October 27, 2011
"Russel Winder" <russel@russel.org.uk> wrote in message
news:mailman.530.1319696613.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
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.

In a follow-up post, I wrote:

"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)."

Source code is not the end product, and is not even necessary (in text form) to create the end product. A book, OTOH, IS the end product.


October 27, 2011
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v3zaemhyeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
> 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.

It does not? The engineered concepts are not protected by copyright, AFAIK, and THAT is what the IP is. THAT is what took all those years of R&D. So with copyright, someon can paraphrase the source code and then the inventor is SOL?



October 27, 2011
On Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:05 Steve Teale wrote:
> > 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.

It was a bit funny, but naturally folks ended up turning it into a serious discussion, and it's a rather heated topic, so I don't think that it's all that surprising that it ended up this way.

- Jonathan M Davis
October 27, 2011
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v3zaemhyeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
> 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.  The secrets can truly  die with the inventor, as opposed to software -- regardless of the final  binary format, it's always possible to get back to source code.  And  thanks to copyright law, that source code is a derivative work, you can't  use it unless you license it from the originator.
>
>>> 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

Oh, I didn't know it was that long. Yes, I wouldn't complain about that. 2 years would definitely be too short though. Perhaps the amount of man-years invested in the R&D for the technology. Oh wait, that would be 100's of years in lots of cases!

> is too high a price to pay  for knowing a "secret" you can't use until it's very obsolete.  17 years  ago was 1994, Windows 3.1 was all the rage.  Do you really think society  is now going to benefit from using the patented technologies from then?

One can easily argue that if another can only deliver software by copying someone else's techniques, then maybe they should be in another line of business and that keeping technology out of the hands of the copycats is a good thing.

There's something very wrong about this patent situation, as it seems "one can't win for losing" with it. I wish everyone would just keep their trade secrets a secret! It would be much simpler then. Then all the scrambling around could be eliminated and those doing all the scrambling could be put to better use being productive.



October 27, 2011
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:02:03 -0400, Chante <udontspamme@never.will.u> wrote:

>
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> compiled software
>
> (you meant, "source code")

OK, let's try this again.

Source code is copyrightable.  Compiled code *IS ALSO* copyrighted due to it being a direct translation of the source code that is copyrighted.  Any way you take source code and make some other form of media-based data out of it is copyrighted.  We can keep going around in this circle if you wish.

This might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright

>> 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.

Images are copyrightable as is all media-based data.

-Steve
October 27, 2011
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:09:52 -0400, Chante <udontspamme@never.will.u> wrote:

>
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:op.v3zaemhyeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>> 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.
>
> It does not? The engineered concepts are not protected by copyright,
> AFAIK, and THAT is what the IP is. THAT is what took all those years of
> R&D. So with copyright, someon can paraphrase the source code and then
> the inventor is SOL?

You think the "one click" design took years of R&D, and not the building of the amazon site?

Again, "paraphrasing" is not so easy with software. Whether you are good or not, it takes a long time to write good software.  You really think patents are the reason people don't copy large software projects?

Think about DVD "encryption" that was used to protect DVDs from copying.  Although it was a poor encryption and once cracked, was ridiculed for its simplicity and ease of circumvention, it still was very successful in preventing people from copying DVDs.  It was a long time before someone actually cracked it.  Is that because of patents?  No, it was because the encryption was a trade secret, only handed out to those who could pay a hefty sum and promised not to use it to make copies or divulge it to any third party.

Software is HARD to reverse engineer (even though it's definitely possible), and its HARD to replicate without direct copying.  One has to go from binary code all the way back to the design/spec, and then go forward to a completely rewritten, tested, and well developed product.  We are talking a huge investment of time and effort, all the time while the original author has since improved their product.

Your statements appear to employ hand-waving to describe the tedious process of making a legal re-implementation of software.  Yes, copyright protects your investment and your effort, more so than patents.  Trade secrets actually are better than patents to protect you because you aren't forced to divulge it to the world.

-Steve
October 27, 2011
On 10/27/2011 09:53 PM, Chante wrote:
> "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.
>
>

Don't feed the troll.
October 28, 2011
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:

>>> 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. 17 years ago was 1994, Windows 3.1 was all the rage.  Do you really think society is now going to benefit from using the patented technologies from then? When the LZW patent expired, it was a mere amusing footnote, as we had all moved on to better compression technologies long before then.

What you are describing is "group feeding frenzy". "The group" will devour an inventor's inventions in short order for their short-term needs. If an inventor was smart enough to invent something that good, wouldn't it be good to let him build upon that and do more good instead of just feeding the paranas for a day? This whole "concept" of "benefit to society by giving it away to the entitled" is severly flawed reasoning.


October 28, 2011
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> I think if Microsoft decided to implement D, Walter would be the first one jumping for joy :)

Walter, how about a bit more than a one-liner in response to that? I'm positive a lot of other people also would love to hear your thoughts on that.



October 28, 2011
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> All
> software patents do is create a barrier to innovation, and act as
> weapons against other patent-holding firms.

Patents as a way to protect inventions that cannot be kept a trade secret, and that's all (i.e., that which clearly can be kept trade secret, should not be patentable under this system), may be a better patent system. Such a system would:

1. Allow ongoing development and innovation by the inventor. An idea/concept in the hands of its creator is much more useful, in regards to innovation, than in the hands of copycats who only serve to decrease the inventor's earning potential.

2. Prevent development of technologies that are inadvertently based upon patented work. The much lower number of patents to search through to effect this would be much more amenable to such.

3. Allow many more independently-developed inventions to coexist, for they would be trade secrets rather than stifled by patents. A true boon for the consumer of the inventions.

Of course, the above system is onnly necessary because one cannot rely on people to have high standards of values such as honesty and integrity (especially "the entitled set"). Bitten once, twice shy. If it becomes quite common dialog, then it may be worth some risk to throw something out there with an explanation of what the hopes are, and then see what happens.