I'll be completely honest. Prior to this I disliked patent trolls in a sort of abstract way, but now, I have a visceral feeling of disgust just thinking about patent trolls.
Lodsys in particular seems to have no shame.
I wonder if a few more of these higher profile lawsuits might pull the general public's attention from whatever the latest reality TV show is. Maybe then the political system could do something useful to stop the patent lawsuit insanity.
Considering that one of the biggest names in computing in the eyes of the public (IBM) in extremely pro-software patents, that's not likely to happen. IBM says:
Given the reality that software source code is human
readable, and object code can be reverse engineered,
it is difficult for software developers to resort to
secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives
to innovate in the field of software are significantly
reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing
of source code on a patentee’s terms—which has fueled the
explosive growth of open source software development.
That's from their brief to the Supreme Court for the Bilski case.
Then you should get a copy of the full brief and read it, as you'll probably get a good laugh from more of it, like where they say software patents encourage the adoption of standards on the web and net.
I think the general public would stab their local IBM Global Services consultant in the eye with a pen if they thought it would help their beloved Angry Birds in the patent dispute.
> Given the reality that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered[...]
It's now abundantly clear that this argument was put before someone who is not familiar with the difficulty inherent in divining the intent of original source code, much less source that has been reverse engineered off the opcodes.
So, they are deliberately misleading the judges. I really would like that to be recognized as "lying under oath" (or is there no oath attached to such briefs?).
My comment was meant at least slightly tongue-in-cheek. I've seen some people (usually pretty deep compiler experts) who were able to do a remarkable job of reconstructing original source from object code. There obviously is brilliantly written source code out there that is a downright pleasure to read.
In general we don't enact legislation entirely against the worst cases, for good reason.
It seems to me that it is the obscurity of source code that enables copyright violation.
If software could not be copyright unless it was registered with the library of congress, then the library could run a filter on all new arrivals and check they were different from previously posted source from other sources.
What if two people independently arrive at thesame algorithm, say, an optimal implementation with the least possible amount of code in a given language. Is it still a copyright violation? You can't copyright math, can you?
Legally that is not a copyright violation. There are examples where this is likely, and companies make efforts to prove this no copying occurred. I think this is called a 'clean room' implementation.
In theory it seems like it should though doesn't it?
Maybe if we did something to fix the problems it wouldn't be so bad. Right now it's hard for little guys to get patents, partly because it costs a lot of money and time (lawyers are expensive). It's also too easy to patent trivial things so big companies can patent the simplest things at a relatively minuscule cost for them.
You're asking if monopolies, on technical solutions, being handed out by necessarily under-skilled government bureaucrats, sound like they'd help spur innovation?
Umm, no. Not in the slightest. Do you live in backwards day?
If we wanted to reward innovation we'd reward innovators. Instead of wasting money on patents and court we'd give it to people who (according to their peers) did the most to help us. No forms, no lawyers, just grants to helpful inventors and teachers.
Temporary monopolies. That's pretty key and you omitted it entirely.
> If we wanted to reward innovation we'd reward innovators. Instead of wasting money on patents and court we'd give it to people who (according to their peers) did the most to help us. No forms, no lawyers, just grants to helpful inventors and teachers.
So inventor X spends 5 years to research and make a cool thing and we grant him $1 million, after which the big corporations copy his idea and make billions. If he could have licensed his idea for the couple of years he had exclusive rights to it that makes it far more worthwhile for the inventor.
Also, where does the money for these grants come from? Shouldn't big corporations with billions have to pay to profit wildly from brand new inventions?
You're also ignoring the potential for corruption. Honestly, your plan is pretty naïve for this modern world. Instead of throwing out what we have we could try to fix it. At least we know some of the current problems, we have no idea what problems some other brand new scheme would have or how corporations and lawyers would twist it to serve their purposes.
> Temporary monopolies. That's pretty key and you omitted it entirely.
Oh yeah, never mind the government interference - it's only temporary. Never mind that it's still six times longer than the lifetime of the tech involved. Just like how copyrights are 'for a limited time' despite being longer than the average lifespan.
No, what's key here is untrained and uninterested people trying to provide a stimulus to something they don't understand by handing out monopolies on development. If you were to invent an analogy suitably horrible it would involve blind people and hand grenades.
> So inventor X spends 5 years to research and make a cool thing and we grant him $1 million, after which the big corporations copy his idea and make billions. If he could have licensed his idea for the couple of years he had exclusive rights to it that makes it far more worthwhile for the inventor.
And if wishes were unicorns... But back on planet Earth, patents only screw over inventors. Make a mistake in your paperwork and it's worthless. Don't file on time, worthless. Can't afford legal battles, worthless.
That million dollars that you scoff at would certainly be comforting to the 99.986% of independent inventors who don't win patent-bingo though. And teachers, authors, etc, would be eligible for this, unlike now.
> Also, where does the money for these grants come from?
From the dismantled patent system and the court costs that go to adjudicating it. Also, the innovative gains and lessened frictional costs of patents would mean higher profits and thus tax revenue.
Think what we might accomplish if every patent attorney and everyone involved in the industry stopped throwing their life's effort into a productivity black-hole and did even one useful thing with the time, instead of dragging everyone down to provide a relative boost to their team.
> Shouldn't big corporations with billions have to pay to profit wildly from brand new inventions?
Under this scheme they'd pay whatever you wanted to tax them, much like now.
But why should someone have to pay to use an idea just because someone else (might have) had it first? As long as you operate from ridiculous premises like that you'll keep coming up with solutions to non-problems - like patents.
> You're also ignoring the potential for corruption. Honestly, your plan is pretty naïve for this modern world. Instead of throwing out what we have we could try to fix it.
As my system could be expressed in about a page of non-legalese, I'd wager it'd have one ten-millionth the loopholes and cruft the patent system is carrying and would thus a lot less likely to be subverted.
But even if my system were totally corrupted it'd, at absolute worst, reward the wrong people. The patent system, on a good day, brings ruin and destruction to many worthwhile companies and ideas. Engineers are told (on sound legal advice) to never look at patents so the theoretical benefits to society aren't even being provided.
The patent system is already a run-away worst-case scenario.
Not until Lodsys goes after Kim Kardashian for violation of a patent they hold on how to screw a lid on perfume. As soon as someone breaks away from tech and takes it to pop culture, we may actually see some changes.
Don't mess with the publics ability to indulge in kids in tiaras or the brand of large booty they are into or there will be outrage to answer to.
I think that phenomenon might have more to do with the fact that the general public doesn't understand technology well enough to know when enforcing a patent on something (or granting one) is and isn't ridiculous.
I forget the details, and I might be wrong, but I think with the whole Microsoft XML file format suit thing, the suit boiled down to a company claiming they had a patent on using XML for document type file formats. But that's the whole point of XML, to be used as a general purpose markup language, to markup whatever you want. It's ridiculous to attempt to patent that when it's the whole point of XML to begin with. But the general public doesn't really know what XML is or what its for, so no one realizes how crazy it is.
If, on the other hand, someone tried to patent putting a doorknob on a door that leads into a postal office, as opposed to some other kind of building, everyone would realize how ridiculous it was. Because people know what doors and doorknobs and postal offices are.
It's not at all about just using XML as a file format, but about being able to build your own private business extensions to a vendor's (Microsoft's) file format and ecosystem. It may be a software patent and have all the attendant problems, but it is at least an invention and not pure bullshit.
Plus the plaintiff isn't in any way a patent troll — they were a real company with a shipping product that Microsoft was well aware of when they integrated "their" feature into Office.
This case is to software patent reform as "Hot Coffee" is to tort reform — it's almost perfectly constructed to spark nerd rage when initially described, except that the facts of the matter are entirely opposite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurant...
It's not at all about just using XML as a file format, but about being able to build your own private business extensions to a vendor's (Microsoft's) file format and ecosystem.
XML is called extensible and has things like namespaces exactly for that purpose.
Why should they have shame? This is exactly how the system works. They are abusing the system in the same way that companies like Apple and Microsoft have been, the latter just seem to have a soft spot in some people's hearts.
We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in.
> We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in.
I couldn't agree more. I fundamentally disagree with what they do, how the patent system works, etc, but I think these malicious actors will serve to take down the system. The more patent suits of these sort go up, the better I believe the odds are that we'll end up with some sort of sanity.
Or we'll end up with more bullshit legislation which does nothing but make it harder to do legitimate business. We'll see.
We'll wind up with BS legislation as vested interests in the current system try to maintain their power even as protections are added.
As an example of the likely result, see the America Invents Act. Which changes us from first to invent to first to file. And then in section 18 carves out a big patent exception for the financial industry (because they had enough lobbyists).
BTW if you thought that our current system was bad, wait until it is irrelevant whether someone else previously shipped software product with your "invention" in it.
OK I'll bite and jump to defend Microsoft. Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? (I _hate_ to be defending Microsoft. But I can't recall Microsoft having done this.)
I don't mind MS going after large targets with obvious infringements, but a lot of the alleged infringements are ridiculous. It seems to me that the complexity of modern hardware and software has made patents very difficult to administer, but then the question remains: would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)?
I think OEM are by far their most effective action again GNU/Linux on the desktop. FUD may help, but I think it helps much more to offer a (possibly conditional) discount the hardware vendors simply cannot afford to refuse (especially if they know their competitors will have the same discount).
As other responses have mentioned, Microsoft tends to use FUD and go after bigger players (like Android), which can be seen as a symbolic attack against fairly small developers. They also use proxies, like SCO and Intellectual Ventures, to do their dirty work, so they can claim they use their patents defensively when questioned by anyone unfamiliar with the proxies' behavior.
>Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit?
Why does it have to be a "fairly small developer"? Microsoft has a legacy of a lot of broad patents owing to the fact that they've been rolling in billions for decades (and hence can stomach having a lot of people filing trivial patents). With that they try to either run competitors out of business, FUD users into avoiding alternatives, or outright demand some extortion fees (see every Android maker and Microsoft's current patent shakedown).
"Obvious infrginements" is loaded and has little meaning given the incredibly broad patents allowed by the patent system.
>would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)?
We would be far better off without software patents. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I neither encourages innovation (it more likely discourages innovation), and it only helps to entrench the most successful.
Lodsys in particular seems to have no shame.
I wonder if a few more of these higher profile lawsuits might pull the general public's attention from whatever the latest reality TV show is. Maybe then the political system could do something useful to stop the patent lawsuit insanity.