EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

11.28.12

A Stacked Software Patents Panel/Debate

Posted in Patents, Videos at 8:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

An ‘IP’ business versus an engineering professor (yet again)

Direct link: Software Patent Debate

Notice how the panel is stacked. The latter guy speaks about “bad” patents and does not oppose software patents as a whole. So neither side (of the two) is against software patents, certainly not the moderator (who is in the ‘law’ sector). Where are the programmers?

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

15 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    November 28, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Gravatar

    Would you want extremists on such a panel?

    Jose_X Reply:

    We want sane people. Obviously most software by far has been created without looking at patents and without enforcing patents or taking out patents. Patent law is broken horribly and made obvious in fields like software. The Supreme Court has rejected pure software patents (ie, software on machine that doesn’t create new matter or transform) 9-0 in I think all occasions in the last few years where the topic has gone to them.

    It’s so sad that someone would write software and think a software patent even comes close to the detail and work required to build real software that works in real life and does interesting things usable by others.

    Michael Reply:

    Oh, do not get me wrong, I would not want “insane” people either. But the idea of just getting rid of all current protection (as broken as the system is – and I think we all agree it is) without having a replacement is, well, insane.

    What type of protection would you suggest be available to those who create new products?

    Jose_X Reply:

    Limited to patents on software, we have had many years where most development if not all was done without patents. What is insane about that?

    You seem to be ignoring copyrights, which already are overbearing themselves but at least respect independent creation and are of much more limited scope. Never mind that a great many software developers even yield all or most copyright AND trade secret protections, without seeking patent protection.

    The motivations to write software are vast. The cost of being hindered by patents (which are broad by design) is very large. And the highest court in the US is rather skeptical that anything but at most a very small number of “software patents” should have protection. So for all the many people getting monopolies without merit we are exacting a high cost on potentially millions of software developers.

    It is insane to handcuff so many talented developers, especially since these are the people actually writing the intricate software rather than the broad software patents that it takes merely a person of ordinary skill who found something merely non-obvious.

    The people complaining about software needing patent incentives, for the most part, I suspect, hardly write software, at least not quality software. Look around. You even have lawyers and execs who couldn’t code their way out of a closet and have no more clever ideas than a person of ordinary skill in the art coming up with broad software patents. That is insane. These people are handcuffing the real developers, .. and who come up with so much patentable material yearly (it’s a low bar to meet), they would have no time to write up all the patents (or money to pay for them) much less code and solve the actual customer problems.

    Michael Reply:

    I merely said there should be protections. I did not say what kind. Does not matter to me – as long as developers can have their IP protected in a reasonable way.

  2. NotZed said,

    November 28, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Gravatar

    Lawyers don’t care what programmers think? They probably don’t even realise why they would even be interested …

    Michael Reply:

    Lawyers understand the value of the laws programers might not.

    Jose_X Reply:

    The laws, the more of them and the more convoluted and costly they are to litigate, the more they help lawyers make more money.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    And the lawyers’ clients, usually large corporations (see how Lessig explains it in his recent talks) keep competition off their yard (niche monopolies).

    Michael Reply:

    No doubt the system as it is leaves a *lot* to be desired. A whole lot.

    But there has to be some way to protect innovations… otherwise the incentive to create such innovations is reduced. But their should be time limits and a more stringent process to determine what should be protected (while making the process cheap… good luck with that!)

    Jose_X Reply:

    There are plenty of incentives to innovate software. There always have been. So much so that many write software and share all the hard work with others.

    And we don’t give patents to write novels, do we? Please don’t tell me there aren’t many “innovative” novels as we find “innovative” software.

    We also don’t give patents to write crucial mathematics.

    We grant patents (or should, if we were applying SCOTUS instructions and cared about promoting the progress) at most where something big and expensive is needed to bring a product to market.

    The problem with broad monopolies on cheap inventions (like writing) is that although they may incentivize a few a little more, they disincentivize a great many a great lot because a great many are otherwise able and already incentivized to participate yet there is a high likelihood you will be violating someone else’s broad monopoly accidentally and have many years of hard work be thrown down some proverbial drain, including many cases where the work and accomplishments you achieved were far greater than those of the patent writer.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Software developers, one might argue, need copyrights to incentivise development, not patents.

  3. Jose_X said,

    December 1, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Gravatar

    Patents are the antithesis of the “standing on the shoulders of giants”. Maybe one can argue that when we have to invest loads of capital to build the invention that a patent is necessary, but on pure writing and thought??? That takes a real time cooperative effort and turns it into something much less efficient and restrictive and completely perverts the reward process.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Patents are a monopoly (or set of monopolies) on ideas that act as fences. We know that fences make as much sense as national borders — leading mostly to wars. An harmonious industry spends less effort on war and more effort on communal, collective benefit. Innovation comes through reuse.

    Michael Reply:

    Fences lead to wars? Borders lead to wars? Do you want to get rid of those, too?

    As far as innovation coming from reuse, what is the incentive to spend millions of dollars making a widget if you cannot get your money back for doing so?

What Else is New


  1. Links 29/9/2016: Russia Moving to FOSS, New Nmap and PostgreSQL Releases

    Links for the day



  2. Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow's Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests

    A quick look at the growing bulk of UPC lobbying (by the legal firms which stand to benefit from it) ahead of tomorrow's European Council meeting which is expected to discuss a unitary patent system



  3. IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

    When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?



  4. Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

    The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO



  5. Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

    The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  6. EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

    The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers



  7. Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

    Links for the day



  8. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  9. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  10. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  11. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  12. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  13. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  14. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  15. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  16. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  17. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  18. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  19. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  20. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  21. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  22. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  23. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government



  24. Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

    Links for the day



  25. Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

    The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli



  26. Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

    Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives



  27. Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social 'Study' (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

    The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least



  28. Links 23/9/2016: Latest Microsoft and Lenovo Spin (Now in ‘Damage Control’ Mode)

    Links for the day



  29. White Male-Dominated EPO Management Sinks to New Lows, Again

    Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe's biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)



  30. Journalism 102: Do Not Become Like 'Managing IP' or IAM 'Magazine' (the Megaphones of the EPO’s Management)

    Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts