Posted on 06/02/2009 11:42:22 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Excellent. I’m going to patent capitalism and limited government. Granted, the licensing revenues would not amount to much, but at least I could claim they are good business ideas, even if they aren’t ever actually used.
I believe the intent here for not patenting software is that it can be copyrighted. Copyright provides the same level of protection as a patent in regards to infringement from replication without license to the originator. The coding is inherent to any encryption methodology and is ‘authored’ thus copywrite not patent should apply. The code can be used on multiple platforms much like a book can be on paper, electronic, tape, record, cd, etc. Thus copywrite would provide an additional level of protection to the author, as opposed to patent which may only require a change of format to obviate if all forms are not covered in the application.
If you refer to mechanical encryption which is dependent on the machine then a patent would be required as it is the design of the machine itself which is at play.
Of course either can prevent or promote further progress....personally I’m ticked that Disney, etal continue to obtain copywrite extensions on work created 80 years back - but hey it’s who you know not what you know in this world. The judges will just weigh which of the plantiffs are most in line with themselves and rule accordingly. The rule of law in this country is a rotting corpse.
awesome..
RSA was the camel's nose. If we knew now what we knew then, gone baby gone. Copyright is sufficient for code. It would have protected the RSA implementation just fine.. and not had the devastating that this software patent shakedown/bunko bunch has had on every development company in the country.
One has to understand, its not the original code developers in most cases pushing these suits but rather litigators that buy up the "intellectual property" of companies who died for pennies where as the companies spent tens of thousands on the patents to protect themselves from frivolous suits. Companies like Apple and IBM patent everything to create a situation where every company who wants to play has to do the cross-license thing through industry groups so that you have to have millions to write code without the threat of being sued out of existence if you do publish a hot new product.
Software patents have killed innovation, stifled all software developement to some extent and almost generated no revenue for any but the largest software companies. This is not what patents are about.
And worse, the whole concept of a software innovation being protected 17 years.. is bizzare.. I imagine collecting royalties on using line numbers to refer to code to guide execution.. software advancement moves too fast for something 17 years old to have any value in the public domain. Patents are intended to allow a company to take a technology to market and have a few years of protected access to capitalize on the new technology. Physical world technical advances take about 20 years to get to market. The patent is right sized for this type of innovation, but software's whole life cycle passes in 20 years.. The only reason any software is possible is that so many programmers refuse to play in this travesty.
>>>The idea of patenting business methods is idiotic.
So are software patents.
A case could be made that ALL PATENTS are idiotic... because only companies with sales over (say) $15 million/year can afford them. The small guy inventor generally is intimidated by threats of law suits from larger firms with outlandish claims.
It is a simple method for corporations.
find neat device by small inventor.
Reverse engineer it, find alternative way to do same that is just different enought TOo......
sue the original creator for infringement of the alternative method.
Patent law requires a patent to be an expression of a concept or idea. If that expression is generally known (such as a do loop) it is considered to be in the public domain and thus not patentable. Copyrights address nonfunctional expressions of an idea, i.e. static creations that do not operate to produce anything, but rather whose existence alone is protected from imitation. So copywriting code because it is written like copyrighted writings is an incomplete application of the legal concept, because the value of code is what it produces, but the way it produces is in it's individual expression. So it always has seemed to me that unique code should be both patentable and copyrightable. And distinguishing between "generally known" expressions and "unique" expressions is the field of patent law.
No. This is wrong and wrong headed about software. A Software Patent locks up all possible expressions such that once you allow the Do Loop, then the Repeat While goes, and Repeat for X, and Repeat until, and now a whole realm of coding possibilities is off the menu for two decades.
This is because there are many ways to do the same thing but the claims as presented in a patent cover all. Claims are written broadly but because the expression has to be very specific makes possibilities for alternate attacks to the same problem, multiple devices all solving a problem in different ways. But you only get a very few basic approaches to the concept of an array conceptually even though a thousand different variations of code could be written to handle this task. The patent would claim any code that handles the array would be covered, thus whole realms of innovation are ended without any benefit to society or the writer for that matter because he suffers loss of programming concepts such that no project could be completed without being extremely sub-optimized.
The only reason we have computers and programs to run them today is that this stupid idea didn't hit the world until the 1990's so that nearly 3 decades of prior art were already around to fight off the most pernicious attempts to patent obvious and existing concepts.
See Justiceseekers posts in this thread.
It is a common misconception that a copyright and a patent provide the same protections. This assertion is false. The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. In this case, the machine or engine would be the encryption method.
So in the case of a new encryption method, you could copyright the C source but someone else could the write the exact same logic in Java or Pascal or some other form that would DO the same thing but the EXPRESSION would be different.
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.
Again, in out encryption example, the inventor would describe the METHOD of the invention, i.e. how it works. And that would then be empowered to prevent any others from using that method for their advantage — regardless of how that method was EXPRESSED. This gives an advantage in the marketplace and provides a clear incentive for the inventor to produce a new invention. Without this incentive, why bother?
In short, a patent provides FAR GREATER protection that a copyright and it is that protection that is needed to prevent others from stealing the work and gaining by that theft.
Only someone who hasn't read a thing I have said would warm over this crap one more time.
In the case of Software, a patent provides no protection for the writer or society. Instead, everyone gets screwed. The writer is constantly looking over their shoulder worrying about which line of code will shut down their business, and the locking up of whole classes of concepts rather than expressions of new art creates a situation where only one company's programs can use a concept for two decades. Encryption technology was set back years by the RSA patent and only with it's expiration did we have the explosion secure communication. UNDERSTAND?
RSA released the code to its most important encryption patent two weeks before it was scheduled to pass into the public domain. The 1983 patent, held by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and licensed to RSA, made RSA the unquestioned leader of the American encryption field for two decades. With the expiration of its patents, RSA's encryption software suddenly faced competition from domestic and foreign companies.
Typical patents have a real effective life of 3 to 5 years as the normal technology adoption cycle plays out. Instead, RSA suppressed all innovation for nearly 20 years. Now, in the real world, the US Government in the guise of the NSA was hoping to keep things bottled up even longer.. which they could not once RSA's main patent expired. Conspiracy theories anyone?
A good example of the impact of the mayhem that software patents cause, consider the lowly GIF image format. This is a true story of woe.. from Wikipedia
The popularity of LZW led CompuServe to choose it as the compression technique for their GIF format, developed in 1987. At the time, CompuServe was not aware of the patent.[9] Unisys became aware that the GIF format used the LZW compression technique and entered into licensing negotiations with CompuServe in January 1993. The subsequent agreement was announced on December 24, 1994.[10] Unisys stated that they expected all major commercial on-line information services companies employing the LZW patent to license the technology from Unisys at a reasonable rate, but that they would not require licensing, or fees to be paid, for non-commercial, non-profit GIF-based applications, including those for use on the on-line services.[12]
Following this announcement, there was widespread condemnation of CompuServe and Unisys, and many software developers threatened to stop using the GIF format. The PNG format (see below) was developed in 1995 as an intended replacement.[9][10][11] However, obtaining support from the makers of Web browsers and other software for the PNG format proved difficult and it was not possible to replace the GIF format, although PNG has gradually increased in popularity.[9]
In August 1999, Unisys changed the details of their licensing practice, announcing the option for owners of Billboard and Intra net Web sites to obtain licenses on payment of a one-time license fee of $5000 or $7500.[13] Such licenses were not required for website owners or other GIF users who had used licensed software to generate GIFs. Nevertheless, Unisys was the subject of thousands of online attacks and abusive emails from users believing that they were going to be charged $5000 or sued for using GIFs on their websites.[14] Despite giving free licenses to hundreds of non-profit organizations, schools and governments, Unisys was completely unable to generate any good publicity and continued to be vilified by individuals and organizations such as the League for Programming Freedom who started the "Burn All GIFs" campaign.[15]
The US LZW patent expired on June 20, 2003.[16] The counterpart patents in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy expired on June 18, 2004, the Japanese counterpart patents expired on June 20, 2004 and the counterpart Canadian patent expired on July 7, 2004.[16] Consequently, while Unisys has further patents and patent applications relating to improvements to the LZW technique,[16] the GIF format may now be used freely.
I know what you are getting at here.. but the casual reader thinks that you are saying patent and copyright are the same.
This isn't the case. However, just like characters such as Mickey Mouse are protected by Copyright you can get in a very close proximity for specific code such at that which implements the RSA calculation such that any code attempting the same.. is a mere re-interpretation. To close and you get caught by fair use, far enough away, and it is just another incompatible alternative.
Copyright is nearly forever, and patents are limited to a scant 17 years.. but this is an eternity in software generations.
RSA would not have been able to build a fleeting empire without patent protection, copyright wouldn't have created this business opportunity, instead there would have been 20 technologies competing for dominance over the encryption market. This didn't happen until RSA's patent expired.
A FIVE year Software patent may be beneficial, but this wasn't possible because Software and Business Process Patents are not a product of legislation, they were created out of whole cloth by Judicial fiat. Thus, because of being grafted onto the existing patent law, software patents carry such an absurd length of life that the folks who would most love them have to instead fight them tooth and nail, attempting to squash each new patent by finding prior art so that we can continue to write any code at all.
The incidents you site show that software patents are effective and can easily be supplanted with other technology. In the case of RSA, they were the ones who built the better mouse trap and were able to realize the rewards for doing so. At the time ... it was the BEST mouse trap an no one else was able to come up with a better or workable alternative.
In the case of the GIF patent, the owner did make some marketing missteps and as a result, there was a public backlash that LEAD to the development of an alternative. This shows that patents can CREATE innovation ... esp if the patent owners create an unpalatable solution. In that situation, the rest of the community sees a need and responds with a new invention.
dalight - thanks for at least trying to understand what I was trying to say. I’m not a lawyer nor do I want to be.
taxcontrol -your point on the differentiation of code protection of a copyright for different languages is one example of what I was trying to get at; it shouldn’t be the process, but the coding. It may take a different set of eyes to code in one vs another and that second person deserves credit for their work too. In addition, I understand that the copyright is longer protection, though I disagree with the current basically unlimited version. However, given both the technical and artistic nature of coding; perhaps a split half way - say 30 years protection on the coding with licensing available.
In the end it really doesn’t matter - whoever has the bigger lawyers, deeper pockets, and connections is going to win and the little guy is going to get screwed either way.
No, no one was legally allowed to come up with any other mouse trap for 20 years. You work in the IT industry, but you must not have any understanding of coding. Routers, switches and similar devices live in a world where patent allows a company to invest millions in a new technology.
Nevertheless, we aren't talking with each other but past each other. Take all of your money and invest it in a Software company and then after about 5 years.. come back and lets see if you have the same crap to spin.
GIF wasn't a marketing issue. I was here working in the Web industry when this broke. It was an issue of the software industry and the users saying.. you have got to be kidding. And eventually, the patent holders said yes. RSA isn't any better than the many alternatives that are available today, this is why their revenues went to heck just as soon as there was a competitive offering. They knew if they continued to pursue the patent protection path, that secondary products they had developed would not be purchased once the competitive encryption technologies were adopted by their customers so they caved so that their technology could be the "standard" and they hoped to use the name RSA to convince folks to keep buying their products. They had the whole field of encrypted data streams tied up for 20 years. Any way you approached the problem was foreclosed, no other innovation was allowed and RSA knew it was causing this problem and ended up relenting as well.
However, many immediately switched to openssl and that was that. They did that because compatibility with the standard is more important than performance or quality in many cases in the software industry. They did it because, RSA was hated just like Compuserve/Unisys came to be.
Just understand, a software patent is like a patent on the concept of igniting a mixture of gasoline and air. There are several alternatives real world ways to accomplish this end, carborators, fuel injection, etc. but if you can lock up the basic concept with no concern about how it is accomplished, you have a software patent. One click shopping, using pretty pictures to help people use the computer.. this is the nature of software patents. If software patents were available in the form they exist now in the early 1980's, Xerox would have been the only company with a Graphic User Interface. Windows and Apple Computer would still be... well, they wouldn't be.
Large Corporations deal with this problem by creating a defense called a Patent Thicket. They attempt to patent at least several key concepts so that anyone attacking them is screwed. They get together in trade associations and cross-license all of their patents and so the whole trade association enjoys the patent thickets of all of the members and they can then shut down any new competitor who isn't large enough to pay the trade association dues.
People find ways to live in absurd situations. How to take advantage of them, but this doesn't make it any less absurd. Software patents could have not have made it into law, it was only by a Judge decided that these things exist that they do. You can love them if you like, but that is only because you have no clue of what you are missing because of them. Or what you could have been missing if they had been found by another judge even five years earlier.
Beg to differ. Patent law consists of the narrowing of the applications of claims, especially in a developed field which, by definition, consists of massive amounts of prior art which cannot be patented. It is perfectly possible to create software patent guidlines to protect unique and valuable expressions of new algorthmic solutions, and keep the copyrighting process separated for the coding itself. The open access model is not only communistic fantasy, but also entirely impractical - all "open-source" operations depend ultimately on having something to sell (a ridiculously obvious truth that only highly intelligent people have the capacity to ignore).
Unfortunately, the vast majority of cases brought and threatened so far do not support your pollyanna wish that things would work like they might in a perfect world.
I do not develop in the open source world, though I do use some of those communistic open source tools, alot of them.. they protect me.. but, it takes someone who actually has some experience actually not spend their time barking out their tail defending an insane system create by a Judge from the bench without any input from out elected representatives.
I believe in patents, I believe in commercial software, I just think that software patents stink and give lawyers money for something that is of no value except for defending against extortionists who buy patents from trash heaps and attempt to find someone to give them a payoff to go away.
I have spent a long time arguing that software patents were not legislated, and I believe if they were proposed in Congress at the time, they would have been shot down. Even the biggies were sick of the thought at the time. Now, that many have vested interests in interlocking patent thickets, it will be harder to dislodge..
Nevertheless, Congress was easily paid off by Disney and such to extend Copyright long beyond any idea of such provided in the Constitution and the Supreme Court shrugged their collective shoulders and said, essentially 140 years or so years is limited.. in some way.
You "believe in patents... believe in commercial software"? yeah, right - except for software engineers. And as for logic - your sneering assertion that software patents are a "pollyanna wish" for a "perfect world" flies in the face of reality - they are the only way to protect software developers from intellectual theft in this very imperfect world. And as for judges, they didn't create the system, they adjudicate it, and it is completely amenable to "input from out elected representatives." It's just not "amenable" to corporate thieves who pirate the intellectual property of their employees, and call anyone who challenges their theft "extortionists" (after all, what worth is a software patent from a "trash heap?).
And that's the rub, here - you're not for some sort of egalitarian software socialism, you're for TOTAL corporate ownership of the minds of their employees. That's why your statement "I do use some of those communistic open source tools, alot of them.. they protect me" is so hypocritical and true at the same time - you use them because you don't have to pay for them, and they protect you because you're not liable for payment. So yeah, I'll bet you use them!
And as for your charming statement concerning "someone who actually has some experience actually not spend their time barking out their tail," my postion is based on over twenty years of work in Silicon Valley, a place full of hypocrites claiming communistic "sharing" while ripping off everyone in sight for as much as they can get, all while "barking out their tails" to cover their criminal successes.
So you're nothing new, and either is your verbal abuse, because it is crucial to divert attention from your utter lack of justification for your position, which is still as bankrupt as it has always been - that software engineers, out of the entire world, are wholly owned elements of their employer, to the extent that they should be entirely banned from any access to patent protection for their work.
As I said earlier: I beg to differ.
This statement shows just how ignorant you are about this whole issue. How could someone pack so much ignorance into so few words? I am done wasting time replying to you. Just do a little research before you yammer on about anything, your head is firmly up your tail. Gees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.