Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Jul 2011 21:16 UTC
Legal I've been sitting on this item all day. Technically, it's about patents and the like, and even I understand I've been beating this dead horse so often it almost looks like it's alive. However, this is an interesting opinion piece by Craig Hockenberry, long-time employee at The Iconfactory, one of my favourite software development houses - these guys breath software and beautiful design, and employ one of my favourite artists, David Lanham. The gist of his story? Software patents are killing the independent developer scene.
Thread beginning with comment 481002
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Counterproductive advocacy
by rhavyn on Fri 15th Jul 2011 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Counterproductive advocacy"
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

You want an example: Microsoft was granted a patent on sudo. SUDO! How many DECADES has that been in Unix like systems? 3-4? That a company can actually get a patent on that is absurd. Just like the obvious implementation of long file names in FAT. Its just an abbreviation using 2 chars. How does that qualify as innovative? The patent system is broken. Software patents are just the most obvious place it shows.


The patent number is? I'd like to read it.

Edited 2011-07-15 03:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

The patent number is? I'd like to read it.


Its Patent Number 7,617,530. However, it is/was not even related to SUDO... The whole notion that it was is nothing more than the result of ill-informed people not knowing how to read a patent spreading gossip. Even the maintainer of SUDO at the time (Todd Miller) conceded it was unrelated.

Having said that - I am violently opposed to the concept of software patents for a multitude of reasons. But I also believe in honesty - 7,617,530 is not and never was an example of the real problems in the patent system. It was much ado about nothing.

If you want a good example, look at 5,893,120: "methods and apparatus for information storage and retrieval using a hashing technique with external chaining and on-the-fly removal of expired data." Google recently good sued by a patent troll over this one and lost. The offending code is actually in the Linux kernel - Google was only targeted because of the size of their pocket book (another common problem in the patent system, but I digress).

There isn't much more to it than the title of the patent - pretty much sums it up. The problem with this patent is simple:

1. Chained hashes had a multitude of examples of prior art.
2. Removal of items from a data structure during updates (i.e. self pruning) also had a multitude of examples of prior art.

There are literally thousands of patents that follow fall into this mold. The patent system allows the combination of 2 obvious inventions with prior art into a "new" one. The rationale is the combination is unique and makes it a new invention. The reality is this rationale is mind-numbing-ly stupid to anyone that does software development.

The fact that you can take two things OTHER people invented and combine them and claim ownership is absurd, but it happens all the fricken' time. Software simply should not be patent-able. period.

The problem is the rare instances where someone actually comes up with a truly unique software invention that deserves patent protection are so rare as to almost be non-existent. On top of that, it is (most of the time) relatively easy to work around a known patent in the software world with little or no downside (if you have the money and resources to do so). The system does not encourage innovation in any way, shape, or form - it simply creates a minefield where in order to survive you file patents to cover you ass and your patent portfolio grows into a bat you beat people over the head with to make them submit. It actively encourages the formation of defacto cartels through all the crazy cross licensing agreements that come about because of patent suits in large corporations. And it costs tens of thousands of dollars to do the due diligence required to actually file a software patent properly. This tips the scales heavily in favor of those with deep pockets - the exact opposite of what the system was designed to do.

How exactly does such a system foster innovation?

Reply Parent Score: 8

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

How exactly does such a system foster innovation?


It doesn't. And even people like the ones defending the system here know that, deep down.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who have identified themselves with one company or the other. If such a company is a heavy proponent of software patents (Microsoftapple is the one we talk about the most here), then these people can do two things: stop identifying themselves with said company, or defend software patents. Since their identification with the company contributes more to their self-concept than their dislike of the patent system... Well, the path os least resistance.

If you ever want to see Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory at work, you just have to look around you (and yourself, of course). Daring Fireball's John Gruber is a pretty good poster child for this theory also. For instance, only a few weeks ago he was complaining loudly about New York photographer Jay Maisel who got $32500 out of someone using one of his photos. Maisel was a dick, according to Gruber.

Right at the same time, the web was a'blaze with Apple's legal threats against small open source projects using the App Store name. It was all over the web. Not a peep on DA.

This is cognitive dissonance, and it's probably the best predictor of human behaviour ever. If you ever think - why would people do something this stupid? Why are they being disingenuous? - it's probably this.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

galvanash,

That's very well said. Productive companies will do fine without software patents; the idea needs to be free, the code does not.

(I know rhavn, you'd like me to include all patents in my argument).

Reply Parent Score: 2

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"The patent number is? I'd like to read it.


Its Patent Number 7,617,530. However, it is/was not even related to SUDO... The whole notion that it was is nothing more than the result of ill-informed people not knowing how to read a patent spreading gossip. Even the maintainer of SUDO at the time (Todd Miller) conceded it was unrelated.
"

TechGeek seems to be the purified essence of what I'm saying, full of factually incorrect, emotionally charged statements that do nothing to help the cause.

You, on the other hand, actually wrote a post with a great example, factual information and you didn't need to resort to all out hysteria to do it. Congratulations, I wish there were a lot more posts like yours on here, and a lot less like Thom and TechGeeks.

Reply Parent Score: 1