
If Apple is able to successfully use patents to drive Android out of
existence then how is that for encouraging innovation and competition?
I am afraid of a mobile space that looks like the Desktop space i.e.
iPhone has the lions share and everything else is pushed out to
insignificance. Some of the big players will argue that they have a
natural monopoly because they do things better than anyone else. It
may be more true that it is because they can do what others cannot do.
They have the resources and patents that let them do what others
cannot do but the patents hold off others trying to compete so they
just solidify their monopoly. This is hardly good for the industry. It
might happen anyway with or without patents. The Supermarkets for
example seem to have masses of power by virtue of how much money they
have and nothing to do with patenting anything. As time goes on we
seem to have fewer and bigger chains of them. The smaller ones die off
and get absorbed by the bigger ones. The Computer industry seems to be
going the same way and the recession accelerated it.
Ricky Clarkson
around them. Most people I choose to talk to are atheists (that's not
actually how I choose, at least not consciously), but all my wife's
family are Catholics; before I was around them I'd have said something
like that without worrying too much.
Ricky Clarkson
Just kidding.
2011/8/7 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>:
Casper Bang
> around them. Most people I choose to talk to are atheists (that's not
> actually how I choose, at least not consciously), but all my wife's
> family are Catholics; before I was around them I'd have said something
> like that without worrying too much.
surprising though that people in academia would favor causality and
reason over crucifix and bible.
Carl Jokl
in Academia.
I have had plenty of experience of being treated like a freak for
choosing to believe in something. If you want to talk about reason
then I have some logical reason points. Atheism is an active belief in
the absence of any supreme being existing. Usually this is coupled
with the believe that the world, universe and life are all byproducts
of random chance.
From a logical standpoint it does not seem reasonable for me to look
at the Universe, the world, the incredibly complex life that exists
within it and dismiss it as just some fluke of accident or chance. I
see order and complexity as implying some kind of intelligence. I
think chaos theory has been abused to state that given infinite time
that anything that is possible to happen will eventually happen.
However I might question whether it is possible for such order to be
created at all by fluke of chance. If I consider how I would expect
the Universe to look if it was devoid of any intelligence or any
controlling influence then I would expect to see chaotic matter and
randomly moving energy. If out of that some structure were to be
randomly created I would logically expect that it would be like
creating a snowflake in a furnace and that sooner or later the
overriding chaotic nature of the Universe would destroy any fleeting
order that was created within it. What I observe in our Universe and
our world in particular is a highly complex structure which adapts and
seems to increase in sophistication as time goes on. This implies to
me some kind of intelligent design.
Getting from that foundation to believing in something like the Bible
is a big jump. For me it involves a such a complex chain of
dependencies that Maven couldn't hope to cope with however it is
certainly not a matter of believing on something just for the sake of
it or to fit in or blindly without question but there are reasons
behind believing in each principle. I do resent the implication from
others that religious belief is just so irrational that it is evidence
that an individual is flaky and illogical.
My personal ethos has a big impact however of my work and business
ethics and desire to see a computer industry more focused on moving
the world forward than squabbling over rich people trying to get
richer or maintain their wealth for which Software Patents have proved
invaluable in that agenda.
Chris Adamson
> I do wonder considering that some have said that the US is the only
> existence then how is that for encouraging innovation and competition?
more than it copies. Android wasn't about multi-touch screens and
software keyboards until the iPhone came out. Consider that the first
Apple suit against HTC was about specific traits, technical and UI, in
that company's Android devices: from their point of view, the story is
"we innovated, you copied, that's not fair."
You don't have to believe in software patents or be an Apple fanboy to
think that Android copies heavily from iPhone. Indeed, that seems to
be one of its major selling points: "it's like an iPhone, but it's on
my network"… "it's like an iPhone, but it's better integrated with
Google stuff"… "it's like an iPhone, but it's politically correct"…
etc.
Let's spin this "how is that encouraging innovation and competition"
argument around, though we'll have to indulge arguing hypotheticals to
do it. Imagine that the Bing engineers use some clever techniques --
setting up fake websites, performing peculiar searches, analyzing
server logs, etc. -- to perfectly reverse engineer Google's search
algorithms. They do this not by copying Google's code (which would
violate copyright), but entirely through clean-room, black-box reverse
engineering. They then take their knockoff of Google's search and put
it into Bing, even advertise it as being just as good as Google. Now
Google, which of course has patented the hell out of their crown
jewels, can either sit back and watch as the fruits of their labor
(stuff they've invested tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars
into and based the company on) are ripped off, or they can go to court
and demand that Bing stop.
Which of those options encourages innovation and competition?
> I am afraid of a mobile space that looks like the Desktop space i.e.
> iPhone has the lions share and everything else is pushed out to
> insignificance.
Android's victory is inevitable and it's the iPhone that is doomed.
Besides, this is a tired analogy. Smartphones really seem to be
shaping up more like game consoles: a duopoly or oligopoly (XBox,
PlayStation, Wii). iOS does seem to be running away with the tablet
space, but it's still very early. And let's not forget there are
other mobile categories: book readers (which seems like a Kindle/Nook
duopoly, so another score for Android), music players (funny that
there isn't an Android-based player along the lines of an iPod touch,
e.g., an Android phone minus the phone), dedicated GPS devices (which
seem to be in clear decline), etc.
--Chris
Kevin Wright
Sadly, I think there is a much much much larger group that really just
hasn't even thought of it at all. They are often introduced to
patents in a "you don't want to rob inventors of their due, do you?"
In that regard, is it really any surprise that most people initially
fall in favor of them?
- The fashion industry is remarkably successful, despite the fact that clothes are classed as utilitarian (a debatable point, for many designers), and so can't be patented.
- Software innovation is working just fine in other countries, despite the lack of patents. Even within the realm of just programming languages, you only have to look at the rise of Groovy, Ruby, Scala, Python, Erlang, etc. to see this in action.
- Linux has spread into places and enabled technologies that simply wouldn't have happened if it had been encumbered by the need to pay license fees.
- The entire internet is run on stacks that have their origin in BSD-licensed code.
- A main consideration of any venture capitalist in the US now is to check for the existence of patents that would undermine any technology they're considering to invest in, I wonder how many inventors and startups have failed to "collect their due" because of failing at this first hurdle.
PhilDin
I don't know if this puts me in the conspiracy theorist category or
not but I always thought that the US (and the EU) were keen to issue
as many patents in as many areas as possible regardless of the damage
it does to the local economy. The longer term payoff is to get these
patents accepted and enforced worldwide with the end result that the
more established economies can live off patent royalties.
Consider that at some stage, the manufacturing activity that is
currently outsourced to China will over time (at least in some cases)
evolve into fully self reliant organisations with their own design,
branding, distribution channels etc. with no links back to the
original outsourcer. A Chinese manufacturer might create the next big
thing and even though they confine themselves to the Chinese market,
could find themselves paying $1 to Motorola for every unit shipped
(not intending to pick on Motorola, just an arbitrary example). This
would put the US/EU in a situation similar to that of Athens who used
to use the Athenian navy to ensure that "nothing terrible" happened to
passing trading vessels. Of course, they charged for this service and
in doing so, became immensely rich at the expense of causing much
resentment towards them.
Carl Jokl
It may well be that Google copied ideas from the iPhone but it didn't
copy the implementation of those ideas. It still had to pay people to
write software to implement the ideas and functionality. Companies and
competing software copy features all the time and I think that goes on
across industries. If you are competing with a company and that
company offers a feature or service that you do not it is natural for
you to also want to be able to offer it too otherwise you do no remain
competitive. This is usually a two way street. The implementation of
the feature or service still isn't free just because someone else
thought of it first. Putting some kind of blocks in place to say that
no-one can do something because someone else did it first just seems
to get in the way. If Microsoft copied Google's techniques for the
Bing search engine they still have to implement it. If they steal code
then that is a copyright issue not a patent one. What happens if other
engineers independently come up with an invention? They didn't steal
anything in that case it was their own idea, it just happens some also
thought the same. Both Germany and the UK invented a Jet engine
independent of each other and without knowledge of the other. The
copying of and then improving on features and functionality back and
fourth between companies moves industry forward. It keeps companies
having to innovate and come up with more new features to stay
competitive. People would not buy Android phones if they didn't offer
something that the iPhone didn't even if that is a more competitive
price. If Google is able to deliver a product with a similar
specification but a lower price then that is in itself innovation and
part of healthy competition. If a feature is really easy to copy then
it is also probably not that innovative. If it was hard to implement
it should be hard for others to implement too.
Russel Winder
> I don't know if this puts me in the conspiracy theorist category or
> not but I always thought that the US (and the EU) were keen to issue
> as many patents in as many areas as possible regardless of the damage
> it does to the local economy. The longer term payoff is to get these
> patents accepted and enforced worldwide with the end result that the
> more established economies can live off patent royalties.
This may be true of the USPTO but it is not true elsewhere -- although
the USTR would love to further pressure the EPO and others into being
like the USPTO. The UKIPO has always practiced far more due diligence
on claims than the USPTO seems to bother with.
If you are looking for a conspiracy, investigate the way in which the
USTR has amended the clauses of ACTA over time such that any signatory
to ACTA will have to issue software patents in the way USPTO does.
Simon Phipps has documented it all. Even people who believe in the
principle of patenting software, algorithms, processes, ideas and
thoughts need to view this outcome with dread. All the worst aspects of
the USA system of software patents foisted on everyone.
> Consider that at some stage, the manufacturing activity that is
> currently outsourced to China will over time (at least in some cases)
> evolve into fully self reliant organisations with their own design,
> branding, distribution channels etc. with no links back to the
> original outsourcer. A Chinese manufacturer might create the next big
> thing and even though they confine themselves to the Chinese market,
> could find themselves paying $1 to Motorola for every unit shipped
> (not intending to pick on Motorola, just an arbitrary example). This
> would put the US/EU in a situation similar to that of Athens who used
> to use the Athenian navy to ensure that "nothing terrible" happened to
> passing trading vessels. Of course, they charged for this service and
> in doing so, became immensely rich at the expense of causing much
> resentment towards them.
I suspect the Chinese government will not care about patents just like
they don't care about copyright. And as the Chinese own a large part of
the USA national debt, I suspect the USA will have to do what the
Chinese want them to, when they want them to.
--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Vince O'Sullivan
> Ideas are cheap, implementations are expensive.
(successful and repeated) innovation is way more expensive than
implementation and imitation.
> People would not buy Android phones if they didn't offer
> something that the iPhone didn't even if that is a more competitive
> price.
Carl Jokl
idea about a product or technology is simpler than creating an
implementation of that idea or a prototype. The copying aspect though
does tend to have the benefit of looking at what worked well and what
didn't such as .Net copying Java but trying to avoid what didn't work
well (though potentially introducing some other new things that don't
work well). I don't have any figures. I don't know if anyone on here
has access to any. Even for Microsoft copying ideas from Java to
make .Net I still think the development of it would have cost
Microsoft a great deal. The research and development is less costly
due to starting from something existing known concept but the coding
is still being done from scratch and the libraries and APIs are all
different anyway.
I think the principle can vary a lot from what is being copied. For
example if it is an interaction style that others have developed from
a long series of prototype experiment with test users until and
effective technique is found then it would save the copying company
because the effective interaction style was developed by others. Other
kinds of development, in particular behind the scenes code with no UI
and black box libraries might well still involve a similar development
cost each time a separate company has to development (if they don't
know anything about any other company's implementation.
Carl Jokl
tired.
Cédric Beust ♔
Sadly, I think there is a much much much larger group that really just
hasn't even thought of it at all. They are often introduced to
patents in a "you don't want to rob inventors of their due, do you?"
In that regard, is it really any surprise that most people initially
fall in favor of them?
Cédric Beust ♔
From a logical standpoint it does not seem reasonable for me to look
at the Universe, the world, the incredibly complex life that exists
within it and dismiss it as just some fluke of accident or chance. I
see order and complexity as implying some kind of intelligence.
Kirk
Cédric Beust ♔
On Aug 8, 6:20 am, Carl Jokl <carl.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do wonder considering that some have said that the US is the only
> If Apple is able to successfully use patents to drive Android out ofThe counter-argument is that Android doesn't innovate, at least not
> existence then how is that for encouraging innovation and competition?
more than it copies. Android wasn't about multi-touch screens and
software keyboards until the iPhone came out.
Wait, I have been reliably told by many, many reasonable people that
> I am afraid of a mobile space that looks like the Desktop space i.e.
> iPhone has the lions share and everything else is pushed out to
> insignificance.
Android's victory is inevitable and it's the iPhone that is doomed.
Kevin Wright
Cédric Beust ♔
That's certainly a worthy goal, but nobody has proven that patents actually translate to a better deal for inventors.
- The fashion industry is remarkably successful, despite the fact that clothes are classed as utilitarian (a debatable point, for many designers), and so can't be patented.
- Software innovation is working just fine in other countries, despite the lack of patents.
- Linux has spread into places and enabled technologies that simply wouldn't have happened if it had been encumbered by the need to pay license fees.
Yes, innovation still continues in the US, but this doesn't demonstrate that the patent system meets its stated goals, innovation could well be happening *in spite* of patents.
The burden must surely be on showing that patents increase innovation, and that they don't simply slow it down, or have no effect (other than to line the pockets of lawyers and trolls). Without evidence-based proof in either direction, it seems illogical and irresponsible to argue for the continued existence of a system that burdens taxpayers with the cost of administering the patent office.
Cédric Beust ♔
I, for one, can't see myself losing sleep and crying long into the night over such consequences.
Josh Berry
>
> I've found this to be true in the other direction as well: people who want
> to completely abolish the current system without thinking the consequences
> through.
The difference, though, is there is actual evidence of the harm
patents have done in the industry. I don't think anyone has ever
produced evidence of the good it has done.
And again, don't forget that the rapid growth at the beginning of the
computer field was one largely devoid of patents in the US, even. I
typically try and make the argument that it is very likely a patented
BIOS would have crippled the clone market. It is not hard to argue
that this could have stagnated the entire industry for some time.
So, give some actual consequences.
Cédric Beust ♔
2011/8/8 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>:
>The difference, though, is there is actual evidence of the harm
> I've found this to be true in the other direction as well: people who want
> to completely abolish the current system without thinking the consequences
> through.
patents have done in the industry. I don't think anyone has ever
produced evidence of the good it has done.
Kevin Wright
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Kevin Wright <kev.lee...@gmail.com> wrote:It seems to me that a crushing majority of the commercially successful software innovations that have been happening for the past decades have originated in the US. Note that I inserted "commercially successful" here, since it's the only one that really matters in this debate. Obscure inventions that never generate any money are not impacted by software patents since nobody bothers fighting over them.Also, I think you will be hard pressed to find examples of countries that are 1) active in the CS field and 2) don't have some sort of software patent laws (the US and Europe are out, obviously, which doesn't leave much).
Linux was indeed invented outside of the US and what was one of the first things that its creator did when Linux started taking off? Move to the US.
All I'm saying is that the system can't be as broken as abolitionists are claiming, the solution to this problem cannot be "Let's abolish all software patents".
The burden must surely be on showing that patents increase innovation, and that they don't simply slow it down, or have no effect (other than to line the pockets of lawyers and trolls). Without evidence-based proof in either direction, it seems illogical and irresponsible to argue for the continued existence of a system that burdens taxpayers with the cost of administering the patent office.This is where we differ. Innovation is happening, so the system is working, although maybe not optimally, therefore the burden of proof is on people who want to change it. They need to prove things will improve if we listen to them, and so far, they haven't produced much besides endless circle jerk discussions on Hacker News and Slashdot.
Cédric Beust ♔
--
Russel Winder
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Kevin Wright
> <kev.lee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's certainly a worthy goal, but nobody has proven that
> patents actually translate to a better deal for inventors.
>
>
> Now, here is an angle that hardly ever pops up in these discussions,
> thanks for bringing it up. And I am certainly more sympathetic to
> discussing this than the tired (and incorrect) "Software patents
> stifle innovation" (the US seems to be innovating just fine, despite
> the flaws of its system).
A big problem is going to be the "first to file" rule, which means that
the real inventor is extremely unlikely ever to win anything from the
invention. This is especially the case if the inventor is a one man
band or SME (unless the person happens to be a multi-millionaire).
Another issue is the cost of enforcement for one man bands and SMEs;
they basically do not have the resources to enforce patents. There are
cases, so there is evidence.
> * The fashion industry is remarkably successful, despite
> the fact that clothes are classed as utilitarian (a
> debatable point, for many designers), and so can't be
> patented.
> * Software innovation is working just fine in other
> countries, despite the lack of patents.
> Not so sure about this. It seems to me that a crushing majority of the
> commercially successful software innovations that have been happening
> for the past decades have originated in the US. Note that I inserted
> "commercially successful" here, since it's the only one that really
> matters in this debate. Obscure inventions that never generate any
> money are not impacted by software patents since nobody bothers
> fighting over them.
Two reasons for that: USA is a fairly good place for innovation, and
many innovations happening elsewhere have been snapped up by the US
giants and shipped back to the US. There are cases there is evidence.
So to say "crushing majority" is in one sense not wrong, but in another
sense is a "how to lie with statistics".
> Also, I think you will be hard pressed to find examples of countries
> that are 1) active in the CS field and 2) don't have some sort of
> software patent laws (the US and Europe are out, obviously, which
> doesn't leave much).
Technically in the UK software patents are not permitted. The UK is no
inactive in the CS field.
> * Linux has spread into places and enabled technologies
> that simply wouldn't have happened if it had been
> encumbered by the need to pay license fees.
> Linux was indeed invented outside of the US and what was one of the
> first things that its creator did when Linux started taking off? Move
> to the US.
Nothing to do with software patents. Specious argument.
> Yes, innovation still continues in the US, but this doesn't
> demonstrate that the patent system meets its stated goals,
> innovation could well be happening *in spite* of patents.
>
>
> Fair enough. All I'm saying is that the system can't be as broken as
> abolitionists are claiming, the solution to this problem cannot be
> "Let's abolish all software patents".
Uuuurrrr.... yes it can. Just stating a position doesn't make it true,
whichever way you want the argument to go.
> The burden must surely be on showing that patents increase
> innovation, and that they don't simply slow it down, or have
> no effect (other than to line the pockets of lawyers and
> trolls). Without evidence-based proof in either direction, it
> seems illogical and irresponsible to argue for the continued
> existence of a system that burdens taxpayers with the cost of
> administering the patent office.
>
>
> This is where we differ. Innovation is happening, so the system is
> working, although maybe not optimally, therefore the burden of proof
> is on people who want to change it. They need to prove things will
> improve if we listen to them, and so far, they haven't produced much
> besides endless circle jerk discussions on Hacker News and Slashdot.
This is just two poles in a position where people seem to selectively
find data, and edit arguments, to support their position. Kevin is
right because I agree with his position but the argument above is
specious because there is never going to be any objective data because
the system is already in place and the null hypothesis can never be
tested. I disagree with Cédric, so he is wrong, but more importantly,
there is never going to be any objective data because the system is
already in place and the null hypothesis can never be tested.
So let's just forget all this "burden of proof" in this situation, is it
a bullshit, specious argument technique worthy of only the most
casuistic of sophists.
The only actual data we have is that the USA has software patents and
most other places don't -- at least not in the same way. The USA
revolves around lawyers and court in a way the rest of the world
doesn't. The USA has the large corporates and they either have patent
warchests or they are rapidly buying in to them because to stay in
business as a large corporate you have to play the game. If all the
corporates decide to stop the game, then it can stop. If just one
decides to continue then they all have to continue. Most of the English
speaking market areas are dominated by the USA big corporates so that
means corporates outside the USA also have to begin to play the game, at
least in the USA. Only when the non-USA market is important compared to
the USA market will anything change. That time is coming given the rate
of expansion of the Chinese and Indian economies and the poor
performance and debt ridden-ness of the USA and EU economies.
Only politicians can change this situation, and only then will it happen
if vested interest allows it to happen. Currently vested interest is
using patents as tools of protectionism, so they are happy.
This situation is now far beyond innovation and invention, it is about
big corporate power games. Innovation is only of interest when earning
per share demand it, which is generally not very often.
Innovation is about small guys doing stuff and keeping the big guys off
their backs until they want to make a trade sale and exit. Patents are
an unnecessary encumbrance, or only needed as part of the exit strategy
to make sale more interesting.
The people who really benefit from software patents are the lawyers, and
USA lawyers in a USA context at that. So if the USA wants to keep them
fine as long as the USA doesn't insist on extra-territoriality of its
legal system on everyone else -- cf. PATRIOT Act and the abuse of
investigative powers in violation of local laws in the EU (whole other
rant).
Basically the big corporates need to keep the software patent spat local
to the USA and leave the rest of the world to evolve in their own way,
and find new ways of innovating -- in their own way.
<rant/>
Kirk
I, for one, can't see myself losing sleep and crying long into the night over such consequences.Think about it a bit harder. What if entrepreneurs decide to stop creating startups because they can no longer be sure that when they release a new product after one year of hard work, a big company won't pick it up, implement it in a month and crush them? Because of patents (at least in part), such big companies are usually more open to discussing acquisitions than exterminations.
Robert Casto
--
Robert Casto
www.robertcasto.com
www.sellerstoolbox.com
Josh Berry
> Really? Isn't it all around us? Facebook, Google, Twitter, Zynga, the
> iPhone, the iPad, where does the list stop? There are literally thousands of
> innovations popping up every year. Innovation is happening, thanks or in
> spite of the patents, we don't really know, but it *is* happening.
> And yes, the abuses of the system are clearly making the headlines, courtesy
> of the patent trolls, but focusing on this only is like taking the footage
> of a policeman beating up a protester and then saying that the police force
> should be dissolved.
Goal post shift much? I said people can give evidence of the harm of
patents. I asked for evidence of the benefit of patents. You cede
that this could "be in spite of patents." I am not going to claim one
way or another on the causality of the innovation that has happened
here. What I can do is point to the harm that patents are doing. Or
do you disagree with those points? That is, do you feel that patents
do not in fact harm innovation from companies like Google today?
I will again point out that the rapid innovation at the birth of the
computer industries was largely during a time when none of these items
was patentable. Can you imagine if SGI or even early AOL had managed
to get their stuff patented? The beloved Xerox labs?
Kirk
Cédric Beust ♔
Copying isn't as easy as it seems. Which brings me back to TestNG. How much protection to do you have and how many copies of it are there? My guess in goose egg on both counts.
Kirk
>
> I contend that the patent system has a cost, in terms of administration at the patent office, and funds that are bled from tech companies in the form of legal fees. In the absence of any further data on whether or not patents spur innovation, then this added cost alone should be enough to justify the abolition of a system that's unable to provide evidence in support of its stated benefits.
The patent system has cost software companies. Just think if the 4.5 billion that was just spent to get the Nortel patents. What do you think that money could have done if instead of putting it into patent protection it was put into R&D.
Kirk
Kirk
Josh Berry
> Sorry, it's not a red herring.. patent trolls will still go after you and
> just shut you down if they figure out what you're doing.
Consider: Android. :)
That is, all it takes is one software shop that has general patents on
testing software, and they can come after you demanding money for lost
sales. The rate things are going, they will wait for you to be
somewhere where you are monetizing your product, and then come after
you. No need to go quickly.
phil swenson
2011/8/8 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>:
Ricky Clarkson
simultaneously would support software patents, goto statements, null,
Hungarian notation, DRM, the sale of guns in Walmart, the use of
SourceSafe because of its team-building properties, etc.
He is the right-wing version of a techie. When he's in the Scala IRC
channel I feel like he's waiting for someone to go "can I use #@$%^ as
an identifier?" just so he can post a diatribe about how complex Scala
is. (The answer is no, but you can use #@#%^). Not that he ever
does; he's been a pretty positive influence there, but I bet he's
tempted. :)
phil swenson
the trolls. They build patent hoards for counter-suits.
I still don't see why software needs patents? We are talking about
*processes* here. Not chemical formulas. Not mechanical devices.
On a different note though - maybe this whole debate wouldn't be
needed if a software patent duration was shorter. Software moves at a
much faster pace that other industries. 20 year patents (not sure
which one software gets, but I think 20 is the norm) are crazy. If
they were 5 years, maybe the shit-storm that's been going on goes
away.
2011/8/8 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>:
Spencer Uresk
to work out in practice (the implementation). I think this describes
software patents. You can probably get me to agree that some form of
software patents isn't a terrible idea in theory, but I don't think
I'll ever agree that coming up with a good implementation is humanly
possible.
It isn't just an implementation that needs tweaks, it is a horribly
broken system, and the only reason it hasn't destroyed our economy (or
what's left of it) is that, so far, only a relatively small number of
patent holders abuse the system.
Consider this - given how many over broad and blatantly obvious
patents have been granted, every single app, website, and online
business is in violation of numerous patents. How is that good for
innovation? How is that fair? How is it beneficial that, as the
JavaPosse pointed out, companies are now spending *billions* of
dollars to acquire patents - not for the underlying technology, but to
use as legal weapons? What is it going to take to convince people that
what we have is beyond repair?
There are plenty of real, relevant examples of how patents are hurting
businesses and hurting innovation. There are no examples of software
patents helping innovation, just a hypothetical inventor who won't
bestow their brilliant idea (say, in app purchases?) on the world
unless they get the right to sue anyone else who has the gall to do
something similar.
There is a counter-point against even that hypothetical argument -
open source software. Almost every piece of technology you use owes at
least some of its functionality to open source software, which is
pretty much the opposite of patented software. I'm not an open source
fanboy, and I certainly appreciate the role and value of proprietary
software, but the fact that open source software is at the heart of so
much we do is compelling evidence that innovation in software can (and
does) happen on a breathtakingly large scale without the need for
software patents.
- Spencer
On Aug 7, 9:58 pm, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 5:59 PM, mP <miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if religious people support patents more than non religious,
> > primarily because patents are a weapon of the elite to further their
> > own interests rather like the Bible and other so called holy books.
>
> Let's avoid this kind of sweeping statement.
>
> Basically, I think that software patents are an interface and the US
> software patent system is a buggy implementation. One thing I have noticed
> about buggy implementations is that they usually don't invalidate the
> soundness of the interface they implement.
>
> --
> Cédric
Jon Kiparsky
The arguments for and against both sides seem to me a lot more complicated than I'm seeing them presented here, and I find that the arguments for and against intellectual property protection for computers are debates largely taking place in different halls.
So, in the interests of bringing the debaters closer together I have two questions.
1) Since the majority view is clearly anti-patent, I'd be curious to know if there is any system of patent for computer programs that you could possibly find helpful. Or, if not patent, is there any scheme of IP (copyright or perhaps some novel scheme) that you think would benefit the software industry and the individual writers. For those who support software patents as a notion, what would you consider as useful improvements to the patent system? Or, if you can't come up with concrete proposals, what would you look for in a requirements specification for a patent system? What should a patent system do to be a good one?
(I take "effective patent system" to mean one which encourages and rewards the development and diffusion of useful and novel contributions to the art of software, roughly as specified in the US constitution)
2) I'd also like to know what you would expect to see happening if patent protection on software were to disappear entirely in the United States. What would the U.S. software industry look like five years later, as compared to a status quo + five years scenario? How about the world software industry?
Cédric Beust ♔
He is the right-wing version of a techie.
Ricky Clarkson
I tried to word it carefully in order not to offend, but clearly
didn't manage it. I apologise; consider it retracted.
Ricky.
2011/8/8 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>:
Ralph Goers
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Josh Berry <tae...@gmail.com> wrote:2011/8/8 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>:
>The difference, though, is there is actual evidence of the harm
> I've found this to be true in the other direction as well: people who want
> to completely abolish the current system without thinking the consequences
> through.
patents have done in the industry. I don't think anyone has ever
produced evidence of the good it has done.Really? Isn't it all around us? Facebook, Google, Twitter, Zynga, the iPhone, the iPad, where does the list stop? There are literally thousands of innovations popping up every year. Innovation is happening, thanks or in spite of the patents, we don't really know, but it *is* happening.
Cédric Beust ♔
Your argument that innovation continues to occur and therefore patents are not harmful is highly flawed.
Kirk
Regards,
Kirk
Kirk
Ralph Goers
Vince O'Sullivan
> Linux was indeed invented outside of the US and what was one of the first
> things that its creator did when Linux started taking off? Move to the US.
merely (without wishing to be too pejorative about the work that went
into it) a imitation of Unix.
Kirk
>
> "The difference, though, is there is actual evidence of the harm patents have done in the industry. I don't think anyone has ever produced evidence of the good it has done."
>
> Sure, you qualified it in your last sentence, but since the message was "produce evidence of the good it has done" and your response was "Isn't it all around us?", it is hard not to conclude you really believe those companies are evidence that the success of Facebook, etc. are the direct result of software patents. Josh's post didn't say anything about innovation.
>
> However, I'd really like to see you argue that communism is good for innovation since, as I said, it certainly occurred in the Soviet Union.
Well this is an interesting point. There was innovation int he Soviet Union but most of that was a direct result of cultural/intellectual input from WWII sources. Once you get to the 60s, you see innovation clearly slowed (almost to a grinding halt). After that, USSR innovation was primarily about copying and they got very innovative about how to copy things. But I don't see what this has to do with patents. 'cept that they create an environment (as the USSR did) where it was no longer profitable and hence weaker motivation to innovate.
The thing about Oracle and Apple holding patents is that they are defensive weapons or it's stuff that they are actively using or troll with. With patent trolls, what are you going to do? Threaten to sue them back because they are using some of your patents? Obviously thats not going to work. And that is the problem, the system has been perverted in such a way by these do nothing shell companies can suck vital capital out of the software industry without adding a single penny of value. If you don't believe that this behavior is not hurting innovation then I don't know what to say.
There is still a lot of innovation occurring but that is only because of the amount of money floating about. We've still not hit a point where investors are saying the risk of patent trolling out weighs the potential gains. That said, I don't believe there is a software project on the planet that isn't in violation of at least one patent which means every single startup, open source project.. everything we do is open to trolling. In the case of OSS, it most likely means having to walk away from the project.
I early mentioned Rife, and OSS that got hit by a Florida shell that was patent trolling. Fortunately they are Belgium based and so.. not much to do about that. Another friend of mine got hit by another patent troll. They paid.. and huge sum of money and they were quite depressed about it for some time until they realized that their competitors had *not* paid and then they realized that they were able to offer better indemnity that their competitors were not able to. So now, in a very perverse twisted way of thinking, they turned paying the troll into an advantage.
Regards,
Kirk
Fabrizio Giudici
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 5:59 PM, mP <miroslav...@gmail.com
> <mailto:miroslav...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I wonder if religious people support patents more than non religious,
> primarily because patents are a weapon of the elite to further their
> own interests rather like the Bible and other so called holy books.
>
>
> Let's avoid this kind of sweeping statement.
>
> Basically, I think that software patents are an interface and the US
> software patent system is a buggy implementation. One thing I have
> noticed about buggy implementations is that they usually don't
> invalidate the soundness of the interface they implement.
>
Cedric's point pretty much resumes my point. In other words, software
patents as they are today are a disaster; but they need a reform, not to
be eradicated.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
Fabrizio Giudici
this kind of debate is useless :-) Off-topic digressions are more
interesting than the main thread conclusions. That's because in spite of
the majority here declares themselves "secular", almost all opinions are
not backed up by sound quantitative arguments, but by religious points.
Frankly the only one that tried to address the quantitative point is
Cèdric, when he points out that we have clear the damage US are doing,
but we've not evaluated the advantages (BTW, Ricky, I'm a swinging
voter, but I won't be offended if you say I'm a right-wing techie ;-).
Of course neither Cèdric is able to provide quantitative arguments, I've
said that he is stressing the fact that we lack them. We lack them
because we are techies and we'd rather think in terms of "money", not
"technology", "innovation", etc... without precise metrics.
So let me pose some provocative questions:
1. We're all pissed off by e.g. the Oracle-vs-Google suit (and the
others, but let's focus on an example). Potentially, it is destructive
because it could stop Android. But so far did it stop Android? It
doesn't seem so. I've seen major Android releases going on, and sales
going on. If it is arranged as most of people things, it will just end
up in money exchanged between Google and Oracle. What really hurts me is
that at the end of the process lawyers are making lots of money
basically out of void. But this is a wider argument; for instance, I'm
pissed off by excessive money made by actors, singers, soccer players,
etc. It's just another problem.
2. Things, of course, are very different when the sued subject is a
small corporate or a single developer that can't afford expensive lawyer
and basically it is forced to shut down. I really sympathize with him,
because he's a techie. But from the economy point of view, he just
counts nothing. Economy, remember it? It's all about money.
3. Nobody seems to have pointed out a simple, but really meaningful
fact. AFAIK, none, and I repeat NONE, of the
techies-that-managed-to-turn-into-big-business-men have ever spent a
word against patents (I mean, patents in general, not those specifical
patents that are hurting their own corporate). I mean, take Brin and
Page as an example. They are techie grown up, right? So, wouldn't you
expect that a techie that "gets the power" will immediately use it
against patents? Instead, no way. I bet that if something here ever
becomes a big business man, he'll immediately change his mind. Aren't
you wondering why?
My point is simple. Software is not that different than other
"patentable" things. There are two problems: one, the USPTO is crazy,
two, above all software patents must expire quickly. That's because
patents must expire in a time inversely proportional to the rate of
evolution of the related technology, and software is faster than any
other patentable thing. If you look at all the suites around here,
you'll find that most are related to patents that are old or very old.
If software patents expired in a few years, patent holders would have
the time to monetize their investment, and there wouldn't be all the
crazy things that we see.
Of course, I too lack the quantitative approach. I can't tell whether,
from a business perspective (= money) a short-term expiring software
patent would make sense, and how many years should be the expiration
time. But I'm a techie too, otherwise I'd not be here.
mP
inventions by large corporations to artificially defend their
position.
Firstly i will address Cedrics examples which included Google,
Facebook, Zynga and others. I believe it is fair to say they are big
and leaders simply and primarily because they bring new ideas that the
public wants. Has any of these companies used patents to defend their
position ? If they have i seriously doubt patents really made a
difference in defending their market leadership or signficant share in
the sphere that they exist. On the other hand the only reason, ltos is
happening in software is simply because softeware is new and offers
many creative solutions to be born, many of which have not yet been
thought up of.
If patents really helped, then perhaps explain why just about all
other large important markets in our world are consolidating into less
competitors rather than more.
Example:
Cars
===
There used to be literally tens or hundreds of manufacturers at the
turn of the century in every large country, and yet the number of
players has become barely a dozen.
Oil
==
If we ignore the artificial breakup of Standard Oil - we still have no
new oil companies in the last 50 years.Bp, Total, Shell and the
Standard Oil group of companies remain almost monopolies in their home
countries and more.
Televisions
========
Lots has happened in the past few years, lcds, leds and so on, and yet
the companies remain pretty much the same as the ones that were in the
market ten years ago.
How has patents help new innovation in any of these areas, if at
all ?
Back on patents...I cant think of a single example where patents have
helped a company grow or defend their position. If a company needs
patents theres a reasonable chance its because they cant compete with
a real product and is left to something unreal. It was going to die
anyway. On the other hand, big companies have killed lots of little
guys who have ideas but amongst their many problems are hindered by
patents and other legal bullshit. Patents are artificial inventions
who only help big established companies. If some company wants to copy
your idea they can do it anyway with a slight tweek.
Did patents help Facebook stop Google from bringing Google+ to the
public. Of course not, a big company can always change things just
enough or redefine "it" to attract the public. You cant patent every
possible mutation of some idea. Patents are what Big companies throw
at little guys to distract, annoy, kill, burden little guys.
Kirk
> If software patents expired in a few years, patent holders would have the time to monetize their investment, and there wouldn't be all the crazy things that we see.
This is but one means to prevent trolling. The other would be to put a stipulation that the owner has to be making some effort to use the patent or forfeit it. Use it or lose it.
Regards,
Kirk
Fabrizio Giudici
> Sorry to object but I think I did mention the estimated costs of patents to business in the US to be 500,000,000,000USD. Please tell me what is not sound and quantitative about that number? Is there a church of the 1/2 trillion USD that I missed? Maybe a spin-off of the church of the flying spaghetti monster (as an interesting aside, a recognized religion in Austria and has the official head gear of a strainer) One may argue about the means to the number (as there is no way to regression test it) but this is a number. Most successful techie business people I know just try to live with it and get on with life.. they've not tried to change it.
Are also you saying that the returned value is $0? Is it really like
that? I suspect it isn't. The point is whether it is less or more than
1/2 trillion (first, of course, the question is about whether the
estimate is right). And who's benefitting that value.
I suspect there's no shared consensus on that. For instance, the
so-called "stimuli" to economy that have been implemented in USA had a
large cost too. Some say there's a value in return. Some say there isn't
(personally, looking at the sequence of events that climaxed in this
week, I'd say I'm with the latter ones, but it's just my opinion). Same
for similar operations in EU, like pumping money into reducing spreads.
Given my examples, in any case patents appear to be just one of the
problems in economy. To us techies, they are so important because they
affect technology and innovation, which are values for us. For the
economy in general, these two things are just two means. Since aren't
techies the ones who govern the world...
phil swenson
Josh Berry
<fabrizio...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
> 1. We're all pissed off by e.g. the Oracle-vs-Google suit (and the others,
> but let's focus on an example). Potentially, it is destructive because it
> could stop Android. But so far did it stop Android? It doesn't seem so. I've
> seen major Android releases going on, and sales going on. If it is arranged
> as most of people things, it will just end up in money exchanged between
> Google and Oracle. What really hurts me is that at the end of the process
> lawyers are making lots of money basically out of void. But this is a wider
> argument; for instance, I'm pissed off by excessive money made by actors,
> singers, soccer players, etc. It's just another problem.
I don't think it is too hard to say it is slowing it down some. If
I'm a manufacturer, I better have some really broad patents in my
portfolio with some pricey lawyers to use them aggressively against
the likes of Apple if I want to try and release an Android. And note,
this is not just a US problem. I seem to recall there is an
injunction to not sell the Galaxy in some country.
> 2. Things, of course, are very different when the sued subject is a small
> corporate or a single developer that can't afford expensive lawyer and
> basically it is forced to shut down. I really sympathize with him, because
> he's a techie. But from the economy point of view, he just counts nothing.
> Economy, remember it? It's all about money.
Of course, as Apple, Google, IBM, etc get bigger and bigger, pretty
much the only thing left is the small guy. If you believe in
competition, you would think the best thing that has happened to these
companies is that they have had really stiff competition. Winning a
race doesn't mean you then get to call the race.
> 3. Nobody seems to have pointed out a simple, but really meaningful fact.
> AFAIK, none, and I repeat NONE, of the
> techies-that-managed-to-turn-into-big-business-men have ever spent a word
> against patents (I mean, patents in general, not those specifical patents
> that are hurting their own corporate). I mean, take Brin and Page as an
> example. They are techie grown up, right? So, wouldn't you expect that a
> techie that "gets the power" will immediately use it against patents?
> Instead, no way. I bet that if something here ever becomes a big business
> man, he'll immediately change his mind. Aren't you wondering why?
Huh? What does this even have to do with anything. I mean, few
people when they get super rich directly help the poor, either. I
guess that means it is misguided to do so.
> My point is simple. Software is not that different than other "patentable"
> things. There are two problems: one, the USPTO is crazy, two, above all
> software patents must expire quickly.
How many times must it be pointed out that software is different? In
fact, it is so different that for the majority of the time that we
have had computers, you could not patent software. It was only when
the courts thought if it was somehow "linked to process" that you
could start patenting it. Again, do you really think Nortel and
Novell are the first major companies to have a lot of technology to
sell? None of the giants of the 90s came up with something that might
have been patentable?
Of course, this is also working under the assumption that patents are
a good idea in all industries. That is actually a fairly debatable
point.
Kirk
Regards,
Kirk
Ralph Goers
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Fabrizio Giudici
<fabrizio...@tidalwave.it> wrote:1. We're all pissed off by e.g. the Oracle-vs-Google suit (and the others,but let's focus on an example). Potentially, it is destructive because itcould stop Android. But so far did it stop Android? It doesn't seem so. I'veseen major Android releases going on, and sales going on. If it is arrangedas most of people things, it will just end up in money exchanged betweenGoogle and Oracle. What really hurts me is that at the end of the processlawyers are making lots of money basically out of void. But this is a widerargument; for instance, I'm pissed off by excessive money made by actors,singers, soccer players, etc. It's just another problem.
I don't think it is too hard to say it is slowing it down some. If
I'm a manufacturer, I better have some really broad patents in my
portfolio with some pricey lawyers to use them aggressively against
the likes of Apple if I want to try and release an Android. And note,
this is not just a US problem. I seem to recall there is an
injunction to not sell the Galaxy in some country.
Reinier Zwitserloot
Plenty of ideas are good in theory (ie, the interface) but don't seem
to work out in practice (the implementation). I think this describes
software patents. You can probably get me to agree that some form of
software patents isn't a terrible idea in theory, but I don't think
I'll ever agree that coming up with a good implementation is humanly
possible.
There is a counter-point against even that hypothetical argument -
open source software. Almost every piece of technology you use owes at
least some of its functionality to open source software, which is
pretty much the opposite of patented software. I'm not an open source
fanboy, and I certainly appreciate the role and value of proprietary
software, but the fact that open source software is at the heart of so
much we do is compelling evidence that innovation in software can (and
does) happen on a breathtakingly large scale without the need for
software patents.
Reinier Zwitserloot
I think there are three main bodies of belief on the subject:
1. People who believe in software patents without reservation.
2. People who believe in the idea of software patents, but with
exceptions or reservations; i.e., they're fine with software patents
in theory, but not with how the US grants patents on trivial, obvious
ideas without implementations, and then allows for trolling through
expensive litigation.
3. People who do not believe in software patents in any case.
Ralph Goers
Kirk
This is just a hunch, but, perhaps FOSS projects are more popular than normal because of the patent system. It's much more difficult to sue the _creator_ of a FOSS project for patent infringement; some bigcorp might join in, and the last thing a troll wants is to be challenged in court as that might render their patent permanently unenforceable. There's virtually no money to be had. It's even worse for PR than usual, etc, etc. As a creator of a project, the reduction in risk when you FOSS your library vs. charging a moderate price for it is possibly convincing some programmers to go the FOSS route vs. trying to sell it if patent risk wasn't a concern.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/7p5hQXSgL7gJ.
Reinier Zwitserloot
This is just a hunch, but, perhaps FOSS projects are more popular than normal because of the patent system. It's much more difficult to sue the _creator_ of a FOSS project for patent infringement; some bigcorp might join in, and the last thing a troll wants is to be challenged in court as that might render their patent permanently unenforceable. There's virtually no money to be had. It's even worse for PR than usual, etc, etc. As a creator of a project, the reduction in risk when you FOSS your library vs. charging a moderate price for it is possibly convincing some programmers to go the FOSS route vs. trying to sell it if patent risk wasn't a concern.these guys do not care about PR. Trolling is a source of funding. troll Omni will require for 50,000,000,000 in patent fees to satisfy their funders demands for ROI.
Kirk
On Tuesday, August 9, 2011 4:03:01 PM UTC+2, kirk wrote:This is just a hunch, but, perhaps FOSS projects are more popular than normal because of the patent system. It's much more difficult to sue the _creator_ of a FOSS project for patent infringement; some bigcorp might join in, and the last thing a troll wants is to be challenged in court as that might render their patent permanently unenforceable. There's virtually no money to be had. It's even worse for PR than usual, etc, etc. As a creator of a project, the reduction in risk when you FOSS your library vs. charging a moderate price for it is possibly convincing some programmers to go the FOSS route vs. trying to sell it if patent risk wasn't a concern.these guys do not care about PR. Trolling is a source of funding. troll Omni will require for 50,000,000,000 in patent fees to satisfy their funders demands for ROI.Of course they care about PR.
Enough public badmouthing of a specific case and people show up funding the defendant, prior art is searched for by more people, a lawyer might offer their services pro bono. A big company might take the opportunity to earn some geek cred and take up defense. Sure, they wouldn't give a flying one if their name is spoken with derision around the tech sphere, but there are other costs to being a well known jackass. Quiet, fast settlement. That's perfection for a patent troll. Anything else is suboptimal for them.
None of this invalidates my point. It's _much_ easier to just abandon the IP if you have no support contracts and not even implied merchantability because your library was a FOSS project and you never sold anybody anything.
Russel Winder
[ . . . ]
> Long story short, this is not a nice system and the people playing are
> in it for the money and they don't give rats ass about you or your
> project or your IP or the guy or company they bought the patent off
> of, nor do they care about PR or just about anything else... only the
> lifestyle this broken system is going to fund for them.
It is probably worth noting that patents legalize extortion, demanding
money with menaces, protection and racketeering: patents give a monopoly
that legalizes shakedowns. Interesting that the rest of most legal
systems relating to this sort of thing is all about controlling and
breaking up monopolies rather than helping to enforce them.
--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Kirk
On Aug 9, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 16:03 +0200, Kirk wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
>> Long story short, this is not a nice system and the people playing are
>> in it for the money and they don't give rats ass about you or your
>> project or your IP or the guy or company they bought the patent off
>> of, nor do they care about PR or just about anything else... only the
>> lifestyle this broken system is going to fund for them.
>
> It is probably worth noting that patents legalize extortion, demanding
> money with menaces, protection and racketeering: patents give a monopoly
> that legalizes shakedowns. Interesting that the rest of most legal
> systems relating to this sort of thing is all about controlling and
> breaking up monopolies rather than helping to enforce them.
ain't that the truth!
Now that we know who and what we are dealing with, how do we fix it?
Regards,
Kirk
Robert Casto
So my thought is it has to be done legislatively but they don't have the stomach to upset anyone.
What I would like to see is a shortening of the patent duration. They still get it, and can make money and are protected in doing so, but then after say 3-5 years, it becomes public knowledge usable by anyone.
But coming back to reality, I think we just have to wait until the giants have finished dancing, exchanged courtesies in the form of money, and are tired and want to do something else for a while. Sorry for the pessimism but given the happenings of the last 2 months, I don't think anything complicated is going to get solved any time soon if ever.
Regards,
Kirk
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
--
Robert Casto
www.robertcasto.com
www.sellerstoolbox.com
Cédric Beust ♔
What I would like to see is a shortening of the patent duration. They still get it, and can make money and are protected in doing so, but then after say 3-5 years, it becomes public knowledge usable by anyone.
Robert Casto
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
Josh Berry
> the existence of patent portfolios is a
> strong driver in big companies acquiring little ones, which I see as good
> for the industry and innovation in general).
Do you have anything to back this? It always seemed to me that
trademarks/marketshare and talent were the largest drivers of
acquisitions. At least the successful ones.
Cédric Beust ♔
I don't think they would go for non-transferable and frankly, it would lower another company's value and make buyouts less common.
Cédric Beust ♔
Kevin Wright
Cédric Beust ♔
Robert Casto
Consolidation of companies is what I call creative destruction. It rids the economy of waste. It can go too far and turn into a monopoly, but we mostly have protections against that. By combining companies, we get rid of excess expenses and that improves productivity and allows the freed up resources to do yet more which grows our economy. So it actually creates jobs and value in the long run, but it is sure destructive in the short run.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
Kirk
Kirk
Reinier Zwitserloot
Reinier Zwitserloot
Cédric Beust ♔
Non-transferable is even worse. That does absolutely nothing to the patent trolls but hurts the very rare Joe Inventor quite a bit. You can buy a company and leave that company intact, injecting whatever lawyer power you need for that company to start the court cases.
Kirk
steve
Completely unrelated: I wonder how large the intersection between the Software patents proponents and those "intelligent design" believers is. I guess the results would be quite interesting.
Joseph Ottinger
Completely unrelated: I wonder how large the intersection between the Software patents proponents and those "intelligent design" believers is. I guess the results would be quite interesting.
--
Joseph B. Ottinger
http://enigmastation.com
phil swenson
patent is just invalidated?
2011/8/9 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>:
Carl Jokl
lots of little ones just to get hold of the patents. This might be a
good thing i.e. all patents are invalidated if a company ceases to
exist. This would not preclude a company existing as a subsidiary of
another but at least the company would maintain identity in its own
right.
On Aug 10, 2:23 pm, phil swenson <phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the no-transfer scenario, what happens in an acquisition? The
> patent is just invalidated?
>
> 2011/8/9 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Robert Casto
Kevin Wright
Cédric Beust ♔
Cédric Beust ♔
Completely unrelated: I wonder how large the intersection between the Software patents proponents and those "intelligent design" believers is.