“Open source software vendors Red Hat Inc and MySQL AB have lent their support to a new campaign against software patents in the European Union under the name NoSoftwarePatents.com.” Read more at cbronline.
Red Hat and MySQL Back European Anti-Patent Campaign
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
Mueller plans to use the campaign to discuss the issue of software patents with politicians and the media, arguing that “software patents are used for anti-competitive purposes, stifle innovation, and would cost the entire economy and society dearly,” according to a statement.
How exactly do software patents ‘stifle innovation’? If you do something that infringes on somebody else’s patent(s), that’s not exactly innovative, is it?
I thnk the real reason why the OSS community is so pissed off is because patents prevent them from releasing patented technologies for free in open source products, thus preventing them from piggybacking off patent holders. Am I wrong?
>>How exactly do software patents ‘stifle innovation’?
Overly broad patents stifle innovation. This is very common because of the “file patent, let the courts deal with it later” mentality in the US.
You could proably wipe out 60%+ s/w patents just on prior art.
How exactly do software patents ‘stifle innovation’? If you do something that infringes on somebody
The problem isn’t software patents for truly innovative technology (like new compression or encryption algorithms etc.), but that you can patent trivial code.
Look at this example of a webshop: http://webshop.ffii.org/
Some of the patents are just applications of normal routines, enabled on the computer. Rebate codes and shopping baskets are a natural thing in shopping, so implementing it in software is trivial, and not an innovation.
Theoretically these trivial patents should not be allowed, but because the patent offices don’t have enough resources and/or knowledge for doing proper research, they approve them. The only way a company could protect itself against such patents is to go to court, but that costs time and money. The system obviously favors the larger companies that can afford such legel actions.
The number of patents that you may walk into a minefield of patent lawyers, hungry for quick and easy money. Some companies even specialize in purchasing patents to make money on the patents itself, and not produce any technology itself.
Am I wrong?
Yes 🙂
Yes, you are.
Software patents stifle innovation because:
a) The USPO is granting frivolous patents day in and day out.
b) Once more powerful than you, i.e., with more money has one such patent, they will claim that your latest innovation infringes on their patent. Since defending a frvolous patent suit is estimated to cost millions of dollars,most small open source developers have to agree to cross-license their code to a proprietary vendor or worse pay damages for a bogous patent.
c) Given these prospects, these will definitely stifle innovation.
d) Most importantly, the patent system is skewed towards the most powerful companies. IBM or SUN can always find a patent that you infringe and they can afford to file for thousands of patents a year. And while IBM is very friendly towards open source now, we never know what the future may hold.
If you truly wanted to understand this issue, you could have read Lessig’s book “Free Culture”. It’s available as a free PDF. And the best historical overview of the problem is presented by Richard Stallman’s lecture:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html#WMUPAT2003
http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-patents-westminster.ogg
I hope you were not just trolling
You are wrong.
Patents are investment protection.
In the area of software this is achieved through copyright.
OSS has no problem with that, it is using it itself.
To implement the idea the same investment has to be done (if you’re equal).
Patents should prevent that somebody could use the product of somebody else and using the achievement without having to invest.
As this is not given in the area of software (you would have to violate copyright), patents would be limiting freedom in an inacceptable way.
Patents on mathematics, software patents, etc. are also not acceptable because they can’t be circumvented.
If you use criteria like novelty, industrial applicability, and non-obviousness in a sane way (not like USPTO and EPA), software patents are quite impossible, if not impossible.
But case law allows USPTO to accept such patents and the EPA even accepts clearly illegal patents because they’re making money with it.
Patents on idea (what software patents) are also a violation of human rights.
Not only OSS would suffer from software patents, but also small-scale, medium-class companies and freelance programmers.
I don’t understand why we should follow the US in patent perversity.
How exactly do software patents ‘stifle innovation’? If you do something that infringes on somebody else’s patent(s), that’s not exactly innovative, is it?
The problem is that today most software patents covers obvious technologies, they are not defining a specific innovation but a broader idea, their declaration is often fuzzy and could cover any related ideas. Furthermore, some patents cover ideas which were already engineered by other persons (prior art).
That explain why software patents are bad: because they are wrongly accepted and enforced. Just take the Amazon One-click patent, the patent on progress bar or the Eolas plugin patent as an example. If u’re sued and can afford to defend yourself in court: you’re out of business, valid patent or not.
As for why software patents are bad by themselves; they cover algorithms, so mathematics ideas, something which is not acceptable. Ideas should in no way be “patentable”. It’s an historic-known fact that the wheel has been invented at roughly the same time, in several distant part of the world, without one copying each other: people can have the same idea at the same time. So, who should own the patent? The first who runs at the patent office ? And then get the right to prevent the other person to develop his own idea?
If u’re sued and can afford to defend yourself in court: you’re out of business, valid patent or not.
Erratum: If u’re sued and can’t afford to defend yourself in court: you’re out of business, valid patent or not.
Ok, you guys are giving me examples of how overly broad patents can hurt competition – to this I can agree with.
But, can you give me on concrete example of something truly innovative that got swallowed up by a patent? In the webshop example, if you have a shopping cart on your website, you are apparently violating a patent. But since when did putting a shopping cart on your website become innovative?
I’d be more interested in an example where software patents have made innovation possible. No really, can anyone give even one example of software innovation that isn’t possible without software patents?
Let’s see…we’re considering introducing a costly and bureaucratic system which creates monopolies, takes away peoples freedom to create whatever software they like and puts companies at risk of being sued anytime they introduce a new product, and you want reasons why it could hurt innovation?
Exactly what problems are software patents supposed to solve?
I’d be more interested in an example where software patents have made innovation possible.
Do you mean possible or profitable?
Let’s see…we’re considering introducing a costly and bureaucratic system which creates monopolies, takes away peoples freedom to create whatever software they like and puts companies at risk of being sued anytime they introduce a new product, and you want reasons why it could hurt innovation?
People creating ‘whatever software they like’ and creating something innovative are two completely different things. If you create something that’s innovative, you’re not going to get sued. Prove me wrong on this?
Exactly what problems are software patents supposed to solve?
Well, let’s say you spend thousands of dollars in research and development and the end result is you figure out a way to stream movies over a dialup connection with DVD-quality video and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Do you feel that something like that should be patented? Or should every Tom, Dick, and Harry be able to implement your technology in any manner they wish?
well sometimes they can be justifiable though… imagine you spend millions with psychologists to design the most intuitive user interface ever. now it’s not the production of the gui thats expensive: it’s the discovering the formula. for example maybe you should always have 5 buttons, no more, no less. now company X has invested $Y million on this research. How without software patents are they going to hold onto this edge without some OSS project from ripping of their idea? after all, once you know what to do anyone can implement it and it’s literally right in front of you so you can’t obfuscate it. any ideas?
Do you mean possible or profitable?
Possible. It’s not hard to find examples where software patents have made “innovation” profitable, e.g. Eolas or Acacia.
If you create something that’s innovative, you’re not going to get sued. Prove me wrong on this?
No piece of code is all innovative. We always build on old ideas and principles. No matter how innovative your streaming format is it will still infringe on Acacia’s patent.
Well, let’s say you spend thousands of dollars in research and development and the end result is you figure out a way to stream movies over a dialup connection with DVD-quality video and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Do you feel that something like that should be patented? Or should every Tom, Dick, and Harry be able to implement your technology in any manner they wish?
Well, the patent application etc will probably cost you more than that. Is it reasonable to be spending more money on bureaucracy than on R&D?
Ignoring that, is there any reason to believe that your technology wouldn’t be invented if you wouldn’t be able to get a monopoly?
Here’s an example of where patents stifle innovation. Take the case of a file format patent. Hypothetical situation here: Let’s say MS Word XML document format. If the patent holder restricts only properly licensed software from writing data into that file format, how could an innovative programmer who wants to add features (say embedding collaboration code and tying it up with their IM client) go about doing it with restrictions in place? Or the MP3 encoding technique. What if I wanted to create an appliance that would like to interoperate with MP3 players to stream audio to create some new application (like noise-reduction using MP3 players,
). Using existing MP3 players is the most economical route but if you can’t encode into the MP3 format without a license from Fraunhofer…
But, can you give me on concrete example of something truly innovative that got swallowed up by a patent?
In the webshop example, if you have a shopping cart on your website, you are apparently violating a patent. But since when did putting a shopping cart on your website become innovative?
Does this mean no one should be allowed to develop another similar cart system? Does this mean once someone invent a software, no one is allowed to implement a similar idea without paying royalties? If so, anything needed to create a program could be blocked by patents and make a software, even basic, would require to shell out dollars. This would either end with monopolies or overly expensive softwares. It doesn’t sound good for innovation in any case.
As you agreed on, patents are often overly broad and concern obvious day-to-day applications. That said, patents would be fine if they would only be granted for a specific, concrete and truly innovative idea. Unfortunately, patents, as it is in effect today, are way beyond this logic and that’s the reason why many of us don’t accept them.
Truly innovative ideas are really not commun in software design, and the huge majority of today’s patents could be protected perfectly well with Copyright’s laws. The rest are just patents on non-innovative ideas.
Just imagine if software patents were in use 30 years ago how many obvious ideas such as dynamic allocated memory, multi-user design, etc. would have been forbidden for everyone to use just to create artificial monopilies. I don’t think computing would have evolved as quickly as it did during the late 70’s / early 80’s. To me, computing innovation was at its best at that time.
As you agreed on, patents are often overly broad and concern obvious day-to-day applications. That said, patents would be fine if they would only be granted for a specific, concrete and truly innovative idea.
Right, and I think that is the crux of this whole argument – that the patent system (at least as it pertains to software) needs to be reworked so that patents are given out only for tangible, concrete ideas. However, the rhetoric I’m hearing from the OSS crowd is that patents are bad under any circumstances and should be done away with altogether, and I think that is running too far in the opposite direction.
Software Patents are bad under ANY circumstances for the following “real world” reasons:
1. Copyright protection already covers you.
2. It currently costs big bucks, lots of time, and lots of wasted business and public (government) resources to get a software patent, and a lot of them being granted are bogus due to prior art. Now imagine how much time, money, and effort it would take to rework the system and employ enough competent, educated, experienced computer nerds at the patent office to meet the growing demand and only give patents to valid innovations.
3. Really, where do you draw the line between a program being a new innovation and being based on prior art because of the functions and smaller programs inside? Aren’t they all just algorithms piling up on each other that someone else did most of the foundation for?
4. A small handful of bogus software patents slipping through the system by powerful companies that no one can afford to fight can really ruin a lot of people’s hard work and business plans. The flaws in the system carry too much of a potential risk… the danger is not worth the benifits.
From a macroeconomical standpoint:
I don’t want to see tax dollars wasted on improving a system that’s redundant.
I don’t want to see computer nerd talent wasted approving software patents when they should be out programming.
I don’t want to see software prices go through the roof due to monopolies granted from software patents.
Redhat is doing good things, this is off topic but i feel it has to be said, Redhat is a great example how a business cooperates with a community, just look at Redhat’s enterprise Linux, and Fedora… Redhat gets their product tested by Fedora users, and Fedora users get to have a free desktop workstation, server (whatever they need a free desktop for) it is a great system they got going…
personally i do not use Fedora or Redhat Enterprise Linux, but i may give Core-3 a spin when it is released…
so yes i can understand Redhat position on software patients and whole heartedly agree with Redhat…
HappyTrails :^)
Many technical areas of software probably need patenting, or at least should be patented to explain how they work. (After all the point of patents is sharing knowlege).
There are numerous patents that describe algorithms and methods that are probably deserving of protections. However test.com’s online quiz/survey patent, paying via CC over the internet and online shopping carts aren’t exactly technical or particularly innovative.
Can you protect one without the other? Probably not in common law countries.
The entire patent system is an awkward and haphazard compromise though, intended to try and balance publishing innovations vs commercial return. Where is the balance in the current arrangement? I myself have almost certainly violated more than a dozen patents in the last month or two and I’m not a technical genius by any stretch if the imagination.
USA patents can be searched by number at
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm
Some famous software patents include:
XOR patent: 4197590 (cursor display)
RSA patent: 4405829 (public key cryptography)
GIF patent: 4558302 (data compression)
Byteorder patent: 4956809 (machine-independent byteorder)
Quicksort patent: 5175857 (sorting)
MP3 patent: 5579430 (music encoding)
FAT patent: 5579517 (file system)
Tabbing patent: 6785865 (tabbing through links)
Reading these patent was a interesting experience for me. In your opinion, which patents listed above are valid and which are not? And why?
I see that Captainpinko and Darius after getting their initial questions thoroughly answered and their premises debunked are now dwelling in the land of hypotheticals.
Well, Microsoft spends enormous amounts of money on R&D. Where are the incredibly innovative GUI paradigms? You seem to think that the amount of money spents correlates linearly with the amount of innovation, which is just plain silly. Innovation in software is distributed and just as likely in less controlled environments than in environments where lots of money are spent in bureaucratically controlled research.
Finally, I see that no one took me up on the offer of listening and discussing Richard Stallman’s lecture in which he clearly points out that it is impossible to write a minimally complex piece of software today without violating someone’s existing patents. Something like a word processor is hundreds of thousands of lines of code. The silliness of the system is such that it would be impossible to write a new word processor because have of the algorithms, methods, processes or interaction paradigms have been “patented”.
The big guys cross-license their “patents”, everyone else just vanishes. Patents were granted to encourage innovation and to make it economically feasible to develop new things, not to extract a toll on every possible idea.
” Right, and I think that is the crux of this whole argument – that the patent system (at least as it pertains to software) needs to be reworked so that patents are given out only for tangible, concrete ideas.”
Tangible, concrete ideas are protected under copyright. That is the exact intent of copyright, the protection of tangible expression.
>”Quicksort patent: 5175857 (sorting)”
Uh? there’s a patent on quicksort?? That can’t be right
I see that Captainpinko and Darius after getting their initial questions thoroughly answered and their premises debunked are now dwelling in the land of hypotheticals.
one I only made one post in this thread so how could I have dwelled on te theoretical after having a question debunked? that would require two or more posts. Second, in the subject line itself it wrote “devil’s advocate” it was meant to challenge and provide an alternate angle. Third, if you think small scale and not about all cases you get stupid laws like DCMA and Patriot act. Things need to be well considered from all angles and multiple possiblities before a position is taken. It seems you are a zealot afraid of people making informed opinions.
GPL projects are owned by the community and anyone can make changes to them or build new projects out of them. All vendor products are rented by people, the vendor owns them. I’d rather have private property.
If I can’t own what I pay money for, than I don’t want it.
To answer your original question: Sure, it’s easy to come up with hypothetical (and maybe even real) situations where software patents would help a company recoup money spent on R&D. However, the reason we have patents isn’t to make certain companies profitable, it is to encourage innovation.
If you look at e.g. the pharmaceutical industry, most of the research done on new drugs wouldn’t be possible if the companies couldn’t patent their inventions (unless, of course there was another way of funding research besides selling the drugs). There are also cases where no research is done on promising drugs or treatments, simply because it wouldn’t be patentable (IIRC because the substances are simply plant extracts or such — sorry, don’t remember the specifics).
So, can anyone give examples of specific software related research that wouldn’t happen without software patents? And are those cases enough to outweight all the negative effects (which are pretty well known by now)?
Well Redhat is slowly moving towards Microsoft policies. Mysql was never free for full fledge production release. I really wonder will Redhat end just like anti Microsoft wave?
I think that patents just have to do with fighting over money. Given that a company with hundreds of billions of dollars, just want’s more and more and more money, you can see that there are some major problems with the people who run these organizations. No amount of money is ever enough, in the end people have to kill each other.
you dont have to worry about Redhat getting to be like microsoft, there is no way they could monipolise Linux, besides Redhat has contributed a lot to the OpenSource community, some products that run on top of a Linux OS are not going to be free and you better get used to that idea, but if you want a free Linux OS & desktop there is Fedora and many other distros to choose from (slackware is my favorite for now however that could change which is the strength of Linux – it keeps every business that uses Linux honest, so you dont have to worry about any company creating a Linux monopoly, however you will find some commercial Linux distros offer non-free packages on top of thier Linux distro that no other Linux distro has = as a business they got to have some product to attract paying customers…
RSA is valid, it was invented by Rivest, Shamir, and Aldemann who filed the patent between them. It was innovative as the first Public Key system that could encrypt (Diffie Hellmann and Merkle’s Puzzles can only set up keys).
There are plenty of examples of true innovations in software being patented, such as RSA, in order that the inventors can make some money off them. This is the whole point of the patent system. Allowing people to get rich from their ideas, encorages them to try and get them to market.
The problem is not patents per se but the stupid invalid or overly broad patents that are getting granted on trivial things. Particually as this has lead to a patent arms race between the large corporations, patenting everything no matter how trivial so that they can sue anyone that sues them.
>>>so yes i can understand Redhat position on software patients and whole heartedly agree with Redhat…
Redhat is basically cornered by its competitors and partners.
IBM — the greatest holders of patents and the greatest linux cheerleaders — are saying that linux is full of patent problems. That’s why IBM doesn’t sell or make their own linux distributions. Let RedHat (and end-users) take all the legal risks. If end-users have legal problems later and need to migrate to another platform — they have to hired IBM Consulting, money for IBM either way.
Novell — the owner of SuSE and holder of 400+ patents — just declared that end-users should switch from RedHat to SuSE because Novell has those 400+ patents to protect any future patent attacks from other companies.
You just describe that software patent is the biggest obstacle for technologies. What is sad about this issue is it doesn’t take account about idea that comes at the same time on different places without knowing each other.
What will be next? Patenting the algebra?
>>>You just describe that software patent is the biggest obstacle for technologies.
What obstacle — there is no obstacle at all. The whole business world is based on risks and rewards. You buy insurance coverage from an insurance company. Your insurance company buys insurance coverage from a re-insurance company, and so on…
Nobody put a gun to IBM’s head and force them to be a cheerleader. IBM didn’t put a gun on RedHat’s head and force them to take the legal risks on being a linux distributor. Nobody put a gun to the end-users like city of Munich’s head and force them to use linux — even though Munich just learned about the linux/patent risks.
There is a new Perens led linux insurance company. There are new softwares by a number of start-ups that claim to manage IP risks on linux usage.
This thing is the best thing that is happening to Linux. Because if your company didn’t even think about any legal risks in linux deployment — then they deserve to get screwed by this.
From the web: http://webshop.ffii.org/