barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (06/27/90)
In article <62864@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: >Have people noticed that certain new window systems look almost exactly >like the Macintosh? They don't look that much like NeWS or like UWM. >They look like the Macintosh. If I were one of the designer's of the >Macintosh UI, I'd be upset about having my design stolen. Well, Apple *has* been suing copy-cats, so I guess they are (well, I guess the lawyers who work for the company that employed the designers are). And Apple did patent pull-down menus (that's probably one reason why GEM has drop-down menus). > Why didn't >software designers create a new look instead of rote-copying someone >else's? Could it be for the same reasons that unscrupulous students >sometimes plagarize other's work? Is it because they don't think they >are capable of doing better themselves? Or is it because they don't >want to invest the same amout that the original inventor invested? I have nothing against innovation and patenting, but there are many ways to respond to the above. First of all, your second sentence specifically mentions two window systems that didn't copy the Macintosh window system, yet you complain that software designers haven't tried to invent other window systems. I know of at least four different window managers in use with the X window system, and none of them are Macintosh clones. The Interleaf and NeXT window systems aren't Mac clones, either. Please list all these clone window systems. Second, there are good reasons for copying user interfaces, as it makes it easier for users to switch back and forth between the various environments. Variation is much less of a problem for users if it is kept on the inside of the program, rather than showing its face to the user, unless it provides a marked improvement in ease of use. Analogy: whenever I rent an unfamiliar car I have to waste time finding some of the controls. Third, many of the window system implementors may not be interested in spending their resources designing window systems. They are application developers who happen to need a window system as part of their application, but the application-specific part of their program is what they are mostly concerned with. So they copy a popular window system. Analogy: new car designs generally include old door designs. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) (06/27/90)
>First of all, your second sentence specifically mentions two window systems >that didn't copy the Macintosh window system, yet you complain that >software designers haven't tried to invent other window systems. I applaud these efforts. We need a lot more work in this area. >Please list all these clone window systems. I think that Motif looks like a direct ripoff of the Macintosh. New Wave didn't look very innovative to me either. >Second, there are good reasons for copying user interfaces, as it makes it >easier for users to switch back and forth between the various environments. Great, they can switch back and forth between the same inadequate, outdated window systems. >Variation is much less of a problem for users if it is kept on the inside >of the program, rather than showing its face to the user, unless it >provides a marked improvement in ease of use. Analogy: whenever I rent an >unfamiliar car I have to waste time finding some of the controls. That hasn't stopped the car market, has it. We shouldn't be making Model-T's when we can be making modern systems. If you believe that a standard window system is an economically viable product and you can convince some investors, then write one and patent its. novel features. Copyright whatever else you can in it. Then sell it. If you are right, you'll make enough money to continue development. If it's really important enough to users that their window systems look identical, then they will switch to yours. There is no reason to plagarize other's inventions. >Third, many of the window system implementors may not be interested in >spending their resources designing window systems. They can license existing window systems, or use public domain ones. They just can't plagarize patented ones. This seems fair enough to me. > They are application >developers who happen to need a window system as part of their application, >but the application-specific part of their program is what they are mostly >concerned with. So they copy a popular window system. Analogy: new car >designs generally include old door designs. They don't copy patented parts of the door designs. New door designs are invented all the time. Automobile companies will license patented parts of door designs if they want them badly enough. Bruce Karsh karsh@sgi.com
karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) (06/27/90)
| In article <1990Jun26.234134.2302@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > ...What I think is happening is that so much time and effort is spent > re-creating old ideas that sw engineers are not adequately exposed to > the process of innovation... |Possibly so, but doesn't this follow directly from the fact that so much of |what we do, at the macro level, is the same as what we've done before? Yes, we redo the same tired old things too much. This is very bad for users. |That is, solving essentially the same problem requires essentially the same |pieces unless there's some reason to think there's a better alternative. So patents say that you either have to a) find a better alternative, b) do something else, or c) pay the price to the holder of the patent. There's nearly always a better alternative. We haven't really gotten close to an ideal software architecture. |In other newsgroups, this would be recognized as the beginnings of "reuse" |of software and would be lauded! Patents don't prevent reuse. If you license a patented software invention, then you may re-use it. If you don't license it, then the issue of re-use is moot since you can't even use it. Patents discourage software plagarism. |Allow a different statement of the problem: I resent the fact that I may |come up with a way to solve a problem but be restrained from using my |solution because someone else, somewhere else, thought of it and patented |it. Should people resent that they can't republish other's writings? The inventor has rights to his invention in much the same way that an author has rights to his writing. Why should you be allowed to make money off of someone else's invention without paying the inventor. | It's not enough to come up with the right answer; you'll have to |search to see whether you're allowed to use it. The alternative is for people to keep their inventions a secret. If they do that, then you still won't be able to use them. Patents may cause software engineers to have to do more research. That seems like a good thing to me. > o There is an economic incentive to invent. This causes there > to be more inventions. |No. There is an economic incentive to patent. This causes there to be |more patents. There is greater benefit from having a patent on something |ubiquitous and mundane than on something novel and creative. Try to get a patent on something that's not an invention. It's very difficult. Occasionally the patent examiners may make a mistake, but they are pretty sharp guys and they put a great deal of effort into making sure that the patent application really represents an invention. > o There is an economic disincentive to repeatedly re-implement the > same thing. Hence inventors are constantly forced to find new > intellectual areas to invent in. |There are many tasks which do not require invention. Perhaps there are, but I don't know of any which are economically important. |Invention is a business risk--it can't be planned and scheduled. That's one reason why patents are so important. If a company invests a lot of money in creating an invention, the patent gives them a fighting chance to make enough money to recoup their R&D expendetures. Without a patent, someone else will steal the idea and sell it for less because they aren't burdened by the cost of inventing. | Forcing invention where |it is not needed simply makes it more difficult to navigate the minefields |of patents to solve a perfectly ordinary problem. Practically speaking, is this really a problem? Normally, it's only a problem if you are re-solving a problem the same way that someone else already has. Other fields have had to contend with this problem and it has only helped these fields. If you can find even one place where the invention was published, then you are OK. The problems have not occured when people stumbled into new ideas. The problems occur when people try to make money off of someone else's invention. |There is no prohibition against full disclosure of a non-patented idea! |It is of even greater use and provides more of a building block for others |by the fact that there is no restriction on its use. Right. If you invent something and publish it, then it can't be patented. Of course, if you then try to sell you invention or try to go into business selling it, then you'll have a hard time getting anyone to invest. If you try, you'd better wear a very white shirt. > Since patents require full disclosure of the invention, the invention > becomes "obvious" after it has been disclosed. That is one of the > primary purposes of a patent. So it doesn't do much good to argue that > a patented invention is obvious. If you want to invalidate a patent, > you have to find prior art. |There are several patently (sic) false statements there. Inventions do not |become "obvious" by disclosure. Very often they do. Certain window system ideas and XOR cursors are examples of this. Once you've seen these ideas, they are obvious. If they were so obvious before and if they are so necessary now, why didn't anyone do them before the patent was filed? There are other ways, of course, to invalidate a patent other than prior art. For instance, you can try to show that the patent application is fraudulent. The point is that arguing that a patent is obvious is a difficult case to make. If you find prior art, you've got a good chance to break the patent. |A clever idea is still clever even after it's been explained to you. I think this is so. However, many people deny that a new idea is clever. They say that the idea was obvious. They usually say that after they've already seen someone else making money off the idea. |Nor, conversely, does the granting of a patent |make something an "invention". Moreover, it *does* do some good to argue |that a patented invention is obvious--patents are *not* supposed to be |granted for "inventions" which are reasonably evident to practitioners in |the field of the invention. That's the way the law written; that's the way |it's supposed to work. The US Patent Office has, unfortunately, been |bamboozled on a few...but still, it is *not* always necessary to show prior |art. (In other words, the existence of "prior art" is a sufficient, but |not necessary, condition to invalidate a patent.) There are a whole bunch of ways to try to invalidate a patent. Trying to show that an idea is obvious without any prior art is going to be a pretty hard battle. If the invention is so obvious and so necessary, then why didn't anyone do it before? |...and the reason people are upset about some patents is that they *force* |different architectures (or implementations). Innovation is good sometimes |but not always. The architectures we have now need lots of improvement. Now is not the time to stop innovating. I want to see new and better architectures. A lot of people have spent so much time dealing with the old architectures that they've lost sight of the importance of making new ones. >...If you invent something really new in your > architecture, then the law gives your architecture an advantage. |OK, but a lot of us agree with that only because you said "really new." If |you just come up with some trivial tweak, you don't need to pretend that |you've just invented sliced bread and go around trying to get a bundle of |money for it. If you've come up with a "trivial tweek", then who's going to give you money for it? Only someone who needs the "trivial tweek" really badly? If it's needed really badly, then it isn't trivial - its basic. |Perspective: There's a little faction that thinks patents are an |incredibly bad idea and should be completely eliminated. There's another |little faction that thinks patents are an incredibly good idea and should |be created whenever possible. I'm in the later category. The continuous reinventing and plagarizing of computer inventions has really hurt the progress of the computer field. I say that computer engineers should either patent or publish their ideas. Further, the secrecy about computer algorithms has hurt. There are a lot of inventions in modern software which are being kept secret. Patents can provide protection without requiring secrecy. | The rest of us are in between: We think |patents can do some good, but there are some patents that should never have |been granted. Perhaps, but have these people looked at the research expenditures which went into creating the patents and the search for prior art that occured before the patents were granted? Or are these people just grumbling because they aren't allowed to make money off of somebody elses work? I'm sure that the patent office makes some mistakes. But they generally do an exceptional job. |Every patent creates a potential for litigation, a need for paperwork, and |a bit of an impediment to progress. The patent ought to be significant |enough to make the hassle worthwhile. Patents are not cheap. Few organizations or people will invest in getting one unless they believe that the invention is significant. |Imagine if I had to deal with a patent every time I created a hash table, |ran a loop counter down to zero instead of upward, used a doubly-linked |list, passed a procedure as a parameter to another procedure, exchanged two |values without a temporary (wonder if that one's covered by the xor-cursor |patent?!:-), etc. We could easily create a world (or rather, a country; |not everyone will put up with this) in which every programmer has to work |accompanied by an attorney. All of the software technologies that you have mentioned have been previously published. You may use these techniques to your heart's content. What techniques are you prevented from using which are not inventions? How about if we create a world in which intellectual property rights are respected? If these rights are respected, then the lawyers won't be required in order to program. Right now we don't adequately respect other's rights and inventors have to resort to lawyers for protection. > Therefore, instead of complaining about patents, I'd encourage software > engineers to go out and invent new things and patent them. It'll be > good for you (or your company), and it'll be good for the field. |So the purpose of invention is to create patents??? This will quickly |become circular. No the purpose of patents is to promote invention. I urge software engineers to create inventions and to patent them in order to enhance their invention's economic value. > Have people noticed that certain new window systems look almost exactly > like the Macintosh? They don't look that much like NeWS or like UWM. > They look like the Macintosh. If I were one of the designer's of the > Macintosh UI, I'd be upset about having my design stolen... |If one were less inclined to jealousy and possessiveness, one might be |flattered to have found a good way to do something, and to have one's |ideas corroborated by others. Of course, a musician is flattered when somebody plagerizes their music. But you can't pay your band with flattery. I suppose the window system designers were flattered. But perhaps they were just a little upset about being ripped off too? What about the people who funded the R&D to make the window system? It must have crossed their mind that someone was trying to make money off of their investment without paying for it. | And if one were truly inventive, one would |be off inventing the next step instead of litigating the previous one. Invention costs money. If your invention is stolen, then you're not too likely to go off inventing the next step. Who'll pay the bills? Patents allow you to continue inventing because you can make some money from it. >...Why didn't > software designers create a new look instead of rote-copying someone > else's? Could it be for the same reasons that unscrupulous students > sometimes plagarize other's work? Is it because they don't think they > are capable of doing better themselves? Or is it because they don't > want to invest the same amout that the original inventor invested? |Flame time. If you're too close-minded to see that there's an advantage |to having user interfaces look similar across various systems, you've got |no business preaching about invention. You're advocating invention and |change for their own sake, users be damned. If you'd paid any attention at |all to the concerns of user interface design, you'd know there's some value |in consistency, so that users can move from one system to another without |having to start over from scratch--or worse, to have their usage habits and |patterns on one system turn out to be destructive on another. You assume that the users really like the UI's which are out there now. They don't. They barely tolerate them. Are we going to serve our users "last year's model" forever? We need to make new UI's that serve users better. If a user interface is in the public domain, then it can be copied and copied forever. Feel free to do this. I don't know whether users will prefer the new ones with innovative features or the standard ones. But if I had to bet, I'd bet on the new ones. |You've just preached that consistency is lazy, incompetent, and perhaps |even unscrupulous...and that NIH is not only noble but should be encouraged |by law. Not at all. Existing software designs are not good enough for users. We have to continue to make better ones. The inventors of the new ones should be paid for their inventions. It's not OK to plagarize them. Bruce Karsh karsh@sgi.com
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/27/90)
In article <62864@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > Have people noticed that certain new window systems look almost exactly > like the Macintosh? Since the Macintosh looks almost exactly like the Xerox Star, a machine that predates it by at least two years, what's your point? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
aw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alfred Benjamin Woodard) (06/27/90)
Many good points have been posted as to the results of having patents on hardware. I will admit that patents do encorage innovation but in the real world of programming you become non-productive if you try to rely on all your own ideas. If someone has a good idea then you should use it. For instance the xor cursor (ignore for a moment the legal side of this), using xor to map a cursor onto the screen was a good idea. It makes the cursor seem opaque and on top of everything else. This sort of fits with what we think a cursor should be. So why not use it? Do we need more inovation in this area. Through resarch and innovation how likely are we to come up with something as easy to implement as fast and as close to the intuitive concept of a cursor. Now for something as complecated as a gui there should be some new innovaton. However as the innovation continues, people that currently are using gui's like finder begin to adopt whatever they are using as their intuitive understanding of what a gui should be. So programmers try to implement the current perception of what a gui should look like and it comes out looking like finder. I don't see any problem with this. What I think we are seeing is the fact that computer science has matured to the point where some things can solidify, however there are some things that don't have the refinement nessesary to solidify. I think that this is normal in any field. The constant ports of unix to other machines is just proof that unix provides what some users think should be provided by an operating system but it keeps being revised and updated as this perception changes so it is undergoing a form of innovation. It is not yet ready to solidify. Mac os and VMS are just other perceptions of what an operating system should do. As time goes by some new opperating systems will spring up and others will die. The same will happen with applications and every other kind of software. Is there any problem with this. In conclusion I think that it is wrong to say that there is no new software development. It may not be as pronounced as when computers were first new but it still is there. People have found out some of the things that computers can do -- spreadsheets word processing etc... and as the hardware develops there will be a constant need to make the new hardware capable of doing the same things as the old. I see nothing wrong with this. It is just another form of evolution. -ben
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) (06/27/90)
In article <=Y943A7@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: |> In article <62864@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: |> > Have people noticed that certain new window systems look almost exactly |> > like the Macintosh? |> |> Since the Macintosh looks almost exactly like the Xerox Star, a machine |> that predates it by at least two years, what's your point? To be more exact, two of the principal designers of the Apple Lisa were interviewed by Byte magazine in 1983. In the interview, they describe their visit to Xerox PARC and how impressed they were by the user interfaces they saw there (I don't remember if they saw a Star or one of its predecessors). They say they went back to Apple and changed the user interface dramatically, adding icons, among other things. They had no reluctance to "admit" this because at the time, the notion that user interfaces were protected intellectual property did not exist. This perversion was invented later, fortunately; otherwise, only one major automaker would be allowed to use a foot pedal to control the amount of gasoline fed to the car engine, and Bruce Karsh would defend this notion, asking why auto manufacturers keep reinventing the same tired old design. There is no question about it: the Mac interface comes from the Lisa; the Lisa interface was inspired by the Xerox Star. It's on the record, from the designers' own mouths. This conversation seems no longer appropriate for comp.arch; possibly misc.legal or gnu.misc.discuss should be considered. -- Joe Buck jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!ohm.berkeley.edu!jbuck
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/28/90)
In article <62960@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > That hasn't stopped the car market, has it. We shouldn't be making Model-T's > when we can be making modern systems. In case you haven't noticed, the car market is incredibly standardised. Your position seems to be that Ford and GM shouldn't have the steering wheel on the same side, and Chrysler should put the driver in the back seat. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) (06/28/90)
In article <37297@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes: >They say they went back to Apple and changed the user interface >dramatically, adding icons, among other things. They had no reluctance >to "admit" this because at the time, the notion that user interfaces >were protected intellectual property did not exist. Hence, the Apple Lisa. Then they went back and made it better. The result was the Macintosh. >This perversion was >invented later, fortunately; otherwise, only one major automaker would >be allowed to use a foot pedal to control the amount of gasoline fed to >the car engine, and Bruce Karsh would defend this notion, asking why >auto manufacturers keep reinventing the same tired old design. 1) Are you saying that the accelerator pedal is perfect and can not be improved? If you look at some accelerator pedals, you'll find that they are not all identical. 2) You are allowed to create any kind of accelerator pedal you want so long as it does not contain any patented invention. You can usually license the patented technology if you need it badly enough. 3) The claim that only one major automaker would be allowed to use a foot pedal is completely false. The foot pedal is now in the public domain. >There is no question about it: the Mac interface comes from the Lisa; >the Lisa interface was inspired by the Xerox Star. It's on the record, >from the designers' own mouths. The Lisa was a flop. Apple has buried the remaining few unsold ones in a lanfill. The Macintosh incorportated new UI technology which enabled it to be successful. If Apple didn't have intellectual property protection on the Macintosh, I think they'd probably be out of business today. Bruce Karsh karsh@sgi.com
terry@sunquest.UUCP (Terry Friedrichsen) (06/28/90)
karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > [ ... ] > If you invent something new, you have a right to do what you see fit > with the invention and you have a right to ask others to pay to be > allowed to copy it. You even have a right to prevent other people from > copying your invention. I don't read any of the discussion here as objecting to this point. The problem is the folks that take advantage of the (comparative) ignorance of the lawyers and patent examiners to patent things that everybody already knows about. Two points here: 1) The several patent attorneys I have talked to all believe that an electrical engineer is qualified to examine software patents. I don't doubt that some of them are, but to a lawyer, electrical engineer == computer expert == software wizard. 2) You can patent almost anything, old or new. Just try it; write up a description of some clever piece of software which embodies a process which is well-known to the industry. Then give it to a patent lawyer to cast into the appropriate "legal description". After that, even YOU won't recognize what in blazes is being described. The patent examiner doesn't have a chance. > [ ... ] > Since patents require full disclosure of the invention, the invention > becomes "obvious" after it has been disclosed. That is one of the > primary purposes of a patent. So it doesn't do much good to argue that > a patented invention is obvious. If you want to invalidate a patent, > you have to find prior art. Picking a nit here: you do not "have" to find prior art. You cannot patent things that are "obvious to an ordinary practitioner of the art". But if you think that is a phrase DESIGNED to start arguments, you're right. Who's ordinary, and what's obvious? > [ ... ] > Could we please "put up or shut up" about their obviousness? If several other folks were using the techniques YEARS ago, it sounds like it was probably an obvious idea. That, unfortunately, is up to (expensive) litigation to decide. > [ ... ] > Therefore, instead of complaining about patents, I'd encourage software > engineers to go out and invent new things and patent them. It'll be > good for you (or your company), and it'll be good for the field. Inventing new things and patenting them is great, as long as the patent embodies the legal qualities of novelty, utility, and unobviousness. The problem is that there are a lot of "bad apple" patents out there, especially in the software field. > Have people noticed that certain new window systems look almost exactly > like the Macintosh? They don't look that much like NeWS or like UWM. > They look like the Macintosh. If I were one of the designer's of the > Macintosh UI, I'd be upset about having my design stolen. Why didn't > software designers create a new look instead of rote-copying someone > else's? (It sounds like the folks who wrote NeWS and UWM did just that, by your own admission). Not such a good example. The Mac folks stole the ideas from Xerox PARC. What's worse, an old Byte Magazine article quotes some Apple folks as admitting they got lots of ideas from PARC. That's why Xerox is suing Apple these days. Additionally, after much tromping in and out of court, Apple's original 176 points of similarity between the Apple UI and the Microsoft Windows UI were reduced to just two: moveable icons and overlapping (vs. tiled) windows. Anybody wanna argue that these two things are so unobvious as to be patentable? (I'm not contending here that patents were or were not infringed; in fact, the suit was not even about patent infringement. I'm just pointing out that the Mac UI is probably not a good example of nifty keen-dog inventive patentable super-good-stuff software.) > We need new inventions in software architecture. Let's stop copying the > old inventions and start creating new ones. > > Bruce Karsh > karsh@sgi.com I might add "let's stop patenting old inventions and start creating new ones", too. Bruce is right on about the spirit and intent of patent law. It's just that the abuses really get my goat. Terry R. Friedrichsen TERRY@SUNQUEST.COM uunet!sunquest!terry TERRY@SDSC.EDU (alternate address; I live and work in Tucson)
ian@sibyl.eleceng.ua.OZ (Ian Dall) (06/28/90)
In article <62864@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: }There seems to be two related threads going on in this newsgroup. One }thread "XOR Cursors" consists largely of patent bashing. Posters are }upset about certain patents which they think are for "obvious" }software. } }Another thread (Speed Kills) bemoans the fact that there is very little }new innovation in software architecture. The thrust of this thread is }that software engineers spend their time re-creating the same things }over and over again and therefore little new innovation is occurring. } }These two concepts seem highly related to me.... }The benefits to society are: } } o There is an economic incentive to invent. This causes there } to be more inventions. } } o There is an economic disincentive to repeatedly re-implement the } same thing. Hence inventors are constantly forced to find new } intellectual areas to invent in. } } o Since patents require full disclosure of the invention, new ideas } need not be kept secret. Hence inventors can learn from previous } inventions and, by this, become more proficient at inventing. That is how it is supposed to work. However, I don't know that it does work that way in practice. The problem is that patents force a lot of effort to be spent doing the same thing in a slightly different way. I'm not sure that it is the concept of patents which is at fault here or the actual fine details of how it all works. I think 17 years (varies a bit from country to country) is too long. The period of patent protection was set as a compromise between Bruce's first and last points, but it originated in a time of much slower technical innovation than we have now. I think maybe 5 years together with a speeding up of the process of gaining a patent might be an improvement. }We need new inventions in software architecture. Let's stop copying the }old inventions and start creating new ones. Unfortunately, patents currently force a lot of effort to be spent working around them rather than making new inventions. -- Ian Dall life (n). A sexually transmitted disease which afflicts some people more severely than others.
alvitar@xavax.com (Phillip Harbison) (06/28/90)
In article <1990Jun26.234134.2302@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: > Every patent creates a potential for litigation, a need for > paperwork, and a bit of an impediment to progress. The patent > ought to be significant enough to make the hassle worthwhile. I think you've touched on the core of the problem. The intent of the patent law was to encourage progress, not impede it. Legislators thought that by rewarding an inventor with a temporary monopoly, the profits arising from this monopoly would encourage more invention. In those days, progress was slow and time periods like 7 or 17 years may have seemed like a short time. In modern times, an entire industry can appear, expand, flourish, decline, and fade from existence in less than 17 years. Perhaps we need to modify the patent laws to shorten the time period of exclusive use. For computer-related patents, a period of a year or two would probably be sufficient. Of course this would not effect existing patents (no ex post facto laws, doncha know :-). I believe that patents such as the XOR cursor, using address lines that bypass the MMU as DRAM row addresses, etc. impede progress in our industry. Technology has become so complicated that the patent office must either hire a larger host of engineers and programmers, or allow that a few bad claims will get past the examiners. -- Live: Phil Harbison, Xavax, P.O. Box 7413, Huntsville, AL 35807 Uucp: alvitar@xavax.com Bell: 205-883-4233, 205-880-8951
karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) (06/28/90)
In article <05A4JU1@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In case you haven't noticed, the car market is incredibly standardised. Yeah, a Volkswagen Beetle is just like a Mercedes Benz. The car market isn't very standardized at all. Perhaps you mean that the driver interface is standardized? Well let's see: o The key goes in on either the dashboard or the steering column. o The turn signal is on either the left or the right. o The steering column is on either the left or the right. (Standards apply on a per-country basis except for mail-carriers. o There are either 2 or 3 motion control pedals. o There are a variety of gear shift patterns. o The speedometers are moving needle, digital readouts, or heads-up displays. o The bright lights are either on the dashboard or on the steering column or on yet another floor pedal. o The emergency brakes are either beside the driver's seat or on yet another floor pedal. o The transmission is on the steering column or beside the driver's seat or on the dashboard. o The shift patterns come in an endless variety. o The horn button is on the center of the steering wheel, on the axis of the steering column on an additional concentric ring inside the steering wheel or on pressure sensitive pads along the inner edge of the steering wheel. o The headlights are on the dashboard to the left or the right of the steering column or on the turn signal handle. o The safety belts are on the door, on the floor, or on a mechanical motor driven gizmo which puts the shoulder belt on automatically. These are examples of the lack of standardization of the safety related components of an automobile. This has not detered drivers from switching freely between various models of autos. In the same way, computer architectures need not be standardized. Users don't need every display to be identical among their computers, they need for practically every display to be understandable. Since that's hard to do, many software designers have instead concluded that identical-ness is the panacea for the usability problem. The auto is a good example of why this is not so. Customers don't like identical-ness, they like new and improved things. If auto makers all made exactly the same interfaces, most would be put out of business by the few who did new things. If computer designers stop making new and improved interfaces, they'll be put out of business by designers who will innovate. So let's innovate. Let's give users a choice. Lets put the tired old non-inovative companies out of business. >Your position seems to be that Ford and GM shouldn't have the steering wheel >on the same side, and Chrysler should put the driver in the back seat. Ford, GM, and Chrysler all have models with the steering wheel on either side. Should all cars have identical steering wheels. Should granny's car and a low-rider's car both have the same steering wheel? Granny wont like it and neither will the low-rider. Bruce Karsh karsh@sgi.com
karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) (06/28/90)
In article <4742@sunquest.UUCP> terry@sunquest.UUCP (Terry Friedrichsen) writes: >1) The several patent attorneys I have talked to all believe that an >electrical engineer is qualified to examine software patents. I don't >doubt that some of them are, but to a lawyer, electrical engineer == >computer expert == software wizard. This is a real problem. As the volume of software patents approaches the volume of electrical and mechanical patents this will have to change. But it's no reason for concluding that software patents are a bad thing. >2) You can patent almost anything, old or new. Just try it; write up >a description of some clever piece of software which embodies a process >which is well-known to the industry. Then give it to a patent lawyer to >cast into the appropriate "legal description". After that, even YOU >won't recognize what in blazes is being described. The patent examiner >doesn't have a chance. This just isn't true. The patent examiners are not dummys. The language of a patent's claims are sometimes hard to read because they are more precise than the writing we are normally used to. >If several other folks were using the techniques YEARS ago, it sounds >like it was probably an obvious idea. That, unfortunately, is up to >(expensive) litigation to decide. You mean that they claim to have been using it years ago. Were they keeping it a secret? Patents are supposed to discourage secrecy. If its useful and they didn't publish it and they didn't make a product out of it, then how sympathetic should we be if someone gets a patent. >Inventing new things and patenting them is great, as long as the patent >embodies the legal qualities of novelty, utility, and unobviousness. >The problem is that there are a lot of "bad apple" patents out there, >especially in the software field. It's a young field and there will be some mistakes made. Since software patents were discouraged for a long time, there may also be some problems with the patent office not being completely aware of what are really inventions and what aren't. But even so, usually I think I hear a lot of sour grapes. After the patent is issued and after somebody is successful with it, people think "I could have done that". Maybe so, but if so why didn't you. >I might add "let's stop patenting old inventions and start creating new >ones", too. I agree. The computer software field is a giant opportunity for inventors. The government will now help protect our software inventions. With a good patent you can attract investors so that you can bring your invention to the world. I suspect that there are readers right now on comp.arch who will create software inventions, patent them and start companies to bring these inventions to the world. Some of these companies will set up R&D organization because a) the founders will be software inventors who are sympathetic to software R&D, and b) the patents will run out soon and they'll need to develop improved products before then. This is a great thing for the software field. Probably other readers of comp.arch wont want to do this. They may have created a software invention which they don't want to pursue. They may now be moved to publish a description of their invention to prevent someone else from patenting it. The publication of these inventions is also a great thing for the software field. >Bruce is right on about the spirit and intent of patent law. It's just >that the abuses really get my goat. As we get more precedent and experience with patents, the abuses will decrease. Other fields of intellectual endeavor have had patents for a long time and it has been good for them. If lots of good patents are filed, the bad ones will have a much harder time getting past the examiners. Bruce Karsh karsh@sgi.com
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (06/28/90)
In article <63007@sgi.sgi.com>, karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > 2) You are allowed to create any kind of accelerator pedal you want > so long as it does not contain any patented invention. You > can usually license the patented technology if you need it > badly enough. In all of this thread about XOR cursors and letters patent and such, I'm reminded of something I was told by a mechanical engineer. I knew that the early steam engines used this amazing "sun-and-planets" gear, which always struck me as though Heath-Robinson had something to do with it. Why did they use _that_ thing when they could have used a simple crank? The mechanical engineer told me that when the early steam engines were about to hit the market, an entrepreneur heard about it and *patented the crank*, so it was back to the drawing board to find a way of managing without cranks. Yes, patents like this one *do* encourage invention. Pointless, silly, invention, just to work around not the bugs but the rats. -- "private morality" is an oxymoron, like "peaceful war".
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/28/90)
In article <63007@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > If Apple didn't have intellectual property protection > on the Macintosh, I think they'd probably be out of business today. This is a straw man, Bruce. Nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be patents or copyrights or trade secret protections on software. They're arguing about a certain class of patented and/or copyrighted ideas. There are some things that are genuinely innovative (for example, the RSA algorithm or the setuid bit, or windowing in the first place), and others that are obvious to any competant practitioner in the field but... because the field is so new... seem to have gotten past the patent office. XOR for cursors, split-screen, and so on. I would suggest that you read Feynman's autobiography, in particular the part where he is awarded the patent for the nuclear rocket. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (06/28/90)
In article <63007@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: >Hence, the Apple Lisa. Then they went back and made it better. The result >was the Macintosh. . . . >The Lisa was a flop. Apple has buried the remaining few unsold ones in a >lanfill. The Macintosh incorportated new UI technology which enabled it >to be successful. If Apple didn't have intellectual property protection >on the Macintosh, I think they'd probably be out of business today. The Lisa "flopped" because of pricing problems, not interface difficulties. I can remember how great the original Lisa was. We used it for all sorts of things, and found it to be an excellent tool. When the Mac came out, I was sorely disappointed. It seemed to me that to turn the Lisa into a Mac, all you need to do is make the screen ridiculously small and remove multi-tasking. Someone here at Harris still has a Lisa, and is still using it. I can understand why. And didn't Apple resell all those old Lisas to Sun Remarketing, which turned them into Macs? Just look in the Used Computer Locator. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 729-2537 I'm glad you asked, son. Being popular is the most important thing in the world. -- Homer Simpson
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/28/90)
In article <4742@sunquest.UUCP> terry@sunquest.UUCP (Terry Friedrichsen) writes: > Additionally, after much tromping in and out of court, Apple's original > 176 points of similarity between the Apple UI and the Microsoft Windows > UI were reduced to just two: moveable icons and overlapping (vs. tiled) > windows. I'd say that both are probably patentable, but since Apple didn't invent them it's pretty damn bizzarre that Apple's suing microsoft over them. I'd say, myself, that the big similarity between Windows and the Mac (rather than between Windows, the Mac, and the Xerox Star) is the use of pull-down menus. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (06/28/90)
In article <63036@sgi.sgi.com>, karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > I suspect that there are readers right now on comp.arch who will create > software inventions, patent them and start companies to bring these inventions > to the world. I suspect so too. But I also suspect that a lot of readers of comp.arch will never be able to afford to patent their ideas or defend them. I once tried to get a *trademark* for a small business I wanted to start, and I had to give up very early into ^^^^^ the process for lack of money. Are you telling me that it is a lot cheaper to get a patent than a trademark? -- "private morality" is an oxymoron, like "peaceful war".
sysc@bsu-ucs.uucp (06/29/90)
In article <63036@sgi.sgi.com>, karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > In article <4742@sunquest.UUCP> terry@sunquest.UUCP > (Terry Friedrichsen) writes: >>2) You can patent almost anything, old or new. Just try it; write up >>a description of some clever piece of software which embodies a process >>which is well-known to the industry. Then give it to a patent lawyer to >>cast into the appropriate "legal description". After that, even YOU >>won't recognize what in blazes is being described. The patent examiner >>doesn't have a chance. > > This just isn't true. The patent examiners are not dummys. The language > of a patent's claims are sometimes hard to read because they are more precise > than the writing we are normally used to. The language of a patent's claims is not normally hard to read just because it is more _precise_ than we are used to. I imagine that lawyers are sometimes capable of writing precise language, but that is not usually what they do. Patent claims are often written not primarily for precision so much as for _generality_. A patent is often written in such a way that the language of its principal claims can cover as much as possible. It is true that the subject matter of the invention must be described with a certain amount of precision, but one of the principal jobs of patent attorneys is to make sure that the claims are not too narrow, but are broad enough to maximize profits, which has the concommitant effect of reducing precision. >>If several other folks were using the techniques YEARS ago, it sounds >>like it was probably an obvious idea. That, unfortunately, is up to >>(expensive) litigation to decide. In the US, that is unfortunately the case. Some countries have systems that can simplify this somewhat and (possibly) reduce the costs. For example, (West) Germany publishes patent materials at prior stages of the process to allow for objections before a patent is finally granted. (My recollection of the details is slightly hazy and there was a change in the system a few years ago, so I may be mixing up what happened before the change and after.) They used to publish unexamined applications (or at least applications in early stages of examination), provisional patents and final patents. If I recall correctly, they now forgo the provisional patent publication, but there is still an objection period during which anyone can object to a patent and have it called back for administrative review (as opposed to litigation). If this works out (and I admit I don't have any numbers on this at all), then their system should have the effect of essentially recruiting the people who would have the greatest stake in pointing out any prior art as research assistants to the (overworked) patent examiners. My memory is hazy on this, but if I do recall correctly, the application can be narrowed under this system without losing priority, but broadening requires a new application with consequent loss of priority. Thus, the German system seems to me to have significant advantages for everyone (except possibly the lawyers :-): the examiners get (free) help from highly motivated researchers, holders of prior art get an opportunity to point it out at a stage much earlier and MUCH less expensive than defending themselves against a patent-infringement suit, and the applicant gets a chance to narrow his/her/its claims rather than having the entire patent nullified. > You mean that they claim to have been using it years ago. Were they keeping > it a secret? Patents are supposed to discourage secrecy. If its useful > and they didn't publish it and they didn't make a product out of it, then > how sympathetic should we be if someone gets a patent. Or else the examiners overlooked some prior art (or misjudged obviousness :-). > It's a young field and there will be some mistakes made. Since software So you do agree that is possible. Now all someone has to do is convince you that it has ever actually occurred. :-) > As we get more precedent and experience with patents, the abuses will decrease. > Other fields of intellectual endeavor have had patents for a long time and > it has been good for them. If lots of good patents are filed, the bad ones > will have a much harder time getting past the examiners. As software patent examiners see more software patent applications, they should get better, but basically, a patent examiner must be an expert in the field and as long as software is a relatively young field, experts will be both a LOT better paid and a LOT more likely to be happy in actual development than as patent examiners, so we are not likely to see top people examining patents for some time. ---- Paul Neubauer sysc@bsu-ucs.uucp or SYSC@BSUVAX1.BITNET
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/29/90)
In article <63035@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > In article <05A4JU1@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In case you haven't noticed, the car market is incredibly standardised. > Yeah, a Volkswagen Beetle is just like a Mercedes Benz. Let's see, it has four wheels, a gasoline engine, a steering wheel on the same side, an ignition switch operated by a key to the right of the steering wheel, a turn signal on the side towards the door (except for the bloody french). There are two standards for gearing: manual and automatic. The manual has gears numbered from 1 up to 4 or 5, and reverse. The automatic has Park, Reverse, Drive, and one or two lower gears. And so on... When cars first came out they were genuinely chaotic. The Model T used a floor pedal to shift gears. That's where computers are right now. They're not even standardised enough to use the same "gasoline". > >Your position seems to be that Ford and GM shouldn't have the steering wheel > >on the same side, and Chrysler should put the driver in the back seat. > Ford, GM, and Chrysler all have models with the steering wheel on either > side. Should all cars have identical steering wheels. Should granny's car > and a low-rider's car both have the same steering wheel? Granny wont like > it and neither will the low-rider. They all have steering wheels, all on the same side in any given country. They're never in the back seat, in the middle. And you never drive with a knob, joystick, or yoke. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/29/90)
In article <63036@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > It's a young field and there will be some mistakes made. Since software > patents were discouraged for a long time, there may also be some problems > with the patent office not being completely aware of what are really > inventions and what aren't. Amazing, Bruce. this is what everyone else has been telling you all along. The discussion isn't about patents. It's about bad patents. > But even so, usually I think I hear a lot of sour grapes. After the patent > is issued and after somebody is successful with it, people think "I could > have done that". Maybe so, but if so why didn't you. I don't know about anyone else, but I independently came up with the use of XOR for rubber band lines when hacking around on an Apple II in the late '70s. I'm sure that the same basic problem has been *independently* solved the same basic way thousands of times. It really *is* an obvious solution. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
pegram@uvm-gen.UUCP (pegram r) (06/30/90)
From article <63035@sgi.sgi.com>, by karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh): > In article <05A4JU1@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In case you haven't noticed, the car market is incredibly standardised. > Yeah, a Volkswagen Beetle is just like a Mercedes Benz. > The car market isn't very standardized at all. Perhaps you mean that the > driver interface is standardized? Well let's see: Oh brother! Yes it is - especially compared to what it was at the turn of the century - and the exceptions only go to prove the point. Going down your list... > o The key goes in on either the dashboard or the steering column. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Usually to the right of the steering column. The one major exception being Saabs (at least up through the 900) where the key goes in by the gearshift and the car must be in reverse for it to start - like the new automatic park interlocks only funkier. There has been at least one documented failure of a theft of a 900 due to the ignorance of the theives. > o The turn signal is on either the left or the right. > o The steering column is on either the left or the right. (Standards > apply on a per-country basis except for mail-carriers. > o There are either 2 or 3 motion control pedals. No comment on the first two points, they are correct - and turn signals can be self cancelling and non self cancelling (older Citroens). The motion control pedals *are* standardized. The long vertical on the left is the accellerator, the one just right of it is the brake, and the third pedal over is the clutch, if one is needed. You do know when you are driving an automatic don't you? The first two pedals operate in the same manner, push on them to get the action desired, and push harder to increase the amount of action. This was not always the case. The first popular mass produced car (covering my a** here 8-), the Ford Model T, had three pedals on the floor, but none of them operated as described above. There was no floor mounted accellerator, it was a hand unit, behind the steering wheel and opposite a control for the spark advance. On the floor were the brake, and two pedals that governed the transmission. I don't remember exactly what they did (I've never even *seen* a fliver close up), but one changed you from high to low gear (by depressing it, I believe) and the other changed the direction of motion (i.e. put you into reverse, again when depressed) I haven't got this description complete or correct, but it is enough to show how different things can be and were. Another example of offbeat foot controls was on an old racing car (german?), I think, which had the accellerator in a logical place, in between the clutch and the brake. > o There are a variety of gear shift patterns. Automatics have made PRNDL a household word, overdrive and lockup transmissions just add to that standard. The variations in how the automatic selector operates are usually fairly clear - Chrysler even used push buttons! Stick shifts usually vary in the placement of reverse, only occaisionally is first moved out of the H and fifth moved in. > o The speedometers are moving needle, digital readouts, or heads-up > displays. > o The bright lights are either on the dashboard or on the steering > column or on yet another floor pedal. > o The emergency brakes are either beside the driver's seat or on yet > another floor pedal. > o The transmission is on the steering column or beside the driver's seat > or on the dashboard. All true. > o The shift patterns come in an endless variety. You said that already, and it's not particularly true. > o The horn button is on the center of the steering wheel, on the axis > of the steering column on an additional concentric ring inside the > steering wheel or on pressure sensitive pads along the inner edge of > the steering wheel. > o The headlights are on the dashboard to the left or the right of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I hope not - one sure way to a medical problem - you're blind or you crash a lot at night. 8-) 8-) The switch for them is there though, sure enough. > steering column or on the turn signal handle. > o The safety belts are on the door, on the floor, or on a mechanical > motor driven gizmo which puts the shoulder belt on automatically. > These are examples of the lack of standardization of the safety related > components of an automobile. This has not detered drivers from switching > freely between various models of autos. The point is that there is a *limit* on the variability between cars, a generally tolerable one, caused by Adam Smith's invisible hand ((I *had* to say that 8-), read "economic forces of the market place"). IMHO we are at or *just* past the Model T stage. The differences between a Mac, a Xerox Star, Gem, Windows (or it's look alikes) and Amiga's intuition are tolerable and relatively easy to bridge, the difference between them and even the pop up menus on a Sun with Xwindow is too much to be easily bridged. The interface may or may not be optimal - accelerator, brake and clutch placement and action are not. The interface may not be very easy to understand the first time either, but the learning curve should be reasonably short and only have to be done once! The interface should also allow you to do what you need to do with reasonable efficiency once you have mastered it. Does anyone want to steer with a tiller these days? I wager that few will want to deal much with command lines in future either - and only then for the power that command lines offer for certain operations. If you have a *much* better idea for a user interface, you better come out with it _NOW_ or forever hold your peace - except perhaps on the net 8-). Most likely the changes to our current graphical interfaces will be evolutionary, such as making each window have its own menu bar or adding tear-off menus (both things currently out there, but not on Macs for example). > In the same way, computer architectures need not be standardized. Users > don't need every display to be identical among their computers, they need > for practically every display to be understandable. True enough, but who arbitrates on "understandableness"? Customers do, and they are likely to go with what they understand already. It's not just the designers (see below ) who like identical solutions for the basic operations. How many of us like to change text editors for example, hmm? > Since that's hard to do, many software designers have instead concluded that > identical-ness is the panacea for the usability problem. The auto is a > good example of why this is not so. Customers don't like identical-ness, they > like new and improved things. If auto makers all made exactly the same ^^^^^^^^^ exactly my point, *evolutionary* change does work. > interfaces, most would be put out of business by the few who did new things. > If computer designers stop making new and improved interfaces, they'll be > put out of business by designers who will innovate. > > So let's innovate. Let's give users a choice. Lets put the tired old > non-inovative companies out of business. > >>Your position seems to be that Ford and GM shouldn't have the steering wheel >>on the same side, and Chrysler should put the driver in the back seat. > > Ford, GM, and Chrysler all have models with the steering wheel on either > side. Should all cars have identical steering wheels. Should granny's car > and a low-rider's car both have the same steering wheel? Granny wont like > it and neither will the low-rider. > Bruce Karsh > karsh@sgi.com Bob Pegram (Internet: pegram@griffin.uvm.edu)
dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (06/30/90)
In article <PLB4MS9@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <63036@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > >The discussion isn't about patents. It's about bad patents. Strictly true. However, many posters seem to consider all patents which place limits on them bad. >> But even so, usually I think I hear a lot of sour grapes. After the patent >> is issued and after somebody is successful with it, people think "I could >> have done that". Maybe so, but if so why didn't you. > >I don't know about anyone else, but I independently came up with the use of >XOR for rubber band lines when hacking around on an Apple II in the late >'70s. I'm sure that the same basic problem has been *independently* solved >the same basic way thousands of times. It really *is* an obvious solution. Personally, I have been employed as a computer professional, albeit not a graphics specialist, since around the time of the patent. When I first saw the XOR hack demonstrated around 1979, my reaction was "Gee. Does that really work? Let me work it out on paper. Yep, sure does!". It was not at first obvious to this practitioner of the art at that time. I think there may be something special here: once people had bit-mapped screens, the XOR hack wasn't too hard to think up. (Although I believe *anything* involved with XOR is a little magic. :-)) However, before bit-mapped screens were widespread, it wasn't obvious at all. Note: in patent law, unlike copyright law, independent invention gives no relief. There are many cases in history of many people coming up with the same idea at the same time. I believe that the telephone is one instance--another person tried to file a few days after Bell. Indeed, the telephone is a good example of the good and bad of patent protection. The telephone patent was in effect over a period from around 1888 to around 1905 (I could be off by a few years). During that time the telephone went from being a laboratory kludge to a useful tool for many people. Also, A. G. Bell sold out fairly early during that period, and went on to make significant contributions to aviation and hydrofoil propulsion at sea. All of this was made possible by the patent. When the patent expired, a number of other firms got into the telephone business, and made significant innovations. Telephone usage did not really become widespread until this time. In this way, the patent hurt the development of the telephone. There are other lessons from the telephone: Strowger had the patent on the step-by-step exchange (which is the "obvious" way to do the job). This led AT&T to develop the panel exchange, which was a central-control exchange. Although the panel exchange was a mechanical nightmare, the central-control idea is now fundamental to modern telephony. Getting back to computer architecture, I agree with several other posters: the problem isn't with patents, it's with how long they run. Seventeen years is longer than the life of many ideas these days. (The attached- terminal minicomputer, for example.) I think something on the order of seven to ten years would be more appropriate. -- Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (07/01/90)
In article <SOA4-T5@ficc.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: There are some things that are genuinely innovative (for example, the RSA algorithm or the setuid bit, or windowing in the first place), and others that are obvious to any competant practitioner in the field but... Just a moment, here. The setuid bit an *invention*? Hey, this is ridiculous. It is just a scaled down version of Multics rings. Now that I am at it, another moment: RSA is not software; it is *mathematics*. There is no disagreement whatsoever that mathematics is never invention, is always discovery, and cannot be patented. They had to try to fool the patent office with a patent claim describing an encryption device based on RSA (and the claim has been thrown out in other countries as ridiculous) because mathematics cannot be patented. There are good reasons for which mathematics and algorithms cannot be patented. I think that nearly all software not used in an industrial process could easily be labeled as mathematics or algorithms. B-Trees, whatever. Incidentally, I believe that most protection for investment in developing software should be trade mark and industrial design protection, if any. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (07/02/90)
In article <13096@drilex.UUCP> dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) writes: | Getting back to computer architecture, I agree with several other posters: | the problem isn't with patents, it's with how long they run. Seventeen | years is longer than the life of many ideas these days. (The attached- | terminal minicomputer, for example.) I think something on the order | of seven to ten years would be more appropriate. Probably true, but because it may take years for something to get into production, a long time is needed. What might be more to the point would be either to expire the patent after a certain time before and after use of it. For instance, you could have up to ten years to get a patent into commercial use, then it goes away. If you get it in use you only get a five-year monopoly. Forcing license after a given time at a limited royaltee is also a possibility. If a patent doesn't pay off people will go back to trade secret, and that's another can of worms. For human interface I would favor letting anyone patent one for four (or about that) years, first claim gets it. This would eliminate the court cases regarding first development. Since most interface ideas spring forth full blown (and then get implemented) there is not the need for a demonstrated working model. After all, once you say "let's put the menu bar on the keyboard and pop the menus up on a 2nd screen on the mouse" you've got the idea and can get a patent. Again a period of protection before and after commercial use seems fair. This forces prompt development and deployment of the idea, and releases it if the original inventor can't make it work. For most human interfaces the reasonable development period is a lot shorter than the development of a mechanical product, and therefore some other rules might be better for the public and even the inventors. With an easier path to a patent, people could get a patent and then have a few years to find a producer. The vendors could get the idea for free after three years, but then everyone would have it. This would remove some of the profit from patenting marginally useful ideas, while the benefits of having a three or four year exclusive on an interface would prevent vendors from just ignoring the significant inventions. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
pegram@uvm-gen.UUCP (pegram r) (07/02/90)
I wrote: > The motion control pedals *are* standardized. The long vertical on > the left is the accellerator, the one just right of it is the brake, ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ Oops, blush! Meant *right*, *accelerator* and *left* respectively. Can't spell and had an attack of dislexia I guess. Sorry, 8-). That's what you do when you post when irritated. Bob Pegram (Internet: pegram@griffin.uvm.edu)
cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) (07/04/90)
In article <PCG.90Jun30223813@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >Now that I am at it, another moment: RSA is not software; it is >*mathematics*. There is no disagreement whatsoever that mathematics is >never invention, is always discovery, and cannot be patented. They had >to try to fool the patent office with a patent claim describing an >encryption device based on RSA (and the claim has been thrown out in >other countries as ridiculous) because mathematics cannot be patented. > >There are good reasons for which mathematics and algorithms cannot be >patented. I think that nearly all software not used in an industrial >process could easily be labeled as mathematics or algorithms. B-Trees, >whatever. > On the contrary, algorithms have been patented in the past. There is the notorious case of Goetz's read-forward oscillating sort, U.S. Patent 3380029 (April 23, 1968), for example. (Notorious because it is mentioned in Knuth ACP volume 3, if for no other reason.) Of course, the question as to whether mathematics is discovered or invented, as a separate issue from patentability, has been a disputed question for a long time. "Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott geschaffen, alles andere ist Menschenwerk" (Leopold Kronecker) is the obligatory quotation here. Chris Thompson JANET: cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx Internet: cet1%phx.cam.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/04/90)
In article <PCG.90Jun30223813@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > Just a moment, here. The setuid bit an *invention*? Hey, this is > ridiculous. It is just a scaled down version of Multics rings. It is a nonobvious idea, and was one of the first software patents issued. > Now that I am at it, another moment: RSA is not software; it is > *mathematics*. What is patentable is the application of that mathematics to encryption. > There is no disagreement whatsoever that mathematics is > never invention, is always discovery, and cannot be patented. And the RSA algorithm is not patented, just the application to encryption. > They had > to try to fool the patent office with a patent claim describing an > encryption device based on RSA (and the claim has been thrown out in > other countries as ridiculous) because mathematics cannot be patented. This just illustrates another problem with the patent laws, and how they're not up to dealing with software. So? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (07/04/90)
In article <21F4V63@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > They had > to try to fool the patent office with a patent claim describing an > encryption device based on RSA (and the claim has been thrown out in > other countries as ridiculous) because mathematics cannot be patented. This just illustrates another problem with the patent laws, and how they're not up to dealing with software. So? But RSA is an algorithm. Algorithms are mathematics. They had to patent a device because algorithms cannot be patented, hoping that no device could be built for RSA which was different in design from their own. I do not see the problem with patent laws; RSA were trying to really patent an algorithm, not the use of the algorithm as a program. Just a moment here: what you mean by "software" when you say it has been patented: 1) a specific implementation, e.g. a program 2) the design of an implementation 3) the algorithms used in that implementation My understanding is that 3) cannot be patented, because it is maths. 1) can be copyrighted, not patented. This leaves 2), but then either it essentially coincides with 1) or 3); maybe it makes sense to grant a patent on the design of a specific program, but what on the design of a class of programs? Or do you want to make program writing techniques to be patentable? It is very easy to build unbelievable examples for software patents: * For example: Hoare invents quicksort, so AT&T have to get a license to implement it as qsort(3)? * Or even more fuzzy: Church invents lambda calculus, so McCarthy has to pay royalties every time lisp 1.5 was run? * Maybe more reasonably: Boyer and Morris of Manchester invent compiler compilers, so every time you want to write a parser generator you speak to their lawyers? * Or again: Baker of MIT invents incremental copying collectors, so when Hewitt derives from it generational collection he is infringing on Baker's patent? * Stretching it a bit to methodologies: Dijkstra invents the use of weakest preconditions to write programs, and every time you use one to design your program, you owe him royalties? The problem is that patents are there to protect how a specific gadget is built, not mathematics, algorithms or concepts; you can patent transistors, and even then the more specific your transistor type the stronger your patent, but not the use of semiconductors in electronics. I know that there are patents that claim ownership of concepts, but they usually get thrown out by the courts. There are good pragmatical reasons to avoid patenting mathematics and anything that is akin to mathematics (ideas in general), and they apply to many so called "software" patent matters. Hey, there has been a lot of progress in software without patents; we are now confronted with the idea that somebody want to patent, under the guise of software, *architectures*. Is this reasonable? Is it necessary given currently available protection, as copyright for programs, patent for industrial *applications*, and trademark for look and feel? -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/05/90)
In article <PCG.90Jul4155048@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > Just a moment here: what you mean by "software" when you say it has been > patented: > 3) the algorithms used in that implementation > My understanding is that 3) cannot be patented, because it is maths. Like I said, there's a problem with patent laws when it comes to software. It's gonna take a long time to work the kinks out. In the meantime abuses like the XOR cursor are going to run rampant. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (07/08/90)
In article <PCG.90Jun30223813@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >Just a moment, here. The setuid bit an *invention*? Hey, this is >ridiculous. It is just a scaled down version of Multics rings. While setuid can be used to solve some of the same problems as rings, they are very different mechanisms. Rings are very limited, due to their concentric nature, and only privileged users can create inner-ring procedures. Setuid is less limited, supporting an arbitrary number of non-intersecting domains, and anyone may create programs that are setuid to themselves. Setuid isn't a perfect mechanism, and there are some ways in which rings beat it. For instance, setuid can usually only be invoked by spawning new processes (except that the superuser can use the setuid() system call), while rings can be crossed within a process. And true domains have them both beat. But setuid is a simple, clever way to allow users to create personal domains. It certainly deserves to be called an invention. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
gordoni@chook.ua.oz.au (Gordon Irlam) (07/10/90)
Any discussion of how patents will benefit the computer industry
overlooks one "minor" point. Historically, patents have been a
hinderance to most branches of human endevour.
I reproduce below a table and the conclusions of an enquiry into the
effects of patents in Australia. The report contains a wealth of
information on patents and their effects, that is not reproduced here.
There is no reason to believe that the situation in Australia is in
any way different to that of the rest of the world.
It was found that most engineers have no involvement with the patent
system, and as such do not make use of patents as a source of
technical information. Some engineers do however have an involvement
with the patent system. The following table shows the relative
importance of patents as a source of technical information as ranked
by these engineers.
Main Sources of Technological Information
for Engineers Involved with the Patent System
Source Percent
Technical and trade journals 38.0
Informal contact with
other organizations 13.8
Conferences and seminars 12.8
Informal contact within
your organization 10.0
Visits outside Australia 7.8
Newspapers and magazines 6.2
Government departments 3.5
Courses in edu. institutions 2.7
Computer data bases 2.0
Internal training courses 1.7
Patents specifications 1.0
TV and radio 0.5
First ranked source given a weighting of 3, second
ranked source a weighting of 2, third ranked source
a weighting of 1.
"Economic Effects of the Australian Patent System: A Commissioned
Report to the Industrial Property Advisory Committee"
Industrial Property Advisory Committee
Attorney General's Department, Canberra 1982
Overall Effects, Conclusions, and Policy Implications
-----------------------------------------------------
The patent system involves an interaction between law and economics.
However the key issues, as Lahore has pointed out, are economic and
policy related; not legal. The law provides the mechanism but the
tendency in the past for almost exclusive emphasis on the legal
aspects of the patent system has put "the cart before the horse".
Before the mechanism is invoked, the ways in which the patent system
serves economic policy need to be investigated. Indeed, are the
patent system's economic effects of net benefit to the nation? This
study has investigated the many facets of the issue. Throughout this
Report, an enormous amount and variety of information has been
presented - facts, figures, the findings of others, and arguments
built on this evidence as well as on theory. What conclusions can be
drawn?
Overall, this study suggests that the economic benefits of the patent
system to the innovative process in Australia are not only small, but
extremely subtle. They can be summarised as follows.
The patent incentive is not an important determinant of measured
domestic IR&D activity, but has some importance for the small
inventor.
Patents apparently play a subtle role in connection with
investment expectations and the transfer of technology to
Australia.
Patent information is a relatively unimportant source of R&D /
technological information for domestic industry, small investors,
and professional engineers. However, it is regarded as having
some importance by large overseas-based multinational firms.
Patent statistics have a role in connection with science and
technology policy.
The majority of patents held by domestic firms are said to produce
a return but the absence of a patent system would be unlikely to
affect production significantly.
Social costs or negative economic effects attributed to the patent
system appear more apparent, but as with benefits, cannot be measured
precisely. They are summarised below.
Direct and compliance costs of the patent system are high. In
many respects it is a "make-work" institution that acts as a
deadweight to the innovative process by distracting resources from
more useful activities.
Restrictive practices in patent licensing often occur. Their main
impact is likely to be a dampening of the already small domestic
industrial R&D effort.
Patent monopolies imply higher prices for consumers and industry
as well as distortions in the allocation of resources. In terms
of the kinds of negative effects as well as the characteristics of
the protagonists in the respective debates, there are many
parallels between patents and tariffs.
Both patents and inventions have a very small role to play in the
innovative process. Yet the mystique of that venerable old
institution, the patent system, can distract attention from more
important phases of the innovative process such as development and
marketing.
Use of patent information by domestic industry, professional
engineers, and the government and higher education sectors is
mainly patent system oriented - for patenting and checking on
infringement.
While ultimately a matter of judgement, this study leaves little room
for doubt that the benefit/cost ratio of the patent system in
Australia is negative, or at the very best, in balance. However, this
conclusion does not necessarily imply an economic justification for
abolishing the patent system. The costs and benefits of an
institution need to be distinguished from the costs and benefits of
abolishing that institution. In the perspective of the national
economy, the economic effects - both costs and benefits - of the
patent system in Australia are quite modest. However, the costs of
the unilateral abolition of the patent system to Australia's
international commercial relations could possibly be much larger; the
Swiss experience outlined in the historical section of Chapter 2 is
pertinent.
Since the benefits of the patent system are so tenuous and subtle and
the overall benefit/cost ratio is considered to be negative, there is
no economic justification for extending patent monopolies by
lengthening the term, or by widening the grounds for either
infringement, or patentability (for example, Plant VAriety Rights or
computer programs). However, in the light of our findings, there is
considerable economic justification for policy action to reduce the
negative effects of the patent system by stricter examination, by
reducing the length of term and the scope of patent monopolies, and by
action to deal with undesirable restrictive practices in patent
licensing.
An historical awareness of the political economy of patent reform
suggests that this task is not easy at the domestic policy level.
This is basically because those who perceive they would lose by such
reform are concentrated, powerful and active defenders of their
interests. In contrast, those who would gain by patent reform are
diffuse and hardly aware of their interest in the matter. Again a
pertinent parallel could be drawn with the tariff issue. Furthermore,
since the patent system's costs and benefits cannot be measured
precisely, "the optimum limits of the patent system, whether with
respect to time, space, patentability or restrictions on the use of
the grant must always remain a subject of controversy. There is no
doubt, however, that the costs have been underestimated". For these
reasons, as well as the patent system's intrinsic international
nature, patent reform is best pursued in international forums - such
as the conferences for the revision of the Paris Convention. This
need not preclude unilateral action by Australia whenever such action
is deemed practically appropriate or feasible. There is now ample
economic justification for measures which might be taken to reduce the
costs of the patent system in Australia.
Gordon Irlam
Adelaide, Australia
(gordoni@cs.ua.oz.au)peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/10/90)
In article <1136@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> gordoni@chook.ua.oz.au (Gordon Irlam) writes: > Main Sources of Technological Information > for Engineers Involved with the Patent System > Source Percent > Technical and trade journals 38.0 How much of the stuff in those technical and trade journals would be published in detail if they didn't have patent protection? (grabs a magazine at random: NASA Tech Briefs) Just about every article is followed by something like: This invention is owned by NASA, and a patent application has been filed. Inquiries concerning nonexclusive or exclusive license for its commercial development should be addressed to the Patent Counsel, Johnson Space Center [see page 16]. Refer to MSC-21408. The current Australian government is pretty hostile to free enterprise. It is not surprising that they did such a shallow study they missed obvious connections like this. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (07/13/90)
In article <1990Jul3.173620.7929@cl.cam.ac.uk> cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) writes: >Of course, the question as to whether mathematics is discovered or invented, >as a separate issue from patentability, has been a disputed question for a >long time. "Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott geschaffen, alles andere ist >Menschenwerk" (Leopold Kronecker) is the obligatory quotation here. How about: 'Den Ganzen Zahlen hat der lieber Gott gemacht; alles Uebriges ist Menschenkunst.'
jas@llama.Ingres.COM (Jim Shankland) (07/15/90)
In article <7860@fy.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >In article <1990Jul3.173620.7929@cl.cam.ac.uk> cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) writes: >>Of course, the question as to whether mathematics is discovered or invented, >>as a separate issue from patentability, has been a disputed question for a >>long time. "Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott geschaffen, alles andere ist >>Menschenwerk" (Leopold Kronecker) is the obligatory quotation here. > >How about: 'Den Ganzen Zahlen hat der lieber Gott gemacht; > alles Uebriges ist Menschenkunst.' I doubt it very much. Kronecker, as a native German speaker, would have said "Die ganzen Zahlen ...". jas
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (07/24/90)
In article <40193@think.Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: In article <PCG.90Jun30223813@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >Just a moment, here. The setuid bit an *invention*? Hey, this is >ridiculous. It is just a scaled down version of Multics rings. [ ... rings are hierarchical, setuid not ... ] Setuid isn't a perfect mechanism, and there are some ways in which rings beat it. For instance, setuid can usually only be invoked by spawning new processes (except that the superuser can use the setuid() system call), while rings can be crossed within a process. And true domains have them both beat. But setuid is a simple, clever way to allow users to create personal domains. It certainly deserves to be called an invention. Ahh. But here, please, tell us what is the invention: * The idea of having multiple domains and protected procedures? They were already old in the early sixties. * The domain crossing? Surely rings and capability systems have it. * The fact that it is a software and not an hardware mechanism? But the Multics rings were initially implemented in software and then what about the PDP-1 inter domain call? * None of the above? What then? I have selected the setuid bit because it is such an obvious illustration of the problems with patenting software. What do you want to patent with software? The implementation, the specification, the interface, the general idea, the algorithm embodied, what? The setuid bit is a clever application of the idea of priviledged gates at the between processes level instead of the within processes one, for a non capability machine. Is it an invention? Where is the novelty? Which *is* the invention? Do we give patents on all mechanisms that allow calling protected trusted code between processes? Only if implemented under Unix? Only on the specific inode structure and few lines in the implementation of exec(2) that implement setuid executables and their activation? The software patent issue is a can of worms. It is very easy to close both eyes before the many difficulties of the concept. Traditional patents were about designs of gadgets, and the idea has been stretched and used questionably over and over again in more conventional fields, software offers a whole lot of new opportunities. There is a big, big risk of altering the careful balance between encouraging the publication of inventions and widespread adoption of technological advances that has served the western world tolerably well so far. As to the latter point, consider the monstrosity of allowing copyright registration of works of which only the first and last 25 pages are deposited for inspection. A remark: note that patents do not encourage *inventions*; an inventor can always resort to the more complicated trade secret route if he/she wants to keep the invention proprietary (e.g. AT&T with the better-than-simplex method). Patents encourage *publication*, in exchange for the otherwise unavailable protection against independent or subsequent reinvention. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
aglew@oberon.crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew) (07/24/90)
>Ahh. But here, please, tell us what is the invention: > >* The idea of having multiple domains and protected procedures? They >were already old in the early sixties. > >* The domain crossing? Surely rings and capability systems have it. The idea of letting each user be in a domain all to himself, with these domains non-hierarchically arranged. -- Andy Glew, andy-glew@uiuc.edu Propaganda: UIUC runs the "ph" nameserver in conjunction with email. You can reach me at many reasonable combinations of my name and nicknames, including: andrew-forsyth-glew@uiuc.edu andy-glew@uiuc.edu sticky-glue@uiuc.edu and a few others. "ph" is a very nice thing which more USEnet sites should use. There is an info-ph mailing list, or, contact Steve-Dorner@uiuc.edu.
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (07/24/90)
Regarding the patent on the setuid bit: In article <PCG.90Jul23181123@thor.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >Ahh. But here, please, tell us what is the invention: >* The idea of having multiple domains and protected procedures? They >were already old in the early sixties. No, you can't patent ideas. You can patent processes and mechanisms, i.e. ways to implement ideas. In the physical world, you can't patent the idea of child-proof medicine bottles, but you can patent the design for a particular way of child-proofing a bottle. >* The domain crossing? Surely rings and capability systems have it. Again, that's just a general idea. >* The fact that it is a software and not an hardware mechanism? But the >Multics rings were initially implemented in software and then what about >the PDP-1 inter domain call? Software rings were a kludge, and were not very secure. >* None of the above? What then? None of the above. What was patented was presumably the particular use of an owner-settable flag (the setuid bit) in combination with the automatically-set owner field of the file to permit users to implement gates into their personal domains. Compare this with Multics rings. With rings, there are no personal domains, only a fixed number of concentric, system-defined domains. Because the domains that rings define are so large, only privileged users may create publicly-accessible gates. Ordinary users may not set the gate flag on a file accessible to anyone outside their project. Inner-ring procedures automatically have access to the calling ring's data, while setuid processes have no special access to the calling process except the arguments passed in the exec() call. >I have selected the setuid bit because it is such an obvious >illustration of the problems with patenting software. >What do you want to patent with software? The implementation, the >specification, the interface, the general idea, the algorithm embodied, >what? As with hardware patent, you patent the design of a mechanism that implements a specific process. You can't patent the RSA algorithm nor the idea of public-key encryption, but you can patent a way to use RSA to implement public-key encryption. Meanwhile, someone else might patent the use of Diffie-Hellman for public-key encryption, and someone else could patent the use of RSA for digital signatures. >The setuid bit is a clever application of the idea of priviledged gates >at the between processes level instead of the within processes one, for >a non capability machine. Is it an invention? Where is the novelty? It's not an *application* of the idea, it's the design of a specific *implementation* of the idea. The novelty was in that particular implementation. >Which *is* the invention? Was there a previous implementation, or published design, of a mechanism for programmers to write programs that automatically granted the user the programmer's system access? >Do we give patents on all mechanisms that allow calling protected >trusted code between processes? Only if implemented under Unix? Only on >the specific inode structure and few lines in the implementation of >exec(2) that implement setuid executables and their activation? I have no idea to what level of detail the setuid patent goes. It's possible that it is specific enough that a non-Unix system would be unlikely to need to copy it. But if I were writing the patent I'd try to be as general as possible. For example, if I were writing the "XOR'ed cursor" patent, I wouldn't mention specific machine instruction names, since I'd want my patent to cover systems that give a different name to their instructions that implement the XOR operation. Instead, I'd describe XOR mathematically, describe frame buffers, and then specify the application of this mathematical operation to the numerical data in a frame buffer in order to implement a moving graphic. >A remark: note that patents do not encourage *inventions*; an inventor >can always resort to the more complicated trade secret route if he/she >wants to keep the invention proprietary (e.g. AT&T with the >better-than-simplex method). Patents encourage *publication*, in >exchange for the otherwise unavailable protection against independent or >subsequent reinvention. Well, most of Unix is protected by trade secret. I can't imagine how setuid could be kept secret, though, as the design is apparent to the user. For a chip, you might protect the circuitry by trade secret, but you would patent a novel pin design because the pins cannot be hidden. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/24/90)
In article <PCG.90Jul23181123@thor.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo
Grandi) proceeds to analyse the "setuid bit" into its component parts and
finds nothing there...
I think you will find that if you analyse anything down far enough you will
find that each part of it is really something else: any patent, any idea, any
invention, any algorithm. The original idea comes from bringing all this
together into a new thing. An epiphenomenon.
I could go on with this, using new-age buzz phrases like "reductionism versus
holism", or direct you to \Godel, Escher, Bach/, but I think I've made my
point.
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180. 'U`
<peter@ficc.ferranti.com>wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl (Willem Jan Withagen) (07/25/90)
References: <62864@sgi.sgi.com> <=Y943A7@xds13.ferranti.com> <37297@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <63007@sgi.sgi.com> <SOA4-T5@ficc.ferranti.com> <PCG.90Jun30223813@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> <40193@think.Think.COM> <PCG.90Jul23181123@thor.cs.aber.ac.uk> <PYV4U5A@
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (07/25/90)
In article <40965@think.Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: [ ... an exchange between me and Margolin as to what is the patentable subject matter of the setuid patent ... ] >* None of the above? What then? None of the above. What was patented was presumably the particular use of an owner-settable flag (the setuid bit) in combination with the automatically-set owner field of the file to permit users to implement gates into their personal domains. I have never seen the dreaded patent myself, but I have just received a message saying that apparently the patent describes an hardware circuit that implements the domain crossing. Well, well. Funnier and funnier. >A remark: note that patents do not encourage *inventions*; an inventor >can always resort to the more complicated trade secret route if he/she >wants to keep the invention proprietary (e.g. AT&T with the >better-than-simplex method). Patents encourage *publication*, in >exchange for the otherwise unavailable protection against independent or >subsequent reinvention. Well, most of Unix is protected by trade secret. I can't imagine how setuid could be kept secret, though, as the design is apparent to the user. For a chip, you might protect the circuitry by trade secret, but you would patent a novel pin design because the pins cannot be hidden. Ah, but the Unix manuals were licensed and secret, until they decided to publish them via P-H. And if you want to keep a novel pin design secret, you just sell it, or lease or license it for use, with the opportune conditions. After all, so is protected virtually all IBM software. Naturally this means that trade secret protection is always there, and it is an hassle for both inventor and user. The problem with designing a system to grant temporary monopolies is to balance the incentive to the inventor with the desire for circulation of technology. My example with the setuid bit patent h the aim that for software this is exceptionally hard, and with architectures even harder, as if hardware (the claimed token ring patent for example) were easy. Naturally *entrenched* inventors want to be able to claim monopolies on everything remotely related to their work, past and future, as if technological progress did not develop from a huge past base of knowledge. In architecture, back to our newsgroup's topic, nearly everything has been invented and reinvented again and again in endless variations. Setuid is a variation of the PDP-1 protected procedure invocation, or on Multics rings, or whatever else. It is appropriate IMNHO to grant, if thought worthwhile, a very narrow and limited, in scope and time monopoly, and maybe. Those that think otherwise always have the example of IBM before their very eyes. They try to patent everything they "invent" (of course IBM invent everything...), and then the other guy has to contemplate the chances of a legal battle with IBM. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk