Stallman Critical of OSDL Patent Project 226
PatPending writes to mention a News.com article about Richard Stallman's objections to the OSDL patent project. He argues that the project may actually be 'worse than nothing', as it will undermine certain legal tactics. From the article: "'Thus, our main chance of invalidating a patent in court is to find prior art that the Patent Office has not studied,' Stallman wrote. Second, patent applicants could use the prior art uncovered by the OSDL to write patent claims that simply avoid the technologies used in the tagged software. 'The Patent Office is eager to help patent applicants do this,' Stallman wrote. Finally, he wrote, a 'laborious half measure' such as the Open Source as Prior Art project could divert attention from the real problem: that software is patentable in the first place."
Aboslutly correct. (Score:5, Insightful)
Aboslutly correct.
Stallman... half right (Score:3, Insightful)
If your kitchen counter was on fire... (Score:3, Insightful)
Moral correctness is not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, in the long term, and a perfect world, you might want to get rid of software patents. Right now however they are real and are here and measure that combat them face to face have some merit.
Re:Aboslutly correct. (Score:1, Insightful)
Bad Analogies aplenty in this thread (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If your kitchen counter was on fire... (Score:4, Insightful)
Publically reject 'patent pledges' too. (Score:1, Insightful)
Software patents aren't going anywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Software patents aren't going anywhere (Score:1, Insightful)
Software patents are going somewhere, they are going to the bit-bucket in the sky. Do you know who's going to send them there?
We are!
I'm not saying it's going to be easy but you make the outcome sound inevitable, it isn't.
Re:Playing the odds (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess I'm going to be one of the people chanting "down with this project" now?
Horns Of A Dilemna (Score:5, Insightful)
- Software patents.
- Proprietary (that is, closed) software.
Here's the thing: Probably the best defense against having to deal with software patents is to keep the software closed. Don't make the code public and don't tell how it works. If people don't know you've violated their patent, they are not likely to sue you, and their software patent won't be worth very much.Such a strategy is not dishonest - even when behaving with the highest integrity, inadvertent patent violation is not only possible, but likely. You should not knowingly violate patents, but you aren't required to help the patent holders identify offenders either.
By hating both simultaneously, RMS has given himself a very tough row to hoe. Open software is highly vulnerable to patent litigation.
Re:Moral correctness is not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stallman... half right (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't believe anything which could be described as an algorithm should be patentable. I also don't believe that you should patent public API's, as such "programming interfaces" are by definition intended for use by other programs; public APIs normally are widely distributed in documentation, which at least prevents others from patenting the APIs which you might release (as your release will obviously constitute prior art). I suppose that if you implement computer software which is sufficiently original, not completely obvious after 5 minutes of thought, and is not representable as a mathematical algorithm, that might deserve the protection of a patent, but for the most part, simple copyright ought to provide enough protection....
Re:patent GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:patent GPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman's issue isn't with copyright - his issue is with people not voluntarily giving up their code to the community. He is all for copyright and ownership of code. His problem is that software is not something you should be able to patent, and that the OSDL initiative distracts from this point.
Re:Aboslutly correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
We are two months from an important mid-term election, two years from a presidential election. Patent reform ranks somewhere below The Bridge to Nowhere on the national political agenda.
Re:Moral correctness is not enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Because chances are the algorithm you created was most likely neither novel nor unique to the large amounts of algorithms created before you. As in... Your algorithm had to be based on some math that everyone knows or at the most an obscure math professor came up with years ago.
You aren't writing your own language but taking from knowledge of mankind and applying it to your own methods.
Secondly, copyrights protect someone from copying your code, but not your methods because if someone can simply recreate your algorithm simply by looking at the results and not even see any of your source code then again... your algorithm was neither novel nor unique and therby not deserve a patent.
However, your effort and code should be copyrighted and protected by such methods.
Re:Moral correctness is not enough (Score:4, Insightful)
----
Freedom is on the March!
http://www.movingtofreedom.org [movingtofreedom.org]
Re:Moral correctness is not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Moral correctness is not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
The same reason you spend time writing software at all (that others with more resources may duplicate and undercut): The new algorithm solves a particular need of yours. It is useful.
This is why Sir Charles Hoare created the quicksort in 1960. It probably didn't even occur to him that this was something he should prevent others from using, and he still found it useful to invent. Thank God he did not -- could not -- patent it, or it would have been over a decade before people could have taken free advantage of the fastest-average-time general sorting algorithm known today. Imagine everyone else had been doing the same thing -- locking up merge sort, bin sort, r/b binary trees, avl binary trees, b-trees, etc etc. With all these foundations of computer science locked up in patents for 14-20 years, how much progress do you think the software world would have made compared to what it did with free access to all these ideas? Remember, we're talking about a fourth of the entire existence of computers.
Why does software not being a physical object make it less suitable to be patented?
Because software is math.
That's all it is. A program is just a series of mathematical operations performed by a computer. Now the computer is an invention. But the software is just a calculation. Patenting a software algorithm is like patenting a sequence of button pushes on your calculator, and by "like" I mean "is very literally the same".
Imagine if Sir Issac Newton had decided to lock away his Calculus? He might have had some legal troubles from Leibniz, but once they came to an amicable arangement, everyone else would have been out of luck. Is Calculus not a great invention? Of course! But like all math, it is an invention whose benefit comes from what could be built upon it. Thank goodness that Newton published his book and did not restrict others from using what it described, or you have to wonder where we'd be today.
Why shouldn't software be patentable? Because it's a patent on math, the fundamental language of the universe.
Absolutism is impractical (Score:4, Insightful)
If not, how many ideas do we want to see slip into proprietary hands while we maintain our moral purism about software patents? This is a political issue, and political agendas live, eat, sleep & breathe half-measures. According to Stallman, "If we are not careful, this can sap the pressure for a real solution." Erm, what pressure? Where is the well-funded, politically connected lobby that's creating more pressure for a Real Solution than beneficiaries of software patents can create in the opposite direction? `Cause short of that, we all know that we're not going to see a Real Solution anytime soon.
IMO, the idea of "Open Source as Prior Art" is basically a good one that needs some tweaking. If Stallman is correct (and I have no way of knowing whether he is) that "when prior art is considered by the Patent Office during the patent-granting process, it usually loses any weight it might have had in a court case," then that might be a problem. However, I can't understand how patent holders of a variation on an OSDL-tagged thingamabob could (a) claim their idea is patentable because of some variation, and still (b) go after the FOSS-derived works. Wouldn't the very granting of the patent in spite of the OSDL art be the basis for establishing non-infringement?
Stallman wants the very idea of ideas to be irrevocably tied to freedom. That's a beautiful vision, and God bless him if he can ever pull it off; I'm (sadly) not optimistic. Meanwhile, I'll settle for having as many of them as possible stay clean from proprietary claims. Failing both, anonymous/pseudonymous coding & releasing might be our only refuge.
You have never, and will never invent an algorithm (Score:1, Insightful)
a grey solution is no solution (Score:2, Insightful)
This debate has been rehashed so much, but I really get tired of hearing some things like:
"Software patents are here to stay get used to it."
Bloody hell, how defeatest is that. They aren't here to stay, but they will be if that is going to be people's attitude. Also aiming at stop gap measures is a complete waste of resources and will only give software patents more time to get a strangle hold. Allowing some "strong-er" software patents through simply opens legal loopholes and abuse.
"Richard Stallman is a raggy looking, hippy, commi, socialist, fanatic protagonist
So the hell what. So people feel more comfortable hearing carefully crafted corporate messages from some clean shaven multi-millionaire in an expensive suite. It that really what makes people feel more comfortable about issues. Though I don't have to agree with all his beliefs, *each* issue deserves individual attention.
"Software patents aren't any different normal patents"
I am not going to reiterate what countless people have said about the difference. Look at the history of how patents came into being. But what about killing, is that ok? We kill animals and eat them. That is acceptable (by most), but we certainly don't condone killing humans. So don't go generalising and saying all "patents" are ok, just as we clearly don't consider all killing to be equal. Their are philosophical and logical reasons why software patents are different. If you're interesting in protecting a fairplay capitalist market in the future, don't just give into the political and corporate pressure. We lose.
(flame on)
Re:Moral correctness is not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents can work for the public good by encouraging innovation through financial incentives, i.e. limited-time monopoly protection. The trick is that if patents are being used as cudgels against competitors, especially if this is because the patents are too broad, then they're no longer serving the public good. Sadly, that's the state that we're in today.
And another thing... (Score:1, Insightful)
The other posts to the grandparent post are well and good, though I would like to add my own two cents.
As it turns out, lots of programmers find it very rewarding to develop new algorithms without any profit motive at all. Sure, not EVERYONE likes this, and not all of those who do ever come up with anything novel or useful. However, one need only glance at the linux community to see an example of the amounts of work that people are willing to do without pay.
Many programmers, you see, find the knowledge that what they produced was useful, and is in use by others, to be very gratifying.
So, the argument (not really stated by the GP but implied) that "without patents, nobody will innovate" does not hold water. There will always be innovators, and there will always be ways to turn an innovation into a revenue stream, without patents.
I would also like to point out that, generally speaking, patents do not do any good for individuals. They are a bit expensive, and even when an individual does obtain his patent, the process of enforcing it requires a lot of cash. Often, actually enforcing a patent is simply beyond the financial means of an individual, and the big wealthy companies win, whether they have a patent or not.
So, patents do not, generally speaking, protect the underdog. They do not act as a blanket of protection for the people, but usually, as a blanket of oppression. They deny the little guy his right to code, and that is neither morally or economically acceptable in my book.
Lastly, the definition of a "software invention" is quite vague and fuzzy around the edges. Did Microsoft invent IsNot? They sure do have a patent on it! Part of the reason the patent office gives out so many bad patents is because it is not always obvious which claims are overbroad, which part of an algorithm really constitutes a novel invention, and which parts are just necessary plumbing to make it all hang together. Often the plumbing gets patented right along with the invention, and then NOBODY can go to the bathroom. It is a serious problem, it manifests in a unique way for each "invention" (thus preventing any blanket policy changes from being able to address it), and the only real solution is to drop the idea of software patents altogether.
Say it aint so! (Score:3, Insightful)
But the truth is they WANT software patents. I don't see them lobbying to change the status quo. All they are interested in the "quality":
Stallman: Ding? If not:
IBMicrosoft: "Thank you little critters for making our patent applications the strongest on the planet. Now we can make sure that nobody will ever overturn our patent on quicksort, mergesort, bubblesort, mydickinyourassort...and don't forget the youinventedandIpatentedsort [wikipedia.org]"
Backfire is an understatement...
Re:Moral correctness is not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Given patents are restrictions, patents are only allowed to exist where necessary, and solely for the "greater good" of society.
Without patents there would be no protection for inventors' inventions, so the theory says they wouldn't invent anything, and society would suffer.
Large businesses already have large cash reserves and an infrastructure to quickly begin production of any new product or invention, so the people who patents are mostly designed to protect are independant inventors and small companies.
If inventions occurred without patent protection then there would be no need for patents.
The computer industry (specifically, the software industry) has, for the last thirty or forty years, self-evidently been the single most successful and fast-developing industry we've ever seen. Innovation and inventions have come on a regular (and ever-increasing) basis, for long before patents were issued on software. In fact, there are reams and reams of documented cases where innovation has been halted by the existence of patents, and not one where a patent has been proven to have helped innovation.
Unlike most physical devices, software is not generally a discrete invention. If even basic software algorithms are allowed to be patented it will be impossible to write software, since software is basically a collection of basic algorithms re-arranged into a novel order.
Because software is hard for patent examiners to understand they habitually issue overly-broad patents to basic algorithms. Because the only way to challenge patents is in court (with all the associated fees), software patents primarily benefit large companies who can afford to cross-licence or defend their patents.
So, patents are a necessary evil, and by design and intention may be used only where necessary.
Patents are required to stimulate innovation. Except in the software industry.
Patents reward novel and non-obvious innovation. Except in the software industry.
Patents protect the small inventor. Except in the software industry.
Have I made my point yet?
You can blather on all day about the philosophy of what should and shouldn't be patentable[1], but it's irrelevent - software shouldn't be patentable because there's no need.
Patents shouldn't be issued unless there's a good reason to do so, not merely because you can't see a reason not to.
[1] FWIW I agree that algorithms are ideas/math, and that ideas/math shouldn't be patentable. If you disagree, and believe ideas or math should be patentable you might as well ask why someone can't patent a colour, or why Isaac Newton couldn't patent gravity.
Software is a few very, very basic ideas (algorithms). Software merely consists of re-arranging them in a novel order, not "inventing" anything new.
Source code is an expression of ideas, and is (rightly) copyrightable. "Software" is just ideas, and ideas simply aren't patentable.
Re:Moral correctness is not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Except you don't have to reduce software to simpler elements to call it math.
Software is math, in the same way that "3 * y^2 + (7 / 6)x = z" is math.
Now you may argue that "3 * y^2 + (7 / 6)x" is actually a series of characters that represent math, but again, that's exactly the same as software. Software is a machine-readable representation of a series of mathematical statements, while the equation I wrote is a human-readable representation of mathematical statements. Actually, some programs would be able to parse the equation, as well.
Representations of mathematical concepts, aka software, can be covered by copyright, just like a book about math can be copyrighted. The concept represented, the math that the software is intended to convey, would not be patentable if it appeared in a book, but when it appears in source code, suddenly it is.
If you don't believe software is math, you just don't understand software.
Re:I work at OSDL... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a workable solution. Virtually the entire software industry is taking out patents for defensive reasons if nothing else. Even companies that otherwise are FOSS friendly are. Who on earth, for example, would you recommend that we buy highly specialized trust account software from?
Re:Thank God (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, the problems he was talking about are more real, DRM, and trusted computing are real problems that affect you right now.
He hasn't changed, but the reality did change into what he said it would.
Software patents right now have a harmful effect, but they could be much worse if you let them advence further.
It's not as hard right now to imagine a future time where every free software project is effectively killed by software patents, and the only practical software available is a restricted TV-like personal computer, completely controlled by content providers.
Of course, there are countries without software patents, but for example my country will get them through an FTA with the US, and in most other places, this could happen too.