On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:45:45 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote:

> On 10/26/2011 11:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>>>
>>>> patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that
>>>> would
>>>> otherwise die with the inventor. The idea is, if you patent something,
>>>> you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits of
>>>> your invention.
>>>
>>> I think, this can work for software the same way.
>>
>> You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents. You
>> can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that
>> copyright protects your IP.
>>
>> But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
>> than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.
>
> If it is, for example, a remote web service, reverse engineering is difficult.

If you don't sell it, then there should be no point of patenting it.  You have much better protection by keeping it secret...

But today we have patents of these things, because they stifle innovation.  It creates artificial barriers that only exist because people have gamed the system.

-Steve

Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
>
> But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
> than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.

Really?
I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no experience with that,  it's just a guess)
Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it deliberately hard, like Skype.

Cheers,
- Daniel

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
>>
>> But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
>> than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.
>
> Really?
> I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no experience with that,  it's just a guess)
> Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it deliberately hard, like Skype.

If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of glass, you have to guess.  There are often few clues left behind of how to build a physical machine.  This is not the same for software, which can always be disassembled.

-Steve

On 10/26/2011 11:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:45:45 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2011 11:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that
>>>>> would
>>>>> otherwise die with the inventor. The idea is, if you patent something,
>>>>> you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the
>>>>> fruits of
>>>>> your invention.
>>>>
>>>> I think, this can work for software the same way.
>>>
>>> You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents. You
>>> can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that
>>> copyright protects your IP.
>>>
>>> But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
>>> than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.
>>
>> If it is, for example, a remote web service, reverse engineering is
>> difficult.
>
> If you don't sell it, then there should be no point of patenting it. You
> have much better protection by keeping it secret...
>
> But today we have patents of these things, because they stifle
> innovation. It creates artificial barriers that only exist because
> people have gamed the system.
>
> -Steve

You are right.

Am 26.10.2011 23:52, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson
> <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
>>>
>>> But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
>>> than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.
>>
>> Really?
>> I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
>> dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
>> experience with that, it's just a guess)
>> Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made it
>> deliberately hard, like Skype.
>
> If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of
> glass, you have to guess.

Ok, for materials it's probably hard, but there is a possibility of chemical analysis and stuff like that.
But I guess for things like e.g. car engines it may be easier (besides maybe special/new materials used).

> There are often few clues left behind of how
> to build a physical machine. This is not the same for software, which
> can always be disassembled.

Getting the relevant information out of the assembly may still not be trivial.
But to be honest, I don't have much experience with reverse engineering software either, I just read that it's quite often hard to reverse engineer some software like drivers.


Anyway, I'm strongly opposed to software patents.
My main concerns are that
1. Often trivial ideas are patented
2. Even for non-trivial stuff it isn't unlikely that some expert reinvents the same algorithm/whatever for the same problem.
One Example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail
3. Because of this you can never be sure you're not violating patents when developing software without knowingly copying ideas of other people.
Checking this is impossible even for big companies with specialized lawyers, let alone smaller companies or hobby developers.


Cheers,
- Daniel

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v3yn2di8eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...

>>> 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.
>>
>> Software is a machine: concrete thing doing concrete job. Patent doesn't  protect the machine itself, it protects concrete design work put into  it. Design is a high-profile work, a good design has a good chance to be  more expensive than the actual implementation. So it's perfectly valid  to claim ownership for a design work and charge fees for it.
>
> And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?

One can: trade secrets. But a lot of times, techniques cannot be hidden away, for just releasing a product may divulge the "secret", so something more is needed: patent.

> Again, copyright  already covers software.

While it's probably not enough or even the correct thing in the first place, is "software" copyrightable or source code, or both separately? It seems that copyright has appropriateness for software, but is useless as protection of the software designs as represented by source code.

>  Plenty of software companies have large amounts  of IP and are
> successful without having any software patents.

Are you suggesting that there MUST be only ONE ("one and only") way? Great then, let's make it so there is only ONE software too. Problem solved, eh?

>
>>
>>> It can be produced en mass with near-zero cost.
>>
>> Dead software is seen as unusable. So - no, to produce software you need  continuous maintenance and development which is as expensive as any  other labor.
>
> What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to recreating  the machine.  Such manufacturing requires up-front investment that can  possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the design.  Patents protect  the entity putting their product out there from having a larger company  who can throw money around beat you using your idea.  In software, since  the software is protected by copyright, the competition must build their  own version of your software ideas first, and the distribution is  relatively insignificant.  In other words, once you release your idea to  the world, it can be sold and installed for millions in a matter of days,  giving you the lion share of the market.

Seems like incentive to get into Engineering, huh. Those who want to "win big" and expend no effort should stick to buying lottery tickets (and stop preying upon others). Keeping things away from the sleazy, grimey fingers of those who want to profit from someone else's labor or get something for nothing, is a good thing.

>>> 4. Unlike a physical entity, it is very likely a simple individual, working on his own time with his own ideas, can create software that inadvertently violates a "patent" with low cost.
>>
>> I don't see how this doesn't apply to physical machines.
>
> When you are talking about patents for a machine or physical entity, there  is a large investment and cost in just designing the item,

How many man years are in the average commercially offered software product?

> or the means to  manufacture it.  It's less likely that a simple individual has the capital  necessary to create it, and if he does, or can raise it, a patent search  is usually done to avoid complications. He might also look at expired  patents to get ideas on how to do things.
>
> However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in a  couple weeks.

"The quick hack" is hardly "mainstream commercial software product"? Why bring up special cases? Why imply that a special case represents the whole realm?

>  He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just  2 weeks
> time to create the software.

Assumption may be made that because a patent pre-exists, that someone else cannot independently create the same thing, which of course is possible and likely. Ideally, all patents would be kept a secret so that those independently developed creations could have a life also, instead of just those of  "the chosen ones". Not allowing software patents would seem to "level the playing field" for all and cut out useless administration tasks.

Hmm, no it wouldn't: big money would feed off of the inventions of the little guy. That's where the consumer fits in though: don't buy from the undeserving, and identify them as the predators they are. That may be the key: render power/money-as-power, useless as a strategy. Something to think about next time you buy from someone who has more than you, huh. Occupy Wallstreet? Why not just stop buying from Wallstreet and instead buy from someone in your neighborhood or on your Facebook/Linked-In friends list?

> Here, the patent system is just  getting in the way of innovation.

The patent system is justified in the name of "incentive", but are patents in reality, a crime against humanity?

Patents should, perhaps, be to protect only what cannot be kept a secret. "Incentive" shouldn't even be part of the equation. "Incentive" is "prodding" at best, "imposition" at worst (where the "crime against humanity reference above came from).

> It's having the opposite effect by  instilling fear in anyone writing software that some patent-holding  company is going to squash him out of business.

It does do that, yes.

>
> When was the last time you did anything with a patented software technology except *avoid it like the plague*?

Never looked at any, but how many do I know of inadvertently because they weren't kept a secret? Where are all the warning signs on information describing patented things? They should have warnings just like cigarettes (yet another cigarette analogy... Cigarettes and information about patented things: things that may be hazardous or dangerous).

>
>> How to improve patent system is another question.

Can't be fixed and the only solution is to eliminate it?

> GPL3 can actually play
>> some role here: there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology in a GPL3 software.
>
> IMO, there's no reason to ever use any form of GPL anymore.  It's work is  done.

So now it's supposed to be credited with something and people should bow to it? What is that something? That communism doesn't work in practice?

Chante Wrote:

> >> So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something
> >> (i.e.
> >> you want something in return)?  Interesting...
> >
> > It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and protects the freedom. You can also provide your efforts to corporations - why not? - proprietary licenses and patents are *adequate* means to do it.
> 
> Surely you meant "communism" rather than "freedom", otherwise the above is non-sensical.

See? Corporations and people like you don't buy freedom. Software for money is what you understand best.

On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:36 -0500, Chante wrote:
> "Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote in message news:j88jq8$1brb$1@digitalmars.com...
> 
> >[Free software] is software that respects the freedom of its end users.
> 
> Software is inanimate and non-human and cannot "respect" anything. The mire of propaganda that spews from "entitled" GPL fanboys is astounding.

If you want to make a case against using the GPL for software let it be done with civil argument, not off-hand disparaging hate mail.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 15:30 -0500, Chante wrote:
> "Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j892gn$2b5k$1@digitalmars.com...
> > Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> >
> >> So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something
> >> (i.e.
> >> you want something in return)?  Interesting...
> >
> > It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and protects the freedom. You can also provide your efforts to corporations - why not? - proprietary licenses and patents are *adequate* means to do it.
> 
> Surely you meant "communism" rather than "freedom", otherwise the above is non-sensical.

Surely "communism" is sharing without constraint.  That means GPL is not "communist" whereas Boost is?

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 23:04 -0500, Chante wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.
[ . .. ]

I assume that you are joking here in order to stir debate.  Anyone who thinks that a book, be it fiction and hence likely just a sequence of words, or non-fiction and this likely with figures and tables as well as text, does not have design, structure, architecture, etc. clearly has no conception of good authorship.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder