On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:52:18 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents.
>
> If a bigger corporation doesn't steal your invention.

Truth be told, patents don't even protect you against this.

What happens when you sue the larger corporation:

1. They have better lawyers
2. They probably have a patent library they can throw at your other code.

Software patents favor the big corporation, not the lowly developer.  Consider that it costs about $10,000 just to *obtain* a patent these days, much less defend it.

>> >> Add that to the fact that software
>> >> patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.
>> >
>> > Does the community want benefits at the expense of the inventor?
>>
>> The *point* of patents is to benefit the community.  The price society
>> pays to the inventor is granting a monopoly.  I'd argue that a 17-year
>> monopoly on software technology and algorithms is too high a price to pay
>> for knowing a "secret" you can't use until it's very obsolete.
>
> Patented technology can be used under terms of GPL right now as example of x264 shows. With GPL patent holder can be sure he still can make money on commercial patent users.

Again, this is a choice of the patent holders of x264, this does not universally apply to all software patents.

The holders could have said "free to use in any open source software that is available at no charge".  This would cover all open source licenses, even ones that can be shipped as binary-only.

There is no inherent clause for GPL in the patent system.  Stop using this argument, it proves nothing.

>> >> They are mostly used as
>> >> weapons to stifle innovation from others.  In essence, software  
>> patents
>> >> have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something  
>> like
>> >> building cars.
>> >
>> > Let's look at the H264 technology. Would it exist in the first place  
>> if
>> > its creators had no chance to patent it?
>>
>> What if is not a fair game.  It's impossible for me to say because I did
>> not invent it.  But I believe most people who come up with ideas for
>> software are not in it for the patents.  Even in the company I worked for
>> which got several software patents, they were an afterthought -- Software
>> is invented to *solve a problem* which needs to be solved whether it can
>> be patented or not.  Did the inventors of H.264 do it for the patents?
>> Maybe.
>
> If it's impossible to say, then your opinion has the risk to be unfounded. If we eliminate patents, it will be impossible to say, whether things became better or not - who knows what inventions were not invented because their authors had no resources for it.

It's impossible for you to say also.  So is your opinion unfounded?

In all likelyhood, a patentless, but trade-secret-enforced video standard would have emerged, done well, then an open source equivalent would have emerged.  Both the H.264 owners and the community would be in competition to see who can make the better video stream, everybody wins.

> I'm not sure h264 solved a problem. Video encoding worked just fine before it. It's just a better algorithm. The experts may be not for patents, but they are paid by big companies which are for profit.

Better algorithms solve the problem of efficiency, implementability, and features.  It's like saying DVDs didn't "solve a problem", because there was already Laserdisc.

Big companies still have incentive to create a better codec for video, because it helps them sell videos.

>> But I firmly believe if software wasn't patentable, we would have
>> equivalent video streams today (maybe even better than what we have),
>> because it *solves a problem*.
>
> Equivalent - yes, but not today. The story of h264 became at 1998, it took years to complete it. It also took quite a while to get Theora right. Innovation in XviD were incremental and backward compatible with stock MPEG4 ASP decoder.

Are you sure the open source community would not have done a better job at fixing the codec?  Or any other myriad of companies who currently do not hold that patent?  As you loosen the grip on your IP, the benefit you see is that more people can help you improve your software -- open source development has shown that it works.

>> This is a strawman -- GPL is not required by patent law to be licensed at
>> no cost for software patents.  The inventors of H.264 have chosen this
>> route, so good for them.  But it is not a benefit of GPL or a strike
>> against boost, it's just what they chose.
>
> Can you make money with boost license?

Yes.  You can make money with any license.

>> You cannot copyright a design.  You can copyright implementation.  And if
>> you don't make the design public, people have to spend vast amounts of
>> time and effort to just *figure out* your design, then they have to write
>> their own implementation (which is not cheap).  Meanwhile, you have
>> improved your design to something better and already sold thousands or
>> millions of copies, sucking up all the market share.
>
> So open source is out of game?

huh?

>
>> > The same is for software world. A program may require quite a large
>> > investment before it could be made usable. Let's consider D: who would
>> > get quality implementation first - Digital Mars or Microsoft? If DM
>> > doesn't patent D, it will sell *nothing*.
>>
>> I think if Microsoft decided to implement D, Walter would be the first one
>> jumping for joy :)
>
> That's only because he doesn't sell D.

You sure about that?  I think Digital Mars would sell support contracts for D, and businesses would pay for those if they were to use the language in any real capacity.

>> > Even if DM manages to get some market share, it won't survive
>> > competition and eventually lose. IE lost its market share because  
>> there
>> > was more effort put into Firefox than IE.
>>
>> DMC is still being sold AFAIK.  There is always a market for cheaper
>> software, or a more agile software company.
>>
>> One might pay for DMD if one gets specific support.  For example, if I
>> wanted to buy a D compiler for ARM, would Microsoft be willing to
>> implement it for a fee?  Would they even respond to my request?
>
> Windows 8 supports ARM for some reason.

Then some other arch.

>
>> > I suppose trivial patents are also a problem for physical industry as
>> > the wheel patent shows.
>>
>> The wheel patent is a test of a poorly designed patent system (as the
>> article indicates).  It is not representative of most patent systems.
>>
>> See this quote from your linked article:
>>
>> ===========
>> Keogh, who is a freelance patent lawyer himself, says that he applied for
>> the patent in order to test this new class of new patents. He says that
>> innovation patents are not examined in detail by the Australian patent
>> office.
>>
>> "The patent office would be required to issue a patent for everything," he
>> told The Age newspaper. "All they're doing is putting a rubber stamp on
>> it."
>> ===========
>>
>> Note that this is not a trivial granted patent because of a flawed review
>> process -- THERE IS NO REVIEW PROCESS, ALL PATENTS ARE GRANTED!  This is
>> not a fair comparison of well-established patent systems.
>
> Do you call patent systems granting trivial (software) patents well-established?

Regardless of the quality of the review, at least there *is* a review.  What I meant was, a review-less patent "rubber-stamping" system is not comparable to one which goes through a review process to weed out trivial patents.

>> >> When was the last time you did anything with a patented software
>> >> technology except *avoid it like the plague*?
>> >
>> > I would like to avoid H264 but unfortunately I can't.
>>
>> Right, and if software patents did not exist, the web would have
>> standardized on some other video codec, which would be freely available by
>> now.
>
> I actually avoid h264 in the web :)
> Well, in fact I use firefox and avoid flash, which results in avoiding h264.
> Webm is enough for me in the web.
> I can't avoid H264 for "real" video.

I meant as a developer, not as a user.

-Steve

> 
> I actually agree, and have espoused this view myself in the past. If this was the reasoned argument that was actually made, instead of "free as in herpes", then I would have no problem with it.

I wish I'd never posted the item in the first place - it was intended as a kind of meta-meta-comment. I had just never heard the herpes analogy before.

Can we all just relax and go back to where we were.

Steve

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> An interesting article on this from Eric S. Raymond: http://www.osnews.com/story/21192/ESR_GPL_No_Longer_Needed

lol open source is a profit - bosses fear open source - bosses fear profit? Raymond knows how to make profit better than bosses (experts in profit making)?

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:36:17 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> An interesting article on this from Eric S. Raymond:
>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21192/ESR_GPL_No_Longer_Needed
>
> lol open source is a profit - bosses fear open source - bosses fear profit? Raymond knows how to make profit better than bosses (experts in profit making)?

You make less sense every time you post...

-Steve

Jeff Nowakowski Wrote:

> On 10/27/2011 02:44 AM, Don wrote:
> >
> > There is a serious point behind it, though.
> > The use of "free" in conjunction with the GPL, has a different meaning
> > than "free" normally means.
> 
> I actually agree, and have espoused this view myself in the past. If this was the reasoned argument that was actually made, instead of "free as in herpes", then I would have no problem with it.

My experience says we can't have freedom without law. Anarchy is possible only hypothetically (it would work only in a very unrealistic condition). So it's pretty safe to assert freedom implies enforcement.

On 10/27/2011 02:01 PM, Kagamin wrote:
>
> My experience says we can't have freedom without law. Anarchy is
> possible only hypothetically (it would work only in a very
> unrealistic condition). So it's pretty safe to assert freedom implies
> enforcement.

The kind of enforcement the GPL requires is along the lines of consumer protection laws and not freedom. It's more like saying you have to list the ingredients in your food product.

"Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote in message news:j8an18$2gqr$1@digitalmars.com...
> 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.

Having to give up one's wares "for the good of the group" is oppression/crime against the individual.

"Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote in message news:j89unt$14up$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/26/2011 10:36 PM, 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.
>>
>>
>
> Right, the developers respect the freedom of the end users of their program.

At the expense of the developer. The "end user" thing is just a ruse anyway. "Entitled" GPLers just want something for nothing.

> Let that be the definition of software who respects the freedom of its end users and we are fine.
>
> But that is just nitpicking in lack of a better argument. (and the implied personal attack cannot make up for it.)

The obvious argument, obvious to even the casual observer (given the length of this thread already), given above. Now, you were saying?

"Russel Winder" <russel@russel.org.uk> wrote in message news:mailman.528.1319696286.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> Chante wrote:
> "Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote in message=20
> news:j88jq8$1brb$1@digitalmars.com...
>=20
> >[Free software] is software that respects the freedom of its end users.
>=20
> Software is inanimate and non-human and cannot "respect" anything. The=
=20
> 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.

It's hardly an inappropriate categorization of the typical "zealot", "fanboy", GPLer. C'mon, call a spade a spade. No hate needed. It's a common observation.

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v3zaqsfzeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:55:34 -0400, Chante <udontspamme@never.will.u> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v3ylgbgaeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:18 -0400, Chante <udontspamme@never.will.u> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chante Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
>>>>>>> knowledge  to
>>>>>>> do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in
>>>>>>> mind
>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>> potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for
>>>>>>> viral
>>>>>>> source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big
>>>>>>> Government
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> on one side, humanity on the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is
>>>>>> equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not
>>>>>> going
>>>>>> to  succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent
>>>>>> claims
>>>>>> from  the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> GPL can  also protect *your* code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no
>>>>> patent
>>>>> system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because
>>>>> they
>>>>> were  able to get a patent for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel software patents are a completely different entity than
>>>>> material
>>>>> patents.  For several reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
>>>>
>>>> Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.
>>>
>>> Books require design, sometimes elaborate design, and engineering of sorts.  What an author puts into writing a book is not unlike what an entity puts into writing software.
>>
>> With a book, the text is the end product. With software, the source
>> code
>> is an intermediate representation, or production machine rather than
>> the
>> end product. Source code is like a printing press for a specific book.
>> It
>> is not like the book. (These analogies are presented more for
>> analysis,
>> rather than in direct or opposing response).
>
> compiled software

(you meant, "source code")

> is copyrighted, it's a derivative translation of the  original source code. When speaking of copyrighted software, the binary  code and the source used to build it are one and the same.

OK, but what if the "source code" is only graphical on the computer display, and the internal binary representation (not text) is then compiled? Obviously, the design of the software are the graphical diagrams on the computer screen for they are what the programmer understands.

>
>>>>> 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of
>>>>> software
>>>>> is  well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
>>>>> 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
>>>>> *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers,
>>>> boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by
>>>> the
>>>> source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is.
>>>
>>> Software is not unlike math.
>>
>> I disagree. While one can use software to perform math, that does not make software "like math".
>
> Then the rest of this argument is moot, and I respectfully will end debate  so as to not waste any more of our time.
>

Yes, a debate cannot be had that starts out "God created all things, therefore God exists". That is a classic/cliche tactic.