Developers on the Windows compatibility project Wine have been forced to abandon an important feature due to the existence of a Borland patent.
Developers on the Windows compatibility project Wine have been forced to abandon an important feature due to the existence of a Borland patent.
Borland now has a chance to upgrade their image inside the linux community, they could make their patent available for this project.
how about non-US countries? do they hold the patent there? otherwise i’d say code it and make it available on non-US-binaries and/or put it in the source and just have it not built by default.
yes, i am a developer of software myself, but I like software patents, it gives me an opportunity to get paid futher for my work (bonuses from work, royalties, etc). So, I don’t think Borland will simply give wine the availability to use this patent… (we all know where that will take it… M$ One of borlands competitors….)
Yes, I see that all the day. It gives opportunity to steal money.
More slashdot style sensationalism.
None of the Wine developers care about this. ReactOS is more affected by it as Windows drivers make lots of use of SEH. Most winelib developers just use MSVC to build the application and maybe use Winelib and winegcc to add a few dlls for linking to unix libs like OpenSSL or GTK for dialogs. This is a non-issue.
Yes the Wine project cares about the issue but its not the end of the world like it has been made out to be. Dimi is right that we should not depend on MSVC for Winelib and it sucks we can’t get SEH in GCC but its not the end of the world.
Let the OSS community collect some money and license the patent. Where’s the problem? Paying five euros via Paypal would not change my life.
Only, I need the guarantee that, if not enough money is collected, my 5 euros will be refunded. It’s that simple.
It rates right up there with the peanut butter and jelly sandwich crimped crust patent, absolutely frivolous, but a deadly legal lever for those American firms with money and power. It’s only a matter of time before some big American auto company decides to patent the 7-sided lugnut. The USPTO is a joke, they seem to be awarding patents to inventors who don’t even have working tangible products, or to software firms that buy prior art and pay for patent claims to it.
Patents would have a lot more legitimacy, IMO, if the following were true:
(1) Prior art was actually investigated BEFORE a patent was granted. To date, the USPTO has done a VERY poor job of this.
(2) Obviousness was actually investigated before a patent was granted. To date, the USPTO has also done a very poor job of this.
(3) Software patents were limited to a single implementation as most other patents are. Today, software patents often cover entire concepts, making it impossible for anyone else to create something similar even if the implementation is vastly different.
I see all of the above as fatal flaws in the process, and until they are fixed, the legitimacy of software patents is highly questionable.
“yes, i am a developer of software myself, but I like software patents, it gives me an opportunity to get paid futher for my work (bonuses from work, royalties, etc). So, I don’t think Borland will simply give wine the availability to use this patent… (we all know where that will take it… M$ One of borlands competitors….)”
You will still get paid for the feature that have developed, in your software. Where would the wolrd be if someone patented the concept of:
1) An Operating System
2) A Personal Computer
3) TCP/IP
4) GUI
Do you think you would be reading this post or article? Would the Internet exist? Well, the net might exist but it would be vastly different that what is here now.
Where would anyone be if there were patents on say:
1) The wheel
2) Clothing
3) and whatever else
Where has the growth occured in the world culture. People have grown though the communication of ideas, not the restriction of ideas.
And before anyone makes a suggestion that anyone against patents is a communist, think twice. Born and bread capilist here. Removal of (certain) patents will spur competition and economic growth.
Let the best product win. 🙂
Thats why there is copyight. Patents are not needed so you can make money. The only reason you want patents is to limit competition. Limiting competition is normally to the detriment of consumers.
Patents make sense in engineering, etc. Where there is no copyright protections. But patents in software are to easy.
Actually I would like to know what software you have patented or which software patents the organization you work for (seems like it is monroe county school district) have been granted and how they have lead you to be paid for the software you develop.
But really I think you are trolling.
“The only reason you want patents is to limit competition. Limiting competition is normally to the detriment of consumers.”
True, but he said, “it gives ME an opportunity to get paid futher for my work.” He’s not concerned with consumers, technology, ethics, or any other crap. He wants MONEY, plain and simple. That’s why Bill Gates was previously against it. He couldn’t make money, or be in business, with patents in place. Now that he’s on top, he can’t make money without them.
My thoughts exactly. I want to know what company he works for that doesn’t own the code he produces (and the asssociated patents) – of if he’s both an owner and a programmer, how much it cost him for the patents, how he’s recouped the costs so far and how much he’s set aside to pay the exhorbitant legal costs should his patent be challenged…
My guess is that he’s just one more astroturfer lurking this web site.
I say software patents are good; however, they need to be done the same way as hardware patents. ie: They must include complete source code.
If I want to patent a engine, then I need to file a complete diagram showing exactly how to build the engine. If you want to patent a new sorting methold, you should include the source code so I can use it.
Currently software patents only have to include the descriptive part and not the implementation part; this is just plain wrong. If I hold a patent on a method of sorting number, then any program that sorts a list of numbers could be subject to my patent (try proving you’re not using my method: hint it can’t be done without looking at your source code). If I make the description generic enough, then I might be able to prove you’re using my method (again: I never need to show how I implemented my method so comparing my source to your source doesn’t count).
I love the “anti-copyright, anti-patent is communist” idea. It basically screams “I’m ignorant of economics, history, and probably a number of other things!”.
Capitalism, by its very nature, encourages unrestrained competition. Copyrights and patents are inherently restrictions of competition, and are inherently anti-capitalist. The problem with capitalism (and this is well-documented), is that a state of pure competition tends to discourage research for future development. Therefore, patents were introduced as a compromise — balancing the freedom of the market with the long-term progression of society.
Therefore, an argument favoring a limitation in the scope of patent protection is an argument in favor of pushing the compromise towards pure capitalism, and away from socialism.
GregV: i still in school, and as such has no employer, or funds for a software patent.
i personnally don’t think software patents are a good idea, it stiffles innovation and development of applications, and as others have said research into prior art in this Patenting arena is appauling. i live in the UK if i was a serious developer, this wouldnt affect me as of yet any ways, as long as E-Patents in EU are opposed, hopefully they wont become legislation.
sorry typo meant to put “GregV: Is Still…” sorry
“My guess is that he’s just one more astroturfer lurking this web site.”
Yep, seem to be many of those around nowdays )-: I pine for the earlier OSNews days when people discussed with merit not just trolled.
and
“I love the “anti-copyright, anti-patent is communist” idea. It basically screams “I’m ignorant of economics, history, and probably a number of other things!”
Tell it like it is Rainer (-:
Some people are not very clued into Politics and Econimics, even technology come to think of it. History, seems only to extend as far back as fashion seems to want to regurgitate, usually 10 to 20 years. Beyond that is the relm of the ignorant which is why humanity seems to continually f’-up. Personally I find history very intriguing, but I think I’m in the minority.
Where were we, oh yes software patents, a dragon in need of St Georges lance. I’m sure the developers at WINE will find many a way around Borlands code.
Yes, Im still in school, I won’t deny that… I am employed
. Needless to say I dont have the funding for a software patent (im still in school..). However my FATHER, who HAS patents to his name (some of which are pretty cool, but I can’t tell you what they do, mainly because a few are still going through paperwork) but that doesn’t change my opinion about software patents.
Concerning the people who said I am in it for the money… So? Next time I try to make money I’ll remember that some people don’t like me doing it… How does that make sense. Plain and simple, it doesn’t. Rarely do people actually do something large, such as writing thousands of lines of code, and NOT get paid. (yes, Linux and OSS does this, but look at Redhat, Lycoris, or Linspire. Thoses distros are virtually ALL commercial. Most mainstream distros have a commercial side of things… Obviously those companies arn’t in for the money… obviously…)
Next, about the people who wan’t to know what company I submitted the code to. As stated I don’t have a patent. My dad does. He submitted it through Xerox Corp.
Re Joe: “… If you want to patent a new sorting methold, you should include the source code so I can use it. …” What would be the point of a patent if anybody can use it? It goes against the idea of, I invented it, I control it. So that doesn’t make too much sense at all.
Re Annonymous: Okay, I dont think patents should be given to a large concept, but to a small portion of code that is entirely unique way of handling things, like for example an advanced encryption method.
Re Duffman: How is that stealing money, by wanting royalties on their work?
To clarify on my first post: As stated I don’t think Borland will simply give the patent to Wine, but through some kind of licensing scheme. Its their way of making money for their work. Nor did I actually say I had any type of patent for anything.
I hope this clarifies my views, I don’t think I will be able to change your minds, but, thats the linux effect.
Greg.
Some more thoughts:
1.) There are ALOT of typos, try to deal, I’m kinda tired.
2.) I am NOT against the Wine Project, I hope they do find a way to accomplish their goals, just not using some one else’s code (unless it’s GPL, BSD, etc).
3.) YOU FOOL! I don’t go to Monroe County School District. If you find out where I go, I might give you a dollar.
Greg.
> 2.) I am NOT against the Wine Project, I hope they do find a
> way to accomplish their goals, just not using some one
> else’s code (unless it’s GPL, BSD, etc).
I don’t think they intended to use other’s code illegally. Anyways, such would be prohibited by copyright, even without patents. Instead, patents would disallow the Wine developers to write their own code that does similar things as the patented code.
>> 2.) I am NOT against the Wine Project, I hope they do find a way to accomplish their goals, just not using some one else’s code (unless it’s GPL, BSD, etc).
Woah, stop right there!
Software patents are all about sueing people for code they have written all by theirselves (and probably spent many nights at debugging it) without stealing anything !!!
It’s all about (often very simple) IDEAS that large corporations are wanting to rip other people off for.
> 2.) I am NOT against the Wine Project, I hope they do find a
> way to accomplish their goals, just not using some one
> else’s code (unless it’s GPL, BSD, etc).
I don’t think they intended to use other’s code illegally. Anyways, such would be prohibited by copyright, even without patents. Instead, patents would disallow the Wine developers to write their own code that does similar things as the patented code.
I never said they intended to. Yes, its prohibited by copyright, but the point is in this case, Borland, spent upwards of millions of dollars on developing this technology, and they should have more rights then just a copyright.
Re: WXFan
“Software patents are all about sueing people for code they have written all by theirselves (and probably spent many nights at debugging it) without stealing anything !!! “[i]
That kinda sounds like you agree with me… Please clarify…
[i]”Software patents are all about sueing people for code they have written all by theirselves (and probably spent many nights at debugging it) without stealing anything !!! “
Yes, its about the ideas, next time you have a good idea, don’t patent it. See what happens and how fast you lose control of who uses, and sells, it. With out patents there is less innovation, as it allows many people to use the same idea of getting things done, which usually isn’t a good thing.
People have software patent issues all mixed up. It’s common on OSNews for its readers to assume that software patents protect ideas from being “stolen”. In reality copyrights do a much better job at that. Patents tend to hinder software technology because more often than not a programmer gets in trouble with software patents not because he copied an idea but because he implemented an idea that happened to be patented without even knowing it. Now the only way to proceed is to either rewrite the code, which is time consuming and an overal hindrance to technology, or to license the code, which is just as bad, if not worse. First of all, it takes a lot of money to license a patented technology and independent developers don’t have the time or resources to do that, only large ISVs do. Leaving software with only copyright protection would increase the pace of technology. Developers would be free to code their ideas without hindrance, as long as they didn’t specifically copy lines of code from another project, without permission, and claim it as their own.
Maybe so, but part of Software Dev is creativity. For starters, you don’t have to apply for copyrights, atleast where I live… Patents IMO ARE more effective, and it allows for extra revenue in tight financial situations (which we ALL have everynow and then, including a certain Linux distro).
I think if you ask more experienced (IE not people who look at tutorials for every function they need), older, software devs they will agree with me (granted I can’t speak for them).
IMO I doubt anyone would care about software patents if say, good ol’ Linus applied for one on some of the Linux kernel…
Limiting competition is normally to the detriment of consumers.
I assure you comsumers don’t really care as long they have their TV,sports,alcohol.
hahaha!!!! Its funny because its true!
One of these:
Pittsford Sutherland High School
Pittsford-Mendon High School
East Rochester Junior/Senior HS
Give me a dollar