Two open-source leaders joined Linux founder Linus Torvalds in disparaging software patents Tuesday, the newest volley in a battle that pits the cooperative programming philosophy against Microsoft.
Open-source honchos trash software patents
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Im not so sure Microsoft would put themselves in that position, unleashing a patent infringment attack on OSS I mean. One thing is clear if you look at history, and that is that Microsoft does whatever it takes to be on top. If the tide does indeed turn towards OSS and against Microsoft, Im pretty sure their response will be to offer the most successful OSS solution around. Thats what they do, at all costs. Dominate.
The “memo from the future” peice linked here not to long ago wasn’t all that far fetched really. Imagine a Windows interface over a linux kernel, and a Windows compatability layer ala-wine that perfectly runs all that old Windows software. Of course it runs all the latest Linux software as well.
Im not saying it WILL happen, but if somehow OSS does get the upper hand, I have no doubt that Microsoft will do what is necessary. They arn’t in business to advance proprietary software, they are in business to make money. If proprietary software ceases to be the best way to do that, they’ll drop it like an old hat and embrace OSS with all smiles.
Agreed. The problem is stupid software patents. Where is the line drawn between software patents and general engineering patents if software patents are abolished? If you can’t patent something innovative in software then does that mean a hardware design can’t be patented? Don’t hardware engineers use their own software language to design hardware (VHDL)?
How exactly are the hobbyist’s of the future supposed to have the freedom to write software and share it with others when they will be spending the majority of their time researching whether or not feature ‘X’ was patented 10 years ago?
Tabbed dialogues, one-click payments, etc. etc. …yeah, we can see where this is going… who the winners will be … and the losers…
Patents on software are bad news. Period. The sooner this insanity is stopped the better.
Software is already well protected by copyrights. Microsoft use copyrights, Sun uses copyrights, Linux uses copyrights.
The current state (without software patents) has done us well in the software industry over the last 20 years, it has been a very competitive free-market that has brought great innovation.
However, with patents, the patent holder can tell others what the CANNOT do, they can limit and restrict others, reducing competition and thus innovation.
Its not money that brings innovation, it is competition. Patents will hold back competition and innovation.
IMO it is more than propable that they’ll do that some day. Microsoft’s business depends solely on their monopoly status on certain markets (Desktop OS, Office apps). Their huge margins are mostly monopoly rents. Nearly all businesses they are in and don’t have monopoly/leverage from another monopolized market segment are heavily subsidized.
For Microsoft losing about 20% of Windows/Office market would be a disaster mainly because they couldn’t demand such inflated prices for their products. I’m not enough competent to say that but I suspect it would cut 80 percent of their incomes (to bring 20/80 analogy).
However, they aren’t free to unleash patent attacks yet. There are still many antitrust issues rolling, they are still convinced a bloody monopolist. Appropriate patent laws are still not everywhere im place (in Europe for example). However, there are many signs that Microsoft is preparing to make this method of (cough) ‘competition’ usable. They are massively settling with everybody around, signing ambigous settlement contracts (OpenOffice suing clause in agreement with Sun for example), gladly paying huge sums of cash in exchange for convenient settlement clauses (wonder why they didn’t mind paying half a billion euros for Europe Commision but strongly object to open any protocol specs in _the same_ case_!).
So IMO they are vigorously preparing to launch a bunch of patent attacks on open source somewhere in the future. What we shall do is to prevent softpat laws slipping into European Union and lobby to force Microsoft to open their protocols/file formats as a remedy for their illegal behavior.
Regards,
rle
“Microsoft’s business depends solely on their monopoly status on certain markets (Desktop OS, Office apps). Their huge margins are mostly monopoly rents.”
Microsofts huge margins depend on their monopoly status, yes, but not their very business. Remember, they got to their position buy undercuting other software sellers and getting by on slimmer margins. Obviously loss of the monopoly would mean making less money, but they make so much already that less, even much less, still leaves them with plenty. Should proprietary software head the way of the dodo, I have no doubt that they would cut costs as needed and do whatever it takes to stay on top, even if it means moving into price-slashing hyper-competition mode, and/or into service-oriented open source mode. As long as it is the best way to make the most money.
Will they be exploring the possibility of, and even attempting some software patent suits? Sure, Id be suprised if they didn’t. Will they go down SCO style in a blaze of lawsuits as their business implodes? Not on your life.
Its not money that brings innovation, it is competition. Patents will hold back competition and innovation.
I wouldn’t go quite that far. While I agree that current software parents are too broad, if you spend a lot of money and a lot of time developing one specific technology, why shouldn’t you be able to patent it? The last thing I want to do is use a ton of resources developing some new technology, and then have Joe Geek incorporating it into his OSS stuff the next week and giving it away for free. That is not fair competition when you spend all the money and all the time on something, and then somebody else comes along and leeches off your hard work. There’s nothing wrong with this if that is what you want to happen, but dammit … some people want to get paid.
How exactly are the hobbyist’s of the future supposed to have the freedom to write software and share it with others when they will be spending the majority of their time researching whether or not feature ‘X’ was patented 10 years ago?
Because of corporate abuse of patents, I suggest a complete overhaul of the system to bring it back to its intended purpose. Only individuals and not-for-profit organizations are allowed to hold patents. For profit-corporations will not be allowed to hold any patents what so ever. Likewise, patents should be allowed to be used by any individual or not-for-profit organization for not-for-profit work even during the tenure of the patent. This kills two birds with one stone. It returns the patent power back to the individual inventor and those that are legitimately trying to advance society forward, not provide a mechanism for lawsuit mills and information isolation. It also allows individuals to license patents to corporations, which means for once the scientists and engineers can get their due for their contribution. By providing an exemption for other individuals and not-for-profit organizations to use the patent, it will ensure that the people who are esentially working for free will be able to do so without worrying about armies of lawyers. Therefore someone like Linus toiling away for free on his OS won’t be bothered. A Linux distribution that freely gives out their ISO’s or only charges nominal fees to cover expenses will similarly not be affected. However a company like Red Hat will be forced to compensate the patent holder in proportion to their sales.
It’s not perfect, but its a start.
“The last thing I want to do is use a ton of resources developing some new technology, and then have Joe Geek incorporating it into his OSS stuff the next week and giving it away for free. That is not fair competition when you spend all the money and all the time on something, and then somebody else comes along and leeches off your hard work.”
But in software development, the time and money doesn’t usually go into ‘thinking’ of the new idea, the time and money goes into the actual code devlopment – the actually software programming, and this is already very well protected under copyright law.
Over the past 30 years in fact software development has been protected this way and it has done wonders for innovation.
n’est pas?
Only individuals and not-for-profit organizations are allowed to hold patents. For profit-corporations will not be allowed to hold any patents what so ever.
Medical research can’t be done with a tin cup and piece of string.
Saying that the lack of software patents somehow hinder innovation given the innovation that has actually HAPPENED since Leibnitz had his idea of a logical language is just stupid. Software is logic, patents are monopolies. Monopolies on logic are stupid. Logic can not be invented or owned just discovered. The day we see music or literature patents I will give up and accept logic patents. In the meanwhile stick with copyright, that´s the honest way to protect your work.
But in software development, the time and money doesn’t usually go into ‘thinking’ of the new idea, the time and money goes into the actual code devlopment – the actually software programming, and this is already very well protected under copyright law.
Not everything is specifically software related (as in software programs), such as an API, codec, file format, file system, compression algorithm, etc. Say you come up with some badass new codec that allows you to have DVD-quality video/sound over a 33.6 dialup connection. So you write a player and sell it. At that point, the player is protected by copyright, but what about the codec? Is not possible without patents for anyone to take that same codec and implement it in their own apps? Not so good, when you otherwise could have gotten license fees for it.
“Is not possible without patents for anyone to take that same codec and implement it in their own apps? Not so good, when you otherwise could have gotten license fees for it.”
Well, you implement some DRM in your codec and your safe:) But that´s not even the point. The crux is that where do you draw the line? What´s “badass” and what´s “lame” when it comes to software patents. Do you trust lawyers to make the call? The common denominator between all software patents good or bad is that they are patents on logic. It would be impossible to enforce a good software patent system and thus it´s bad legislature.
Well, you implement some DRM in your codec and your safe:) But that´s not even the point. The crux is that where do you draw the line? What´s “badass” and what´s “lame” when it comes to software patents.
Well, I dunno, but I think it warrants further discussion instead of simply cutting it off at the knees. However, I think two kinds of patents we can elimiate are the following:
1. You are not allowed to apply for a patent on something which you yourself did not invent.
2. Patents that only apply in certain instances. No more of the ‘this technology has existed for 5 years, but we’re patenting it for PDAs’) bullshit.
The common denominator between all software patents good or bad is that they are patents on logic. It would be impossible to enforce a good software patent system and thus it´s bad legislature.
Anything really is a patent on logic. If you find a cure for cancer, it’s not that the cure didn’t exist until you found it, just that you’re probably the first one to discover it.
Say you come up with some badass new codec that allows you to have DVD-quality video/sound over a 33.6 dialup connection.
Which would no doubt be a fun new way to put together Huffman, FFTs and a few filters.
What part does the patent apply to?
It sure as hell isn’t the mathematics, so surely it must be the way they are put together. Are we to believe that because someone can apply a set of pretty basic mathematical techniques in a unique fashion they can patent the end result as a whole?
Since mathematics itself can’t be patented then why should another person be denied the opportunity to use the same sequence of techniques?
1) The software patent debate is referring to adding software patents into the existing system which was designed to protect physical inventions.
2) Software is a process, so it can be legitimately patented under the original intent of patents, assuming that a real invention has been made. Some people, including the PTO, seem to think any obvious idea can be made innovative by attaching it to a computer program or to the Internet.
3) The current approach is wrong because it attempts to apply the same duration to patents in all fields, including software. That would suggest that all of these markets have fundamentally similar economic models, which they don’t.
4) A patent duration of 5 years would be more than sufficient for a software firm to reap a return on their R&D investment. Think about the incredible profit margins in this industry compared to others.
5) If the debate continues to degenerate into a false dichotomy between 20 year worldwide software patents and no patents, no patents would be the best option in terms of fostering innovation.
Are we to believe that because someone can apply a set of pretty basic mathematical techniques in a unique fashion they can patent the end result as a whole?
Sure, if nobody else has done it, why not?
Since mathematics itself can’t be patented then why should another person be denied the opportunity to use the same sequence of techniques?
In a case where software patents are specific as they should be, it’s very unlikely that two different entities are going to come up with the exact same mathematical equations to accompish the same task. Just like with a codec, any sort of invention starts off with an idea, so I don’t see how people can say that you can’t patent ideas.
“the newest volley in a battle that pits the cooperative programming philosophy against Microsoft”
It is not a battle against MS, sofware patents are bad for everybody, even to MS.
http://www.ffii.org/
“Saying that the lack of software patents somehow hinder innovation given the innovation that has actually HAPPENED since Leibnitz had his idea of a logical language is just stupid. Software is logic, patents are monopolies. Monopolies on logic are stupid. Logic can not be invented or owned just discovered.”
Right on. Software is already protected very well by copyrights and this has worked very well in support of the free-market competitive economy of the last 30 years for sure.
The only thing a Patent holder can use their Patent(s) for is to STOP or HINDER others from using their idea even if implemented in a different way. This ic crazy and certainly hinders innovation and certainly hinders competition.
Make your local Councillor / MP / MEP / Senator / Representative or whatever aware of your views by putting them in writing using sound logical reason.
Big companies in particular are hoping to pass patents law to make their own lives easier so they do not need to compete and innovate as much. The economy will cease to be a free-market competitive economy that has worked so well for the West and Japan. Those countries that develop or maintain a competitive free-market economy (like China) that don’t implement software patents are sure to overtake those countries that do implement software patents in the long run. Then who’ll be crying and trying to catch up with the China and its booming free-market capitalist competitive economy?
Are you mad, ptenting logic…
2+2+2=6
3+3=6
4+2=6
5+1=6
6+0=6
3×2=6
… as you can see, there are two (two many actualy)ways to optain the same result… and in programing thats the rule not the ecception…
You would be insane if you where to patend yor prosses so that no one could get your result… theres more than that to invention…
… as you can see, there are two (two many actualy)ways to optain the same result… and in programing thats the rule not the ecception…
Right, but by figured out that 3+3=6, what exactly have you accomplished besides the knowledge of the equation? You haven’t actually created something tangible. If were you somehow able to use this knowledge to invent a magic pill that could cure cancer, then you could patent that. If somebody else figures out that they could cure cancer by using the equation 4+2=6, that’s not the same thing (equation), and therefore probably wouldn’t violate the your patent. They accomplished the same result, but used a different method .. maybe even a better method. That, my friends, is called innovation
Everyone should thank MS without who KDE/Gnome would not be possible. Apple is the one who should be kicked into butt and had their butt handed to them by Xerox. Irony. Bad Apple, bad.
Sw patents probably apply in “reverse engineering cases” where the process can be discovered and company needs to protect it. Patents could create monopolies by restricting what other companies can do. You would think that the patents are specific, like describing one process, but in reality the patents are vague and they cover all kinds of things under the sun hoping that some will stick without further technical scrutiny. It’s a virus because then other companies will get smart and start to patent everything remotely relevant to their method as well. Then we end up with a mine field that we need to tiptoe thru.
The patent office needs to reform starting with reviewing all patents again with utmost technical scrutiny. Too vague, throw it out. Covers too much, throw it out. That’s the way to cure this system. But then we have lobyists who change rules so it’s unlikely we’ll see patent office change their ways.
In the U.S. patents that are mostly software oriented have been in place for what 15 years now?
There were some true horror stories in the beginning because the PTO’s “Prior Art” collection of software was dismal. That’s why obvious software like “bubble sort” got patented.
For the most part the PTO has cleaned up its act, disallowed the bogus patents, and vastly improved its software collection of “Prior Art”. Evidently people don’t want boring facts like this, they’d rather wallow in horror stories from 15 years ago. If you think you’re going to get something obvious past the PTO today forget about it.
Do you realize the U.S. Patent Examiners will routinely combine 3 or 4 prior patents and then tell you (the patent applicant) that your patent application is “obvious” because a theoretical person “skilled in the art” and with access to these 3 or 4 prior patents would have been able to come up with your idea. This is more the flavor of what’s happening today.
I have no idea what the situation is like in Europe or other parts of the world; but I hate to just keep rereading these same old false statements about the current system in the U.S.
The proposed “solution” to allow patents only for non-profits will involve outright theft of property from small corporations and a total loss of credibility by the government. (Yes, we all enjoy our jokes on that topic, but actually living under anarchy is no laughing matter). Can anybody actually be so naive as to think all giant non-profits are virtuous? Come on people think a little bit before you post trash like this. I find it incredible that anybody would even consider proposing an idea so obviously flawed. It makes me sick to think people are so uneducated about economics they still think “profits” is the dirty word responsible for all problems.
Yes, VHDL has been used by hardware designers for a long time. Excellent point; good luck defining the line between software and hardware today. And imo there’s also no reason software innovators should not be allowed to have patent protection when its available to dogfood invertors and everybody else.
I would really encourage any of you patent bashers to apply for a U.S. patent. The first thing you’ll learn is it really doesn’t cost that much and I bet you end up respecting the integrity of this system. The only thing keeping you on “the outside” is your own attitude.
On the topic of innovation all patents (we’re talking about real “utility” patents, not just design patents) require a “physical embodiment” . . . so that argument that software patents allow you to just patent an idea is totally bogus. You must disclose all the details necessary to actually build one.
Also you can’t “hold things back” in a patent application. You must disclose so much detail that any other person “skilled in the art” could actually duplicate your invemtion and make it go.
For those of you who think software copyrights are so great for innovation consider that there is no disclosure requirement so if somebody does come up with something great it might be 50 years before the greater community even sees it! Patents last more like 20 years and all the guts are disclosed right up front from the moment of publication. That’s why you will never convince me that copyright is better for innovation than patents. With patents everybody sees what you’ve got from day one and immediately goes to work trying to figure a better way. If you as a patent holder get too greedy and try to overcharge they WILL find a way around and it will be PROFITABLE for them to go right around your patent.
I’m not saying this is a perfect system we would go with if we started from a clean slate; but we are not starting from a clean slate, and the PTO has figured out how to make it work and its an incredibly innovative environment. Don’t fall for those claims about people patenting air . . . that’s totally bogus. You can’t patent anything in use over a year and there are many other protections built into the current system.
Microsoft patents the double click: http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/showstory.jsp?storyid=52805
Microsoft patents the IsNot operator (I’m thinking IsNot is more than a year old): http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/11/19/1426256.shtml?tid=155&tid=109
Seems to me that it’s not very hard to get obvious ideas past the patent office at all. I could also go into the patent for online auctions (http://news.com.com/2100-1017_3-1010397.html) or everyone’s favorite, the Amazon One Click patent. That 15 years of prior art is really doing the patent office some good. (Everyone, please note that I’m not intentionally picking on Microsoft, these are just some really dumb patents I could think of off the top of my head). If you want a really good example of how those wiley patent examiners prevent obvious patents, take a look at this one (not software related, just trying to display the gross lack of intelligence in the US PTO): http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d…
And as far as patents being cheap to acquire, it looks like it costs more than $7650 for a software patent with additional fees for doing a patent search ($750) and any ammendments or modifications necessary to get it through (http://www.invention.com/). Maybe you could get a better deal then that but I’m thinking that $7650+ is well out of the price range of most individuals.
Or maybe you were just being sarcastic in your posts, if so I apologize.
On the topic of innovation all patents (we’re talking about real “utility” patents, not just design patents) require a “physical embodiment” . . . so that argument that software patents allow you to just patent an idea is totally bogus. You must disclose all the details necessary to actually build one.
Sure, it is possible to patent all kind of software ideas, because there exist the computer physical embodyment.
For those of you who think software copyrights are so great for innovation consider that there is no disclosure requirement
I can still see how good, lets say, IIS is, and try to develop a better server, like Apache did. They didn’t need any kind of full disclosure for that.
With patents everybody sees what you’ve got from day one and immediately goes to work trying to figure a better way
Yeah, like the case of my professor, who applied for a patent and some years later it was circunvent by another using a little trick (instead of “compare”, they change the key word by “select”, and voila! a new patent born for the same thing, good language skills at work, nothing to do with innovation).. moreover, it was not a better way, for sure. The bottom line, even patenting your real work does not protect your innovations.
I would really encourage any of you patent bashers to apply for a U.S. patent. The first thing you’ll learn is it really doesn’t cost that much and I bet you end up respecting the integrity of this system.
Gee, I don’t know about that. From
http://www.tannedfeet.com/computer_ip_laws.htm
Cost of Patent: Three major costs are involved when obtaining a patent on software.
– The patent attorney’s time to prepare the software application: the cost of preparing the application can run from $7,000 to $100,000. Average cost is between $10,000 to $30,000.
– The prosecution costs: Average cost for prosecuting the patent before the Patent Office is between $10,000 to $20,000.
– The costs involved in searching for software which represents the “prior art”: Estimates are hard to give since a lot of it depends on how diligently you search and how difficult it is to uncover the “prior art.” One estimate we saw put it between $2,000 to $20,000.
That seems like a lot of money to me compared to getting a copyright. In fact, software patents are not really there to help foster innovation, but rather to serve as defensive weapons for companies. This is why you have companies that don’t actually produce anything, but rather buy patent portfolios to use in a way reminescent of protection rackets.
Copyrights are enough protection for software IP. Patents on code are a bad idea.
Do people realise what the original purpose of a patent was and why the system was developed ? Yes, originally it DID encourage innovation because it encouraged developers to throw their ideas into the public area. This may have applied back in the “mad-scientist” era where people often kept ideas to themselves, but today I think it’s hardly applicable where people literally rushing new ideas out even sometimes before they are mature.
http://www.xolinc.com/blog/index.php?id=34
for a different approach