Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: Calum on 3 June 2003, 15:20
-
3 years ago, Europe was very much against software patents, recognising that the ill informed approach to doling out vague intellectual property rights would ultimately kill innovation, now it appears the European parliament no longer sees a need to protect the right to reinvent the wheel, potentially jeopardising projects such as GIMP, Mozilla and Linux/GNU.
read more and find out how you can make a difference here:
Free Software Support Group article (http://promote-opensource.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=56)
and here's a recent news article about it all:
Article on IDG.com.sg (http://idg.com.sg/idgwww.nsf/unidlookup/7D507696B25B253848256D210021B08B?OpenDocument)
-
Quote--: The U.S. and Japan allow patents on a much wider range of software, and they both permit patents for business methods. Business methods include innovations such as one-click purchasing, for which the online retailer Amazon.com Inc. received a patent in the U.S. in 1999.
Amazon used the patent to get an injunction against use of a similar purchasing feature by a rival, Barnesandnoble.com, but an appeals court lifted that injunction last year. --End quote
This is just plain dumb. How can a business process be patented ?
It's almost like they want to patent arithmetic. You know, 2+2=4 but you can't use that because "we" have a patent, you need to use 3+1 or 1+3 to equal 4. It's just stupid.
To patent the "progress bar" is just fucked up.
2 good articles.
-
No you can't, I already have a patent for 3+1=4. This also mean that you can't use 1+3=4, because it's too similar to mine. You could try 0+4=4, but I think someone is going to get a patent for that one too soon. Looks like you might have to use subtraction.
-
Hear hear! Calum's (you know, the troll) article has been posted on Newforge!! (http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/03/06/04/132226.shtml?tid=17)
If only I were a troll like Calum! :(
-
oh come on panos, we all know it's far more productive to shout down any opposition using swear words in capitals! my puerile attempts to spark a meaningful debate are simply trolling, it wastes everybody's time.
People, i urge you to fax or write (letters) to your MEPs, apparently your say counts more if you use real paper rather than email (???)
-
That's apparently so Calum. :(
Back on topic. I'm in the process of writing a formal letter to one of our MEPs about the patents issue, as simply and clearly as I can. I took your own letter as reference btw. ;) And yes, it's true that a letter is much more credible than a simple e-mail so just pick a piece of paper and a pen (in the good old-fashioned way) and show that you really care! (http://smile.gif)
-
WAIT. We had a lawsuit in the U.S. over this crap. Apple sued Microsoft because the new windows version was to similar to the mac os. Apple lost, and microsoft screwed them on the agreement for microsoft to make office software for apple. This was where apple got screwed big time. Now if this patent thing was made law in the U.S. wouldn't apple have the right to patent their OS, since they brought the GUI into wide use. Before you harp, I know my facts aren't all straight, but I got the thrust of it. Anyway, couldn't apple re-open this thing, it would make Microsoft Windows AGAINST THE LAW!! Because mac os is now based on Unix, open source would survive. It would put apple back in control. Techniquely IBM created the first GUI, but they let Apple jump on it. One of the two would have control if this software patents came into effect. I doubt it will happen though, since the wheel has been reinvented so many times already. Would it really make all the new "wheels" unusable, illegal?
-
It would also make every other GUI against the law to. Including the X Windowing System, which is used by Linux. Software patents are bullshit!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Neo:
WAIT. We had a lawsuit in the U.S. over this crap. Apple sued Microsoft because the new windows version was to similar to the mac os. Apple lost, and microsoft screwed them on the agreement for microsoft to make office software for apple. This was where apple got screwed big time. Now if this patent thing was made law in the U.S. wouldn't apple have the right to patent their OS, since they brought the GUI into wide use. Before you harp, I know my facts aren't all straight, but I got the thrust of it. Anyway, couldn't apple re-open this thing, it would make Microsoft Windows AGAINST THE LAW!! Because mac os is now based on Unix, open source would survive. It would put apple back in control. Techniquely IBM created the first GUI, but they let Apple jump on it. One of the two would have control if this software patents came into effect. I doubt it will happen though, since the wheel has been reinvented so many times already. Would it really make all the new "wheels" unusable, illegal?
I don't think it would be possible to sue MS again because you can't cue somebody more than once for the same thing. Also, Xerox invented the GUI not IBM. Apple stole it from Xerox. Xerox sued and lost. Then MS stole it from Apple. Apple sued and lost. I guess they kind of deserve losing, not only did Apple scrap all over Xerox. They gave MS permission to use "Some" of their GUI compenents.
-
Don't be consumed in such details people. The issue of software patents is more serious than you can imagine and it concerns all of us one way or the other. Therefore I suggest you read Calum's article once more.
-
quote:
I don't think it would be possible to sue MS again because you can't cue somebody more than once for the same thing. Also, Xerox invented the GUI not IBM. Apple stole it from Xerox. Xerox sued and lost. Then MS stole it from Apple. Apple sued and lost. I guess they kind of deserve losing, not only did Apple scrap all over Xerox. They gave MS permission to use "Some" of their GUI compenents.
I think you're talking about double jeopordy, and that only applies to criminal cases (if you are found innocent they cannot try and prove you guilty again). This was how OJ got away. But in Civil cases, like the one apple versus M$, double jeopordy does not apply. I don't think that xerox sued apple, actually I heard they invented the GUI and decided not to use it, instead they invited apple programers to come and look at it. According to some stories they let apple have it, but this is all before my time, so I wouldn't really know.
(Think I would make a good lawyer??)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Neo:
I think you're talking about double jeopordy, and that only applies to criminal cases (if you are found innocent they cannot try and prove you guilty again). This was how OJ got away. But in Civil cases, like the one apple versus M$, double jeopordy does not apply. I don't think that xerox sued apple, actually I heard they invented the GUI and decided not to use it, instead they invited apple programers to come and look at it. According to some stories they let apple have it, but this is all before my time, so I wouldn't really know.
(Think I would make a good lawyer??)
Taking into Account Calum's previous post, I won't delve any further except to say... I had heard that people at xerox invnted it, then xerox excutives (people who know nothing and were suggested against it by the inventors) invited apple. Apple used it, then after it was a huge success, Xerox sued. That is what I have heard.
Now back to the patent thing. I do believe that one should be able to patent ideas. It is totally logical to me. You invent something and patent it. What is the difference between inventing an idea, a different way of doing something; and inventing an actual product that works in a different way and does something. Makes complete sense to me. Without it, wut is the point of inventing an idea, a workflow, a way of doing something. You can't make any money off of it, you have no way to prove u invented it, and everyone will copy you. Doesn't sound very worth inventing something if that is what will happen.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:
Now back to the patent thing. I do believe that one should be able to patent ideas. It is totally logical to me. You invent something and patent it. What is the difference between inventing an idea, a different way of doing something; and inventing an actual product that works in a different way and does something. Makes complete sense to me. Without it, wut is the point of inventing an idea, a workflow, a way of doing something. You can't make any money off of it, you have no way to prove u invented it, and everyone will copy you. Doesn't sound very worth inventing something if that is what will happen.
Oh really? Aren't you equally protected if you hold the COPYRIGHTS to your product? Patenting a piece of software is a lot different that holding the copyrights for it! Read Calum's article for God's sake!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
Oh really? Aren't you equally protected if you hold the COPYRIGHTS to your product? Patenting a piece of software is a lot different that holding the copyrights for it! Read Calum's article for God's sake!
now that I read the top half of the article. If I was making software I would want to patent it. Sounds good to me, controlling the market, charging what I want. It would be a monopoly. However, as an end user I could see how this would be bad. I'm mixed on the subject. I still don't see why it should be illegal though?
edit:
after reading the second half, I would have to agree that the software industry would grind to a halt. But imagine how it could simplify things. One program for one purpose. Not 20 different varients all of which are not 100% compatible with eachother. This is my dream of computer, simplicity. Everyone has one choice, one app, one OS, one etc. However, this is starting to sound a lot like socialism. I want choices.
In the end I am still mixed.
[ June 07, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]
edit 2
After thinking. I think software patenting should be illegal, but Idea and workflow and specific features on computers or in software should be patentable. Like 1 Click. Or Piles. Those are both ways of doing thing, they are ideas. Ideas should be patentable, but not the actual "Online Store" or "File Browser."
I think I'm done correcting myself
[ June 08, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]
-
yeah it really would make things a lot simpler if nobody was allowed to do anything new.
i am sickened by the shameless tripe in this thread. This issue concerns europe. The US already pisses away its own patents laws due to apathy, that's why you have so many fucked legal cases.
now anybody who lives in europe want to see that happen here? not me, so go and write or fax your representative to try and stop it please.
thank you! (http://smile.gif)
-
So when it comes to free software and patents, US has lost the battle, Europe is fighting the battle, but what of Canada? Did Canada lose this battle like the US already, or has it just not been brought up yet?
Maybe some of the Canadian MESers could answer this...
-
quote:
Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:
edit 2
After thinking. I think software patenting should be illegal, but Idea and workflow and specific features on computers or in software should be patentable. Like 1 Click. Or Piles. Those are both ways of doing thing, they are ideas.
Does that sound insane to anyone else? Eventually someone would patent the double click, then the triple click, and so forth. You'd move to key combinations for a task like clicking. The combinations would eventually get so long and complex, it'd be like typing in a domain name to click a file menu (which you have to get permission to use). You'd think that a nice guy would patent something easy like a 4-click method and make it public, but we know microsoft will buy everything convinient. You should NOT be able to patent a method (like clicking).
-
Charles Babbage must be hella sore at all these Intel, AMD, Apple and Sun goons stealing his patented work. Damn pirates that's what they are. And Ada Lovelace must be pretty pissed off at Windows / Linux / Sun / BSD etcetera. Bastards stole her patented "programming" concept. Hey I wonder if anyone has patented keyboards yet? I'm going to run down to my local patent office, see if I can claim these things as mine. Holy hell I could raise prices to like $200 per keyboard! :D
oh and:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html (http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html)
-
quote:
Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:
Without it, wut is the point of inventing an idea, a workflow, a way of doing something. You can't make any money off of it, you have no way to prove u invented it, and everyone will copy you. Doesn't sound very worth inventing something if that is what will happen.
Yes, because of course before the patent office existed nothing was ever invented.
-
you can't "invent" an idea. no fucking wonder your US patent laws are so fucked if you can't even figure that out.
You can "invent" a bicycle (well you can't now, somebody already did that) but you cannot invent a software model of a bicycle.
oh, what's the use?
-
quote:
After thinking. I think software patenting should be illegal, but Idea and workflow and specific features on computers or in software should be patentable. Like 1 Click. Or Piles. Those are both ways of doing thing, they are ideas.
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
Does that sound insane to anyone else?
Yes, it does. Particularly as he first says that software patenting should be illegal, and then goes on to suggest that, well, software patenting should be legal.
No-one tries to patent entire pieces of software, like a word processor - that would be pointless. The very problem with software patenting is that the features he talks about can be patented. That is, obvious ideas or vaguely defined conjunctions of obvious ideas.
-
No Urg! Don't make hot red burning stuff go! No office for patent - you no make money!
-
Software patents are weak at best, for instance, say if Europe looses this battle and somebody patents the GUI, what will germany, who went totally ope source do? Will they be forced to go back to Macrosuck, or will they pay royalties to the cock-sucking company that tries to patent this. The problem with this is that the patenting of software should have been settled long ago, when the first software programs were being written. How many pieces of software are running around now? The answer: Thousands; hell, millions. How are we supposed to define who owns what, or who came up with what? What does it mean for companies who lost suits on this, who could suddenly reverse the decesions made. Software patens are so vague, so fucking crazy that there would never be anyway to rationalize who owns what, and who has the right to copy this, or distribute that. What if Linus suddenly decided to patent linux, which he could legally do if these software laws came into effect? He could litirally eliminate all distrobutions of linux at his will. Although he would never do that because it goes against the GPL, it is a scary reality. What of UNIX and the SCO lawsuit against IBM. The compnay name has changed so many times, and the ownership and copyrights and possibly PATENTS have shifted so many times that it is impossible to tell he should legally have tyhe rights to it. If laws like this become commonplace, I suggest picking up a career as a law attorney, because those guys would be making the most moolah in the years to come over software battles. Software patents are wrong, nuff said. *end constant rambling*
-
I strongly believe in rewarding or at least giving credit to the person who came up with an idea. I do agree, though, that the patenting system is crazy. In my opinion, patents should grant exclusivity to its applicant, but in a much more restrictive way.
For example, the period of exclusivity should vary, such that broad concepts should be given an exclusivity period of 1-5 years (3 years maximum for computer software), while more specific inventions may be granted up to 10-20 years (those are just examples, do not take them seriously), rather than the 100 years long patents that make competition impossible.
The inventor should at least be granted, one way or another, an advantage of some sort, a headstart to gain a foothold in the market (gotta love these body part expressions!). And, of course, the inventor should get full credit for his invention/concept.
-
COPYRIGHT GODSDAMN IT!!!!!!!!
aren't you hearing a word i am saying?????
that's why COPYRIGHT EXISTS!!!!!!
-
No need to yell, I know what a copyright is. Copyright only prevents brand imposture (ie copying the look-and-feel of an interface, misusing brand names, etc). It doesn't keep a huge corporation from hijacking the idea and crushing the inventor before his product even gets on the market. A patent, on the other hand, gives a chance to the inventor, which a copyright cannot grant.
Other thing, I wasn't even specifically talking about software. What makes you think that a copyright would be enough for anything else?
-
quote:
Copyright only prevents brand imposture (ie copying the look-and-feel of an interface, misusing brand names, etc).
No, that's trademarks; not copyright.
quote:
It doesn't keep a huge corporation from hijacking the idea and crushing the inventor before his product even gets on the market. A patent, on the other hand, gives a chance to the inventor,
That's the myth of patents that the corporations would have you believe - that patents are there to "protect" individual, struggling inventors from big companies. Actually patents are generally used, and bought up, by big companies like Microsoft, IBM etc. in order to control/restrict a technology's use, and to extort money out of everyone who uses them.
-
You did not read my other post, flap. I know perfectly well that the patent system, in its present state, only benefits to monopolists. What you just said is exactly why I suggested that thr life span of a patent should be restricted to a few years only, rather than a lifetime.
You also took the last quote out of context. I explicitly said in my last post that I was discussing the general application of the patent system, not exclusively software. You are also assuming that a patent does the same damages to "real" inventions as to intellectual concepts.
And tell me, if the acetylsacicylic acid (a.k.a Aspirin) has been patented by Bayers (I'm not sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong), then why do we find many competing brands, such as Anacin and Tylenol, if the patenting system supposedly crushes competition?
[ June 10, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
As for the copyright, I may have confused it with trademark. But no explanation of copyright and patents is being made in Calum's article, nor is any difference between the two shown, and as such I see no immediate basis in the claim that "copyright addresses the needs of software much more adequately".
[ June 10, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
"Under current patent law, the patent holder for a pharmaceutical product has the exclusive right to supply the product for 20 years from the granting of the patent. One problem with this, from the perspective of the pharmaceutical companies, is that the 20-year period begins with the granting of the patent, not with FDA approval of the drug. As the time required for drug approvals lengthened substantially due to requirements for more elaborate clinical trials, the period of market exclusivity provided by the patent declined. The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 provided an extension to the patent period equal to one-half of the time from the beginning of clinical trials to the end of the drug approval process. This extension can last for at most five years and the total period of market exclusivity cannot exceed 14 years. To receive this extension, a pharmaceutical company must display "due diligence" in the approval process."
Patents don't just support monopolies. They support companies that pour cash into R&D, and prevent other companies from exploiting them by just copying the product exactly. But currently, patents are being given out far too freely, such as a pantents for for "one click web shopping" and "stationary menu's on websites". May as well patent the exchange of money for goods and services.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Other thing, I wasn't even specifically talking about software. What makes you think that a copyright would be enough for anything else?
ok, your attempts to belittle me are invalid for the folowing reasons:
1) the topic is "software patents" therefore i feel i am justified in assuming that you were talking about software patents
2) what makes you think i think copyright would be sufficient for other areas? i NEVER said such a thing. May i refer you to point 1)? I am talking purely about software patents.
-
quote:
As for the copyright, I may have confused it with trademark. But no explanation of copyright and patents is being made in Calum's article, nor is any difference between the two shown, and as such I see no immediate basis in the claim that "copyright addresses the needs of software much more adequately".
thank you for bringing this up, if i have time i will try to address this in the article however it is intended to alert people to the issue, not to be a full explanation of the patent/copyright issue. That would take a lot longer than i am willing to type and than most readers would be prepared to read. If they are interested there are many resources on the 'net they can go and look at, some of which i link to under the article.
your contention that "no explanation" is made in the article however i feel is wrong. A cursory explanation is attempted. Whether you feel it to be inadequate or incorrect, i believe it to at least exist.
and as for my not backing up what i said about copyrights, again a cursory explanation is given. Software is a literary work. Literary works get protected by copyright, as do works of art (another valid description of software). Software however is not invention (although, like art and literature it contains a huge element of inventive thought etc). Software is the medium. It is the invention. The inventor of "the book" might get a patent, the inventor of "the record" might get a patent, the inventor of "the radio" might get a patent, but the "inventor of the music and words contained in the books and records and broadcast on the radio have not invented anything, they are simply utilising inventions that already exist. Therein lies the inherent difference.
Sadly many people are too greedy to admit this obvious distinction.
-
Thank you, Calum, this is a better explanation. I agree that there was a cursory explanation in your article. What I think you need to add is a short summary of the copyright vs patent issue (like what you wrote in your post) followed by a pointer to another article which would give a more complete analysis.
-
Also, if you want to add credibility, you should identify your sources more clearly than just adding a few links. Each quote or paraphrase, or other piece of information should be attributed. You might want to consult this page on referencing (http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~pgiles/courses/misc/referencing.htm) for more information.
Sorry for writing two posts for this, but I can't seem to be able to send entire posts without editing them or sending them in parts. Is there anything I'm doing wrong?