What is Digg?62 Comments
- Lixie, on 12/23/2007, -3/+58It's about time. It's almost impossible to program anything without infringing on a hundred patents especially when companies patent such basic programming functions.
- Picer, on 12/23/2007, -2/+29It not just software patents though, there are a lot of hardware patents which are not inventions but a concept applied slightly differently. The main issue is that common sense is not applied to a majority of patents.
- MattBD, on 12/23/2007, -1/+19Here in the EU software is copyrighted rather than patented, and that seems to work out well. Maybe they should opt for that instead.
- Vlatro, on 12/23/2007, -0/+16US patent law has been so abused over the last 30 years, it fails to serve it's original intent. I have no problem with software patents, but "conceptual" patents are *****. Design something, make it work, illustrate how it's function differs from existing patented products and then file. That is the way it's supposed to work, and under such a system is very flexible. But patenting an idea without context or specific application is too general. For *****'s sake, people have patented the human genome. It's not just software, it's everywhere. A more rational patent system would be a greater benefit than a software specific lobby.
- masterofshadows, on 12/23/2007, -1/+14Bill Gates has publicly stated that he hates software patents because of patent trolls and patents being granted on obvious stuff, I am sure Steve Jobs and Steve Balmer feel the same way for similar reasons
- andycr512, on 12/23/2007, -0/+13I don't know whether you are being sarcastic, but if not, there are two issues with what you said. Copyrights and patents are completely, totally, entirely different animals. Also, you do not "patent software" - you patent an idea in a given piece of software, which is what makes it so damaging.
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -4/+14And Hitler also vastly improved the German economy and had technical innovations like the autobahn and Volkswagen. Does that mean Hitler as a whole had a positive overall influence? No. The same is true about communism. A few good things can't make up for a overall negative net effect.
- MattBD, on 12/23/2007, -0/+9I was being serious - I use Linux so I'm fully aware of the difficulties that result from software patents. However, I'll freely admit that my knowledge of the issue is quite limited - it's only in the last year or so I've been into the whole free software movement.
- Rickler, on 12/23/2007, -0/+8When there are firms out there that make money solely off patent hording there is something wrong. There is also something wrong when patents are being filed without the actual invention have been created or designed.
- daradib, on 12/23/2007, -1/+9See www.endsoftpatents.org
The End Software Patents coalition is kicking off in early January.
Donations: https://www.fsf.org/donate/directed-donations/esp
(and no, I am not affiliated with the FSF or part of the coalition) - Zap2, on 12/23/2007, -1/+9Nope, all that stuff was done by the Soviets....which were people trying to be communist, but failing
- stutimandal, on 12/23/2007, -6/+13I don't believe that every software patent out there is useless. It should have a shorter lifetime (like 4-5 years) and patent should not be granted to obvious or rudimentary or part of a small component type stuff.
- harlowsmonkeys, on 12/23/2007, -0/+6OK, it is pretty clear that the patent office's procedures and standards are pretty screwed up when they review software patents, but suppose that were fixed? Can anyone give a good argument then against software patents, that is NOT also an argument against all patents?
Suppose there is some problem for which there is a long standing need in the industry for a solution. Many many many people have tried long and hard to solve it and spent a lot of money working on it, and failed. I try long and hard, and spend a lot of money, and solve it.
What is the theoretical basis of saying that this should be patentable if the solution to the problem is a new machine, but not if it is new software? - argoff, on 12/23/2007, -0/+6I think it's high time that we start looking at ALL patents. There seems to be this notion that if we killed patent: small investors would be left out in the cold, invention would come to a screeching halt, and it would violate peoples property rights. Upon closer inspection though, all of those are lies and in fact patents turn out to be rather genocidal - like how they held back air bags and anti-lock brakes in cars for 20 years, like how they were used to forbid Africans from making their own generic AIDS medications.
- subgeniusd, on 12/23/2007, -0/+5I'm agnostic on the software patent argument (as in both sides have a point but neither are absolutely right) but damn.....how can anyone be granted a patent on human genetic code sequences? Corporations OWNING portions of our DNA imprint is insane.
- neko6, on 12/23/2007, -2/+7Communists didn't create Tetris. A person who happened to be Russian and live during the Communist period created Tetris. There's a huge difference. You wouldn't say that Islam created Algebra or that Judaism created the Intel Centrino chip or Instant massaging or that the Christians killed JFK...
The technological advancement of the USSR was made on top of the population's basic rights. People hardly survived while the resources were all pointed at technology and science, which are important - but only to an extent. - MattBD, on 12/23/2007, -0/+4Thanks for that. I'll watch that when I get a chance.
- 0x1B, on 12/23/2007, -0/+4I just got first patent last year, and have two more in the pipe. It's very possible to program things without infringing. The trick is not to bother looking to see if your work is covered by a patent. Sounds odd, but it's true, especially if you do any open source work. You need to be able to deny that you knew a patent existed. It's a wacky system indeed. But most employers love it. Where I work, having a patent is probably more impressive than having a degree -- and they pay you a very nice bonus for being awarded a patent.
- GorfTron, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3The first patent?
x = x + 1 - daradib, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3www.endsoftpatents.org
Quote:
The End Software Patents coalition
Hi. You're a little early—the End Software Patents coalition is kicking off in early January. We're still assembling a web site and—more importantly—a large coalition of people and organizations to make a compelling case for real patent reform.
At this early stage, there are a few things you can do: you can read about us at Linux.com, you can contribute via the Free Software Foundation (who are assisting with the fund-building work) and if you represent an organization that wants to be part of the coalition, you can directly contact the Director of ESP, Ben Klemens, at [EMAIL] - andycr512, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3Yes. I would recommend you watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6692009640 ...
I view him as an extremist on most issues, but it's the best example of "an argument against software patents that is not also an argument against all patents" I can find on short notice, and his views on software patents are not as extreme as many of his views. - Onni, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4Hmm, the article was posted on "October 31, 2007." I guess next month means last month?
- daradib, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3Lets all click the links and waste Microsoft's money.
- andycr512, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3In that case, if you have time I would recommend watching this video if you have an interest in learning how software patents apply to open source/free software: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6692009640 ...
He does a very good job of explaining the difference between copyrights and patents, the patent systems in various countries, and why patents as applied to software ideas in the US are so damaging. - rocket777, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3Software was not always patentable. The greatest innovations in computer software came prior to software patents. But as usual, the lawyers wanted more business and so we again heard the line "We're from the Government, and we're here to help you".
As proof, I would say that even with 100 (or 1000) fold increase in processor speed with 1/100th or 1/1000th the cost, what do we have better than zerox's smalltalk system, Vista? - Rabbittt, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3Patenting the software functions in question here is like patenting a mathematical theory.. If the money-grubbers had their way, you would pay a tax every time you used your calculator..
- jsd8cc, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2I wonder if they'll be working with the people over at http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com
- sqrt7744, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3@Zap: no it wasn't the soviets, it was the Romanian and Hungarian communists between the 60's and 80's - as well as communist partisans in the Pyrenees who robbed and murdered a great uncle of mine after WWII while he was on his way from Spain to France.
- andycr512, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3Abolishing software idea patents doesn't mean all patents would need to be abolished. Actually, software idea patents are bad for capitalism. Don't believe me?
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." - Bill Gates - balazsbela, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2Balmer ? You must be joking. I bet he loves patents, it's a good reason to sue and patents protect his business.
- keyo, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2Patents on ideas is really stupid. Patents on real designs/products give incentive for development but patents on ideas just hold back the idea from being implemented. Patents on software should be of a shorter lifetime as the industry moves quickly.
- nanday, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2The campaign is still going forward -- it's just taking longer to get started. It now seems likely to start in mid-January.
- 000dom000, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3like how thers a windows vista and microsoft server 2003 ad beside it
- balazsbela, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2WTF it's not like they *designed* the human genome.
Why can they patent it ? - danjwray, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2your point was going so well until you chose that terrible example. the wheel?! are you seriously telling me you wouldn't mind paying a 'wheel tax' to the family of the inventor of the wheel every time you drove to work, got a bus, a plane, a delivery? what about the doors on those vehicles? door tax?
dumb ass. - bugsy187, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2What exactly is the overall negative net effect? It's world-wide populist movement trying to eliminate war and poverty. These are at least 2 things capitalism has failed to solve.
- babbling, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2Patents remove the incentive for inventors. If two people independently invent the same thing, one of them will have the right to profit by selling licenses to the invention, and the other one will possibly get sued by the other inventor. No one wants to be the second inventor, and since there's too many patents for anyone to know of, no one will want to be an inventor.
If I discover something already patented independent of (that is, without any knowledge of) the original invention, why should I have to pay royalties on my own invention? I did not copy what anyone else did, I merely reached the same conclusions at a later date.
Being an inventor is like a competition where you could win millions of dollars (if you happen to be first) or you could lose everything you have (if you happen to be anything but first). - bugsy187, on 12/24/2007, -1/+3What about the capitalists in Iraq?
- neko6, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2Because blaming the Christians for killing JFK just because the killer happened to be Christian is as stupid as blaming the Jews for killing Jesus just because one Jew told the Romans where he was hiding (and even that was shown to be improbable by historians)? Because giving millions of people credit or blame for a single person's action is completely retarded?
BTW: Why aren't the Romans blamed for Jesus' death? They killed him in the middle of the city in front of everyone... - neko6, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2Definitely not in Linux of all sections...
- GMorgan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1I doubt Jobs hates patents. Apple are the biggest IP whores on the planet.
- HonoredMule, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Because they were just crowd-pleasers who didn't want a riot over some crap that didn't concern them.
- Napoleone, on 12/23/2007, -3/+4"it would be easier to put an end to all patents instead of just software patents"
That's an ill considered proposition.
There are venture capitalists and companies who would not risk their money on anything that can so easily be infiltrated by competition. For example, what's the point of a pharmaceutical company investing billions of dollars in research to treat x disease, if a month after their product reaches the market someone else simply reverse engineers their product and profits off their work without having spent a dime of their own into developing it? Without patents, science would be stifled, because research can be very, very costly.
There is a problem with the way patents are currently being granted, and the things they are being granted for, but eliminating them altogether is not at all a good or realistic solution.
A patent of a reasonable amount of years is a reasonable trade off. - GMorgan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1It's not antithetic to capitalism. Patents are unproductive, they shift value around but create nothing. Without patents there'd be as much value as there is now, it'd just be in different places.
- GMorgan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1People won't accept cheap knockoffs. In fact if you remove patents, companies would have to compete on quality rather than not having to compete at all.
- GMorgan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1Find me a non-trivial one. It's worth remembering that MS upheld a patent on FAT32, that's how retarded the system is.
- GMorgan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1Most ideas are just simple and obvious. Most software patents that aren't on the lines of 'press the a key to put an a on the screen' are just direct rip offs of scientific reports, reworded slightly so it looks like something different yet still covers the original work.
http://www.bluej.org/mrt/?p=21
There are far more BlueJ's out there than there are wheels, by enough that we rightly question if there are any wheels. If a person invents something and wants their work available for all then what right has some company to come along and reword things slightly in order to steel them. - GMorgan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1You may have invented it at an earlier date but simply lacked the legal clout to patent it.
- 5xSTUN, on 12/23/2007, -2/+2Doesn't look like this got off the ground in any significant way. Oh, well.
- jaynemother, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1He did not say patent trolls
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is