Russel Winder wrote:

""we" here in the UK do not allow patents on software."

Good info. I would seem, then, that establishing a software company's home base in the UK is a better proposition that establishing one in the USA. Maybe. There's still the issue that a large amount of innovation is readily apparent upon release of a new software that copycats, especially ones with more funds and/or manpower, can cannibalize the inventor's work. And if one is locked-out of the USA market with the software, the UK might be worse than the USA for a software company.

Can software developed in the UK be sold in the USA if it renders something patented in the USA?

"It is currently explicitly stated as not
being patentable in its own right.  Software within machines can be
covered by a patent for the machines, but software cannot be patented on
its own."

So are companies taking advantage of that "loophole"? Does the machine have to be novel in a way other than by the novelty that its software affords it?

"Tere is no conspiracy here, it is just the big corporates making sure the tools of creating monopolies and ensuring only they are in control of innovation are used to best legal effect.  Of course it means anyone who writes software has to know about every software patent worldwide so as to ensure they do not violate.

In case people didn't know: lack of knowledge of a patent is not a defence.  Patents apply to you even if you didn't know about the patent."

The "unrecognition" or "blinding of one's eyes to" the fact that many, many inventions can and are independently developed, is troublesome, for sure. I wasn't going to bring up "crime against humanity" for this post, but then I read that last thing you wrote.

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:39:29 -0400, Russel Winder <russel@russel.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 17:50 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: [ . . . ]
>>> 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.
>>
>> I assume you are based in the USA, since "we" here in the UK do not allow patents on software.  It is currently explicitly stated as not being patentable in its own right.  Software within machines can be covered by a patent for the machines, but software cannot be patented on its own.
>
> Yes, I'm talking about US patent system.  I wish we had the UK system.
>
> And even if you are in the UK, you are affected by the US patent system because software you write that may be infringing on US patents cannot be sold in the US without being subject to lawsuit.
>

Thank you. I asked just that very question in my prior post. Now I know.

Daniel Gibson 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.
>

Note that reverse-engineering is like copying someone else's homework. It doesn't build any engineering capability. It actually hinders such from occurring.

> 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.
>

Interesting. How did Skype's engineer make it hard to reverse-engineer? Have a link?

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 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.
>

That just gets you the assembly code. There are many high-level concepts that are missing from that. But that's not even that important. The software didn't just get specified on it's own. Someone had to think of it. Reverse-engineering, then, really isn't. It's just taking stabs at it. Dissassembly does not achieve figuring out how the software was engineered, how it came to be, and other things.

Daniel Gibson wrote:
> 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).

It's not worth it. If a company is relying on a competitor's engines to develop it's own, it's effectively out of the business of engineering (it's just then a manufacturer of other company's products perhaps). Competitive analyis is fine, but a company cannot be in the engine business without the required engineering prowess required for that.

> 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.

YES, YES, YES!!!

> 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.

Sounds like a concept for a new book: "Modern Crimes Against Humanity", or "Crimes Against Humanity in the Age of Technology".

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:18:14 -0400, Chante <udontspamme@never.will.u> wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
> If you don't "divulge" the secret, then you don't sell anything.

What do you mean? You don't think that behind the covers of compiled sofware, patentable things don't exist?

> Note
> that the secret is already difficult to reproduce, no patents
> necessary, because it's not in source form, and one cannot simply
> duplicate the code, you have to rewrite it in your own code.

Just "difficult" to produce? Not "impossible" in many cases?

> Just
> knowing the secret isn't enough.

("keeping" would be much better than "knowing" here, as that is what you meant. "knowing" makes the reader think twice or thrice or reread to figure out if you are talking about the inventor or the copycat).

> Patents are needed because you
> cannot copyright machines. Copyright is actually a better protection,
> because it can be extended over 100 years past the lifetime of the
> author (I question the need for this time length too).

I really don't see the relevance of copyright for a company in the business of creating and selling shrink-wrapped software (i.e., not selling source code product). Patents as a means of protection for only that which cannot be reasonably kept a trade secret, seems quite in the right direction for "patent system reform".

>
> People sell books, and have no problem doing so without patents, because a book is hard to reproduce.  But one can always read a good book and use the same "design" (i.e. plot elements, sequence of story, etc.) to write their own book.  And it doesn't necessarily hurt the original author.

So your point is that that is analogously applicable to software too? I could see that only if the patterns were reused in software not in competition with the original software. The scenario with the book results in a new story. The scenario with software could result in a competitive product if it has the same functionality.

>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Both are copyrightable.  Source code is written words, binary code is a direct translation.

What I was asking is whether one needs 2 patents or one: one for the source and another for the shrink-wrapped product? I can see the value of copyright for the shrink-wrapped product, but not for the source code because it doesn't give any useful level of protection from reproduction of something ever so slightly different being produced.

> If source code is equivalent to a book,

It isn't.

> then the binary code is
> equivalent to a translation to a different language of the same book.

I think the book analogy is detrimental for it isn't even "apples and oranges", it's "fruits and meats" or "fruits and cars" or something.

> Both are covered under the original author's copyright.
>
>>>  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?
>
> I'm not really sure what you are saying here...

You seemed to have stated something like, "See, here is an example where it works that way, hence it should be the golden standard that everyone should/must use. There is no need for multiple things tailored to specific scenarios or desires". Or, "See, they don't need software patents to earn a buck, so no one does. Let's close the patent office tomorrow then".

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> If nobody was able to use anyone else's ideas, where would we be today?

I was not suggesting that people should not share ideas. People like to do that and always will do that. Just not to everyone and all the time. Well-defined, narrow interfaces, I would prefer. The patent system is the opposite of that.

> You may misunderstand my point of view.  I'm all *for* IP protection, just not *monopoly* protection where it is not needed.

Because you feel other's are somehow entitled to the fruits of another's labor other than whom the inventor decides are worthy (say his own family or company)? How many great changes have been thwarted by such?

> The US patent system as it exists today is not a good fit for protecting software.

Not for me and you. For Microsoft it probably is.

> It does not achieve the goals that the patent
> system was created for.

I'm not so sure. Let many innovate for some years, then change to first-to-file, then "rape and pillage" "the commoner", give the already powerful even more power.

>
> Have you heard of patent trolls?

Yes.

> These are firms that write no
> software, yet they file for or acquire software patents in the hopes
> that some day someone will write covered software and they can
> collect royalties.

Congress or the patent office or whoever controls that stuff seem to in on that: first-to-file (it seems to me, but I'm just learning about this stuff, so maybe I don't "really" hate the sons-of-bitches). It's perhaps class-action suit appropriate? Is that the ONLY way to get people (and governments and other institutions) to do the right thing these days?

> How is that not "profiting from someone else's labor"?

It is abhorant. What's more abhorant is that so little thought goes into things before hand. Everything is "correction after the fact". I have no faith that "loopholes" like that are not "designed-in".

>>>>> 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.

I left my job/career in the construction equipment manufacturing industry, for the very reason: I could never own it. Too much capital required: from steel and iron foundry to engines to all kinds of earth-moving equipment. All I could ever have in that industry, is a job. The software industry, OTOH, allows me to own a company that manufactures software.

>>>
>>> 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?
>
> And how many man years would it take for someone to reproduce it? Again, the patent system covered IP that was not copyrightable. Things that are copyrightable are hard to reproduce.

I was just interjecting that a lot of blood, sweat and tears goes into software engineering also. It's not all "a quick and easy hack", even if you have a recipe a priori.

>
>>
>>> 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?
>
> Because it's the quick hacks that infringe on patents which are affected.

Independently-developed software should be allowed to coexist. It shouldn't be "infringement". Noting that this is indeed irrefutably the case (that many patentable software things can be independently developed), a lot of time, effort and money should be working on finding solution in that area. There is no excuse for not doing so. It is complacency, or conspiracy, or non-fitness-for-the-job (maybe I'd prefer it to be a crime, maybe it already is, maybe the crime can only be identified as such over time (historically)). (As you can tell, I'd fire pretty much everyone if I could ;) ).

> Large companies who have libraries of patents don't care
> about violating other company patents, because there is mutually
> assured destruction.

I'm not worried about any company/person having a large number of patents, as long as they are truly their inventions and not "trivial". I think the second it can be shown that a patented thing has been independently invented (for instance, my bankers boxes of designs and notes in the basement from 10 years ago (yes, work will have to be done in this area if carbon-dating is too course-grained for the task at hand)), that patent should be invalidated, replaced with a tombstone indicating a non-patentable thing,and respected as a trade secret going forward.

>
> Essentially, the quick hack does well, it blossoms into a good piece of complex and useful software.  The developer creates a company, hires developers, marketing, etc.  Gets big enough, and then some competitor decides they are too big and sues to put them out of business.  Not having any patents for software, the developer cannot counter-sue, and goes out of business.

If the rule I gave above were in place, then, if the little guy truly independently invented an already-patented thing, the patent would become a trade secret (not much of a "secret" anymore, but still has value, no need to make things worse for the inventors by leaving it in the public domain) for all who give a care about it.

The current way, "I got here first.. na! na!", is abhorant, and needless to say, unbecoming of those responsible for such an implementation.

>
>>
>>>  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.
>
> In fact, it's the exact opposite.  Smaller software companies usually win because they are more agile and they charge less.  If you really think Big Money would feed off the little guy,

Change "little guy" to "the one who did the R&D" and it's more general. That R&D could mean "the whole world" to the little guy (doesn't have to necessarily be "little"), but is trivial to the billion-dollar software oppressor. Little guy releases his life's work, only to be crushed in the market the following month by Big SOB Software, Inc. via it's leverage of funds and labor. All the little guy can hope for is that the consumer will recognize what is happening, and buy from him instead of from Big Asshole Software.

> why do so many
> software giants oppose eliminating or lessening software patents?

So far, from this thread, I think I have realized that I would prefer either:

1. Allowing patents for things that cannot be kept a secret, while allowing independently-developed inventions to be enabled and facilitated via elimination of patent if independent development of a patented thing can be shown to have occurred.

2. Can't help but reserve some hope for the consumer. (This would be the ideal scenario, but I'm not holding my breath). IOW, "U ken have yer steenkeen patents Mr. Big Asshole owner, but ain't no one gonna buy from you no more".

>> 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.
>
> I'll buy from whomever makes the best product.

My goal is to buy from those who have less than I do, at some level of acceptable product (and not for heart surgery). "Best" is, of course, subjective. I find nothing good in making the already rich richer, but I do find good in giving other people a chance at freedom.

> If you make a good
> product, you deserve to be paid for it.

That is too simplistic to use as my philosophy, and surely Big SOB Software is banking on you seeing their 10-million-LOC, whiz-bang software as "the best". I'm just stating my philosophy, I'm in no way saying that it is better than yours or that you should change yours.

> Problem is, monopolies
> usually don't make a good product, because lack of competition
> hinders advancement.

That is not true. It can be true in a given instance or instances, but it is not in general true. There are possibilities other than just "monopoly" and "competition".

>
>> Something to
>> think about next time you buy from someone who has more than you,
>> huh.
>
> I don't fault people for being successful.

I like helping people with lesser means to grow, achieve their dreams and have to nice lives as they wish them to be. Call it an investment in the future. The rich don't need my money, and if I can, I'll keep it from them. I see no good that comes from concentration of wealth and power.

> There is no need to punish
> someone because you are jealous of their wealth, you have the same
> opportunities (at least in the US).

You're free to state it, or color it, as you wish.

>
>>> 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).
>
> No, you misunderstand the position.

Maybe, but probably not entirely. (Did you mean your's or the reason for patents as originally marketed?)

> Patents are necessary to protect
> things that are not *already* protected by copyright.

It's hard for me to work copyright into this. I have a mindset that copyright does not afford protection from copycats. Protection for end-user copiers, yes, but that's something different. When I think of "patentable things", I'm thinking about things like that secret mechanism within the software that accesses the database data that is unique from all other ways (read, only I know how to do, or as far as I know I'm the only one) and is key to significantly improving the transaction rate. Is that patentable, assuming it hasn't already been patented?

> Copyright is
> much better protection when it is possible because it's very very
> difficult to duplicate a copyrighted work.

But if software is not like a book, then copyright is not appropriate. Maybe what I don't understand is the "machines cannot be patented" or whatever.

> Without patents, I feel
> innovation would not have been as rapid for most industries. Software
> is not one of them.

If a software company is prevented from using an independently-developed, but already patented by someone else, thing, ... oh wait, we're on the same (or similar) page here! I don't see complete elimination of patents as a solution in fairness. Little guy has no defense against the powerful, for one thing (I don't have faith that the consumer would do anything other than "buy the "best"").

>
>>> 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?
>
> Or limit them.  Change the term to 2 years, and you will see a lot less issue.  17 years is about 8 generations in the software industry.  Think of what software was like 17 years ago.

I don't think the time is an issue. Making things easy for copycats and "the entitled" probably won't make for a "healthy" industry. It just makes more lazy people.

>
>>> 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?
>
> It's accomplishment was to enforce open-source software in spite of the corporate negative view of open source software.

Well I won't tangent again on my opinion of the quality of open-sourceware.

>  Essentially, it
> said "if you want our services, you have to play nice."  But now, we
> have much better open-source licenses, and a whole ecosystem built
> around open source.

And a lot of youngsters smoking cigarettes. Imagine instead if all the millions out of work right now were part of small software shops. Which is better? Is it hard to believe that the innovation would not have been orders of magnitudes greater than it has been? (Call it, a hypothesis). I can point at open-sourceware as a stifler of innovation and betterment as easily as I can at Monstrous Software Company. (Call it, faith in the individual).

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 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?

What is your point?

>
> Again, "paraphrasing" is not so easy with software.

I was once again suggesting that copyright is not strong enough protection to protect the IP (the mechanisms within and represented by the source code or implied by the shrink-wrapped product).

> Whether you are
> good or not, it takes a long time to write good software.

Don't I know it|

> You really
> think patents are the reason people don't copy large software
> projects?

I don't know why other people don't copy. I just know why I don't (I have plenty of my own ideas to work on and that moves things forward rather than stagnating progress).

>
> 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 one was suggesting that patents will prevent reproduction of the patented thing. It acts as a deterent and enables remedy.

> 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.

See, trade secret works.

>
> 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.

I still don't know why anyone bothers doing this. I have no worries about that kind of thing (well, not very much and certainly "orders of magnitude" less relatively). I worry about releasing novel software with the obvious innovations unprotected. Released unprotected, effectively puts me out of business the moment Billion Dollar Bitch Software catches the drift and sucks up the market. Stops my innovation in its tracks. What other than patent can help with this?

>
> Your statements appear to employ hand-waving to describe the tedious process of making a legal re-implementation of software.

I don't know what you mean. As I said above, I'm not worred about that. How you got that idea from my dialog is puzzling.

>  Yes,
> copyright protects your investment and your effort, more so than
> patents.

I still don't see that.

> Trade secrets actually are better than patents to protect you because you aren't forced to divulge it to the world.

I've said that a number of times. Of course it is easy to do such divulging (getting a patent) if one is seeking patent for something that is clearly able to be, and likely to be, "invented" idependently. And this area, I suggested, is where some focus of the work of "fixing the patent system" should go. Those kind of patents are the ones that should be on the chopping block.

Don wrote:
> On 26.10.2011 17:16, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>> On 10/26/2011 12:51 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>>> "Jeff Nowakowski"<jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message
>>>> Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and has been voluntarily adopted around the world,
>>
>>> So have the non-viral free licenses.
>>
>> And if I said they were "Free as in dogshit", would this also be "true" and not mudslinging?
>
> 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.
>
> The term "free software" is highly misleading, it should probably be spelt "Free Software(tm)". Or "Free* Software.   *Conditions apply."

And have a warning label, required by the "surgeon general of software", stating the hazards/dangers. :-)

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 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

Yes, it did. See, I did not know this:

"copyright for computer programs prohibits not only literal copying, but also copying of "nonliteral elements", such as program structure and design."

When people (and you, not that you're not a people, hehe) would say "copyright", my mind would think "literal text" (like a book's text). While that has given me a much greater understanding that copyright does afford more protection than I thought, it's still not enough for the most important things, I think: the proprietary technologies upon which the software is built. It would seem that the technologies are free game to be used by anyone cognizant of them, under copyright, as long as they use them in a different way, say in a program with completely different functionality but still using the technology. For instance, pretend that Unicode had not yet been created and that instead, a software company released a word processing program based upon UnicodeTM, a proprietary technology. Copyright would allow all to use UnicodeTM in programs that were not word processors. Patent would disallow this and the company could then capitalize on UnicodeTM in other products.

Am 28.10.2011 05:31, schrieb Chante:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> 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).
>
> It's not worth it. If a company is relying on a competitor's engines to
> develop it's own, it's effectively out of the business of engineering
> (it's just then a manufacturer of other company's products perhaps).
> Competitive analyis is fine, but a company cannot be in the engine
> business without the required engineering prowess required for that.
>

I don't know.
I guess you could claim the same thing about companies who have to steal code from other companies instead of writing it themselves.

So what's the difference between "competitive analysis" and "looking at foreign code" anyway?
How can you be sure that your engineers don't copy ideas from competitors engines?

Cheers,
- Daniel