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.

Sadly some big US corporate, the US government via the USTR, and a number of big international corporates are trying to foist US style software and business patents on the rest of the world via the tool of the ACTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement). ACTA was originally a mechanism to protect brands from counterfeiters, but has over the years had other things inserted into it.  In particular USTR have inserted clauses such that any country that signs up to ACTA must enact US style patents on software and business processes.

For details on all this you could do worse that study Simon Phipps writings on this.  His website (http://webmink.com/) gives an index to other materials documenting this for the world to know and yet somehow have absolutely no way of doing anything about.

There 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.

-- 
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 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."

Public domain is "free as in free".
GPL is NOT "free as in free". And they talk about the "libre" sense of free, but it ISN'T free in the libre sense, either! It's "free as in copyleft".

I wish they would stop using the word "free". I think it's dishonest marketing spin. Just use "copyleft".

Disclaimer: I have released some code under the GPL.

Russel Winder Wrote:

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

Restrictions is the very reason of boost existence. Boost wants "you are not allowed to edit wrong file" totalitarism to exist. It has no relation to communism or freedom.

Don Wrote:

> Public domain is "free as in free".

Maybe better call it "anarchy"?
Terminological improvements work both ways.

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.

-Steve

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.  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 knowing the secret isn't enough.  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).

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.

>
>> 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.

If source code is equivalent to a book, then the binary code is equivalent to a translation to a different language of the same book.  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...

>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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?  You may misunderstand my point of view.  I'm all *for* IP protection, just not *monopoly* protection where it is not needed.  The US patent system as it exists today is not a good fit for protecting software.  It does not achieve the goals that the patent system was created for.

Have you heard of patent trolls?  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.  How is that not "profiting from someone else's labor"?

For example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/22/angry-birds-maker-rovio-sued-by-lodsys

>
>>>> 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?

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.

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

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.

>
>>  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, why do so many software giants oppose eliminating or lessening software patents?  Do you think they are not as wise as you?

> 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.  If you make a good product, you deserve to be paid for it.  Problem is, monopolies usually don't make a good product, because lack of competition hinders advancement.

> Something to
> think about next time you buy from someone who has more than you, huh.

I don't fault people for being successful.  There is no need to punish someone because you are jealous of their wealth, you have the same opportunities (at least in the US).

>> 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.  Patents are necessary to protect things that are not *already* protected by copyright.  Copyright is much better protection when it is possible because it's very very difficult to duplicate a copyrighted work.  Without patents, I feel innovation would not have been as rapid for most industries.  Software is not one of them.

>> 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.

>> 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.  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.  Businesses have been embracing open-source software, and understanding why it works, their minds have been changed.  It's proven to work, and it's proven to work better in some cases than closed-source.  But is it still necessary to keep the viral nature of GPL?

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

-Steve

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."
> 
> Public domain is "free as in free".
> GPL is NOT "free as in free". And they talk about the "libre" sense of
> free, but it ISN'T free in the libre sense, either! It's "free as in
> copyleft".
> 
> I wish they would stop using the word "free". I think it's dishonest marketing spin. Just use "copyleft".
> 
> Disclaimer: I have released some code under the GPL.

To me this whole discussion looks like trying to call an agnostic an "atheist" which is IMHO not correct.
To me, GPL is intuitively more "free" than public domain.
The concept of "free" depends heavily on POV and I'd argue that you're looking at this from a wrong perspective:
there are two freedoms in conflict here, that of the original owner's and that of his respective users and while you want the latter, the GPL enforces the former.
GPL is VERY free. This thread speaks of trying to make the original work *less* free by allowing users to close it and modify without contributing back.

I understand that this limits us from incorporating GPL work in phobos. but that is a feature and not a bug in the definition of "freedom".

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents.

If a bigger corporation doesn't steal your invention.

> >> 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.

> >> 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.

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.

> 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.

> 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?

> 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?

> > 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.

> > 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.

> > 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?

> >> 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.

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.

Kagamin Wrote:

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