rms@mole.ai.mit.EDU (Richard Stallman) (02/27/91)
While the X user community plans how to deal with the threats from AT&T, I hope people will not think of this as a one-time isolated problem. It is a taste of what the future will be like. Around 700 software patents were issued in 1989, according to the list compiled by Glen Self. The rate is probably still increasing. This means that patent problems will be commonplace for all software development. It costs over half a million dollars to fight a lawsuit against a patent, and not all patents can be overturned in this way. While tackling individual patents is worth doing, the only way to solve the whole problem of software patents is to tackle it as a whole. The League for Programming Freedom is a grass-roots organization of programmers (mostly) that is working to bring back the freedom to write programs, freedom that we had until recently. It has both individuals and companies as members. For more information, write to league@prep.ai.mit.edu.
kk@shasta.tivoli.COM (Kerry Kimbrough) (02/28/91)
> It costs over half a million dollars to fight a lawsuit against a > patent, and not all patents can be overturned in this way. So why fight? Pay the royalty or negotiate a patent swap. This is SOP for patents; sw is no different. There are several reasons why patents are beneficial to the common good, which is definitely a subject for a different time and a different audience. But one benefit is the intent --- confirmed by many decades of legal precedent --- that patent rights can be acquired by anyone at reasonable cost. BTW, this is also a reason why copyright protection for sw artifacts like user interfaces is a BAD idea, while patent protection is conceivably a good idea.
bret@codonics.COM (Bret Orsburn) (03/01/91)
In article <9102272125.AA09794@shasta.tivoli.com> kk@shasta.tivoli.COM (Kerry Kimbrough) writes: > > > It costs over half a million dollars to fight a lawsuit against a > > patent, and not all patents can be overturned in this way. > >So why fight? Pay the royalty or negotiate a patent swap. This is SOP for >patents; sw is no different. So software patents have no appreciable effect on large organizations with large patent portfolios, substantial profit margins and large legal staffs. At the same time, they can have a decisive impact on small organizations and individuals. Precisely what public good does this serve? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bret Orsburn Speaking only for myself -- ------------------- bret@codonics.com uunet!codonics!bret Bret Orsburn
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (03/01/91)
In article <9102272125.AA09794@shasta.tivoli.com> kk@shasta.tivoli.COM (Kerry Kimbrough) writes: > > > It costs over half a million dollars to fight a lawsuit against a > > patent, and not all patents can be overturned in this way. > >So why fight? Pay the royalty or negotiate a patent swap. This is SOP for >patents; sw is no different. It gets kind of expensive to pay royalties when you're giving away the software for free - as both the X Consortium and GNU do. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
montnaro@spyder.crd.ge.com (Skip Montanaro) (03/02/91)
bret@codonics.COM (Bret Orsburn) and kk@shasta.tivoli.COM (Kerry Kimbrough) write: kk> So why fight? Pay the royalty or negotiate a patent swap. This is SOP kk> for patents; sw is no different. bo> So software patents have no appreciable effect on large organizations bo> with large patent portfolios, substantial profit margins and large legal bo> staffs. bo> At the same time, they can have a decisive impact on small organizations bo> and individuals. I read "small organizations" as one- or two-person software houses. (You can debate whether the X Consortium is a small organization. I'm looking at the extreme.) It's quite easy to infringe on a software patent. Anybody with a brain an a few bucks for an IBM-PC clone can go off and start writing software. Shareware and other low-cost distribution mechanisms make it relatively easy to publish software. Contrast that a patent by a (hypothetical and completely made up) patent by Ford on the angle of the cylinder heads in a V-8 engine. If GM and Chrysler wanted to use the content of that patent, they could probably swap some patents that Ford wanted. There's virtually no way I, as a "small organization", can violate that patent. I don't have the resources to produce a car. I do have the means necessary to violate all sorts of software patents, however. Software is a whole 'nuther ball game... -- Skip (montanaro@crdgw1.ge.com)
roger@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Roger Petersen) (03/02/91)
My $0.02: Software Patents should be allowed and granted, but their lifetime should be significantly reduced -- say, to 1 or 3 years -- depending on how novel the invention. This would reward the inventor with a head start, yet still allow the rest of the world to fully benefit from the innovation. And it would encourage the inventor continue to innovate, instead of relying on lawyers to protect their empire. Even if you think that 1 to 3 years is still too long, you have to admit that it's a good first step toward a more reasonable patent system. There's still a question of where to draw the fuzzy line between hardware and software, and on how to subjectively decide the lifetime of any given patent. But you have to admit: most "inventions" don't warrant a 17 year exclusivity right. Roger "Technical wars! Not legal wars!" Petersen Speaking only for myself, of course.
mark@b11.ingr (Mark Jones) (03/05/91)
My $0.02:
Software Patents should be allowed and granted, but their lifetime
should be significantly reduced -- say, to 1 or 3 years -- depending
on how novel the invention.
I disagree. Software is merely a mathematical abstraction, it is not
an invention. Software patents stifle progress, something the patent
laws were meant to help foster.
This would reward the inventor with a head start, yet still allow the
rest of the world to fully benefit from the innovation. And it would
encourage the inventor continue to innovate, instead of relying on
lawyers to protect their empire.
First to market, first to profit. Nothing requires a programmer to
disclose how they did something.
Even if you think that 1 to 3 years is still too long, you have to admit
that it's a good first step toward a more reasonable patent system.
No it isn't.
There's still a question of where to draw the fuzzy line between
hardware and software,
Read the FSF "Against Software Patents" paper, it makes a good start
toward drawing a line.
and on how to subjectively decide the lifetime
of any given patent. But you have to admit: most "inventions" don't
warrant a 17 year exclusivity right.
In our current day this is true. In 17 years, most inventions are
obsolete. This law needs some radical reform.
Roger "Technical wars! Not legal wars!" Petersen
On this we agree.
Mark Jonesbob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (03/06/91)
Just to pick a nit...
In article <MARK.91Mar5074728@b11.ingr> mark@b11.ingr (Mark Jones) writes:
Read the FSF "Against Software Patents" paper, it makes a good
start toward drawing a line.
So it does, but it's by the League for Programming Freedom, not the
Free Software Foundation. The two are distinct and different.