Patent Law Ruling Threatens FOSS 244
savio13 writes "The EFF has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a patent law ruling that could pose a serious threat to Free and Open Source Software projects. A recent Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision required that even the most obvious incremental advances can be patented unless it can be proved that someone else suggested it prior to the patent being filed. As such, many 'bad patents' are being used as roadblocks for legitimate innovators, especially those working for FOSS projects (who have better things to do then search through thousands of technical papers for some mention of the obvious). The full brief is available online in PDF format."
Better Idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But... it's free. (Score:4, Insightful)
Two important points here: 1) patent trolls are evil leeches on society and 2) set up an LLC to protect your personal assets from lawsuits based on your professional works.
-Rick
Wave goodbye everyone... (Score:5, Insightful)
as Greed drives yet more brilliance out of the USA
Yeah, so? (Score:5, Insightful)
What really has happened is that KSR has gone to the Supreme Court asking for review, and the Supreme Court granted review.
This happened a few months back, actually.
The EFF has filed a brief in support of KSR.
About 10 other briefs in support of KSR have been filed in support of KSR, besides the EFF one, including some more important ones, like the Solicitor General's (representing the views of the US/Bush Administration).
The Supreme Court generally cares more about what the SG thinks than the EFF.
Two questions: (Score:2, Insightful)
Due to global trade agreements that enforce US IP laws in many foreign countries, how long will it be before no one in the world can do any meaningful research without being liable for patent infringment?
Re:Soo... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Someone patents something. (Even though there's prior art)
2) FOSS Person doesn't check patents, because he knows he's doing something that's obvious and has been done before.
3) FOSS Person writes a program violating patent that should never have been issued.
4) FOSS Person gets sued by commercial entity that holds the rights to the obvious patent, and loses because he doesn't have the resources to fight it in court.
Stupid patents should not get granted. If they do, the patent office has become no more than a filing cabinet to reference before going to court. OTOH, maybe that's the whole idea.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better Idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, from your argument, copyright already does that for software. So what's the point of the patent again?
(Note: Ideas are not supposed to be patentable or copyrightable. Only implementations or expressions of them (respectively) are.)
Way to Kill Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me in a very general way that there is no sense of achievement in American business outside of the next quarter. Instead of concentrating on moving forward and doing new things, there's an emphasis on not moving at all and creating wealth by protecting what someone has.
It's become a very different kind of hostile business climate. Not so many years ago a hostile business climate was described as one with high tax burden and many regulations that made it expensive to run a business. I'd say we're well on our way to eliminating both in the U.S. and yet the business climate is even more hostile because of the threat of litigation. Is the country better off for this? For the majority of Americans, I'd say no. Not at all.
Re:Better Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most software algorithms [and in many cases hardware] are just evolutions of previous algorithms. Take LZW. Take any one of the millions held collectively by Apple, IBM, Microsoft and the like. Patents which are truly original and non-obvious are the exception not the rule. And given that OSS developers don't have the money to invest in patents it's just a way to lock them out.
It isn't that OSS people aren't creative and coming up with new and original ideas. It's just faced against an opposition with an unlimited budget and who takes advantage of the government it seems very counter-culture. So literally you have OSS developers scratching their heads saying "this has a patent?" and then having to do without.
Though occasionally this helps out. Look at PNG. Because Unisys are a bunch of asshat patent trolls they tried to pull LZW from under our feet. Then a group got together and invented PNG. Boom a better replacement without patents. Similarly with Vorbis.
But in a lot of cases this isn't possible. If I [were evil and had a] patent a SSA tree optimizer I'd FUD all GCC developers out of using it. Working around it may be possible but the solution may very well be less optimal.
Tom
Re:Better Idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better Idea... (Score:1, Insightful)
Grandparent was correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are supposed to be for specific implementations, not general ideas.
Check out the variety of automatic transmission designs, each under it's own patent. Yet clearly they do the same "obvious" task of shifting.
The only reason that isn't the case for software patents is that the USPTO and legal system haven't got a clue how to do anything but follow the money. And the money is in the hands of those who benefit from misinterpreting the law.
Re:Uhh, wrong. (Score:1, Insightful)
All of that is wrong. Have you never heard the phrase "You can't patent an idea"?
Certainly you are describing the state of US patents as they are practiced by the USPO, but the law and the justification behind patents are in flat opposition to that model. Basically, the patent office has taken it upon itself to rewrite the law to suit the economic/political ideas of its chief. Who happens to be an idiot.
I think that the current system is so bad that we would probably all be better off scrapping the whole thing. At the end of the day, monopolies are bad, and that's what a patent actually is - a monopoly backed by the entire force of the government. Do we really want that in the 21st century?
Why are you still Ignorant about Open Source? (Score:3, Insightful)
We've discussed this with you in the past, Steve- Open Source is worthless if it isn't legal and doesn't credit the inventor. For one thing, many Open Source products come from or are supported by companies that would not participate in illegal activity. For another, most people want to take credit for the work they have done. For a third, laws that illegalize good behavior make criminals out of good people.
Re:Wave goodbye everyone... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
The state granted monopoly is just a means to an end.
Re:Uhh, wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better Idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
The patent system, much like software, is the creation of our minds. It's an artificial system of monopolies with only one purpose, to maximise the amount of innovation society produces, through appropriate protection of investment. Copyright is, of course, exactly the same, only different.
Your arguments don't address the actual question, which is much simpler than technical debate about maths, the reality of the universe, and the difference between an idea and a piece of work.
The question is simply: does the patent system stimulate programmers and SMEs to invent, or does it not. It is a question with a black and white answer. Patents are either good for software, or they are bad for it. There are no special cases: any mechanism that produces more software, more cheaply, will do so systematically across all domains.
If the answer is yes, you will find programmers and the CEOs of SMEs in their thousands invading the streets, or at least writing emails, demanding more patent protection.
But, surprisingly perhaps for someone who has graduated to the position of engineer of patents, you find yourself confronted by masses of unhappy, angry, confused programmers and SME CEOs who detest software patents with such a fury that they are willing to sacrifice their time, their money, and years of their lives, in some cases, to oppose wider patentability of software.
Software patents must be stopped, and rolled back, or the software industry will suffer and in some parts of the world, die.
There is no pity in economics - inefficient systems are punished mercilessly, and if the US persists in its mindless pursuit of universal patentability, it will simply arrive at the stage where no-one - not the software industry, not the music industry, not the movie industry - will invest in copyrightable works, because every idea and concept will be owned by a patent engineer.
At which stage the patent engineers of the world can write the content.