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 27/2/2017: GNU Linux-libre 4.10, Weston 2.0.0, Git 2.12.0, Linux From Scratch 8.0

    Links for the day



  2. Top Officials in French Government Are Growing Tired of Battistelli's Abuses at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    An automated translation of a recent debate about the EPO in the French government, culminating in intervention by Richard Yung



  3. A US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Which is Hostile Towards Patent Maximalists May Closely Examine More Patents That Apple Uses Against Android

    A company which often takes pride in designers rather than developers (art, not technical merit) may lose that leverage over the competition if its questionable patents are taken away by the Supremes



  4. As Long as Software Patents Are Granted and Microsoft Equips Trolls With Them, “Azure IP Advantage” is an Attack on Free/Libre Software

    Microsoft is feeding enemies of GNU/Linux and Free/libre Open Source software (FLOSS) in order to sell its 'protection', which it names "IP Advantage" in a rather Orwellian fashion (same naming as back in the Novell days)



  5. Patent Trolls on Their Way Out in the United States and Their Way Into China, No Thanks to the Open Invention Network (OIN)

    An update on patent trolls and the role played by supposed allies of Free/libre software, who in practice do everything to exacerbate the problem rather than resolve it



  6. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part VIII: When Governed by Criminals, Truth-Tellers Are Cast as Criminals and Criminals as Justice Deliverers

    The bizarre state of affairs at the European Patent Office, where being an honest and transparent person makes one incredibly vulnerable and subjected to constant harassment from the management



  7. The Sickness of the EPO – Part V: Shedding Light on Institutional Abuse Against Ill and/or Disabled Individuals

    The seriousness of the situation at the EPO and a call for action, which requires greater transparency, even if imposed transparency



  8. The EPO's Race to the Bottom in Recruitment and Early Retirements Explained by an Insider

    The European Patent Office under Battistelli is failing to attract -- and certainly failing to retain -- talented examiners



  9. Wouter Pors and Other UPC Boosters Believe That Repeating the Lies Will Potentially Make Them Truths

    The lobbying campaign for UPC, or hopeful lies (sometimes mere rumours) disguised as "news", continues to rely on false perceptions that the UPC is just a matter of time and may actually materialise this year



  10. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is Utilised in Fixing the US Patent System and the Patent Microcosm Loses Its Mind

    A roundup of PTAB news, ranging from attacks on the legitimacy of PTAB to progress which is made by PTAB, undoing decades of overpatenting



  11. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Take on Patents Pertaining to Business Methods

    Patents on tasks that can be performed using pen and paper (so-called 'business methods', just like algorithms) and oughtn't be patent-eligible may be the next casualty of the America Invents Act (AIA)



  12. Google's Stewardship of GNU/Linux (Android, Chromebooks and More) in Doubt After Company Resorts to Patent 'First Strikes'

    Google has just turned a little more evil, by essentially using patents as a weapon against the competition (by no means a defensive move)



  13. Links 24/2/2017: Ubuntu 17.04 Beta, OpenBSD Foundation Nets $573,000 in Donations

    Links for the day



  14. IAM, Greased up by the EPO, Continues Lobbying by Shaming Tactics for the UPC, Under the Guise of 'News'

    The shrill and well-paid writers of IAM are still at it, promoting the Unitary Patent (UPC) at every opportunity and every turn



  15. Patent Scope Gone Awry: European Vegetable Patents Office?

    In its misguided race to raise so-called 'production', the EPO lost sight of its original goals and now facilitates patent royalty payments/taxation for naturally-recurring items of nature



  16. Yes, There is Definitely Brain Drain (Experience Deficit) at the European Patent Office and Stakeholders Feel It

    The direction that the European Patent Office has taken under Battistelli undoes many decades (almost half a century) of reputation-building and progress and naturally this repels existing staff, not to mention hampers recruitment efforts



  17. The Sickness of the EPO – Part IV: Cruel Management That Deliberately Attacks the Sick and the Weak

    The dysphoric reality at the European Patent Office, which is becoming like a large cell (with bolted-down windows) where people are controlled by fear and scapegoats are selected to perpetuate this atmosphere of terror and maintain demand (or workload) for the Investigative Stasi



  18. Links 23/2/2017: Qt 5.9 Alpha, First SHA1 Collision

    Links for the day



  19. UPC Roundup: War on the Appeal Boards, British Motion Against the UPC, Fröhlinger Recalled, and Fake News About Spain

    Taking stock of some of the latest attempts to shove the Unitary Patent (UPC) down Europe's throat, courtesy of Team Battistelli and Team UPC



  20. The Sickness of the EPO – Part III: Invalidity and Suicides

    An explanation of what drives a lot of EPO veterans to depression and sometimes even suicide



  21. The Appeal Board (PTAB) and Federal Circuit (CAFC) Maintain Good Pace of Patent Elimination Where Scope Was Exceeded

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to accept about 4 out of 5 decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) refuses to intervene



  22. Software Patents Are Ebbing Away, But the “Swamp” Fights Back and Hijacks the Word “Fix”

    The club of patent maximalists, or those who profit from excess prosecution and legal chaos, isn't liking what has happened in the United States and it wants everything reversed



  23. Report From Yesterday's Debate About the European Patent Office (EPO) at the Bavarian Landtag

    A report of the EPO debate which took place at the Bavarian Landtag yesterday (21/2/2017)



  24. Links 22/2/2017: Wine-Staging 2.2, Nautilus 3.24

    Links for the day



  25. French Politician Richard Yung Tells the Government About Abuses at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The subject of EPO scandals has once again landed in French politics, just a couple of months since it last happened



  26. The Sickness of the EPO – Part II: Background Information and Insights

    With a privatised, in-house (sometimes outsourced and for-profit) force for surveillance, policing, justice, public relations and now medical assessment (mere vassals or marionettes of the management) the EPO serves to show that it has become indistinguishable from North Korea, where the Supreme Leader gets to control every single aspect (absolutely no separation of powers)



  27. EPO Cartoon/Caricature by KrewinkelKrijst

    A new rendition by Dutch cartoonist and illustrator KrewinkelKrijst



  28. Inverting Narratives: IAM 'Magazine' Paints Massive Patent Bully Microsoft (Preying on the Weak) as a Defender of the Powerless

    Selective coverage and deliberate misinterpretation of Microsoft's tactics (patent settlement under threat, disguised as "pre-installation of some of the US company’s software products") as seen in IAM almost every week these days



  29. The Sickness of the EPO – Part I: Motivation for New Series of Articles

    An introduction or prelude to a long series of upcoming posts, whose purpose is to show governance by coercion, pressure, retribution and tribalism rather than professional relationship between human beings at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  30. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part VII: EPO Hypocrisy on Cancer and Lack of Feedback to and From ECPC

    The European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), which calls itself "the largest European cancer patients' umbrella organisation," fails to fulfill its duties, says a source of ours, and the EPO makes things even worse


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