Linus leads charge against software patents

[arthur]

i have to add...patents are for the purpose of better capitalism - competition. So I don't think software patents are appropriate while Microsoft holds a 90% market share since it only improves their position. Once theres' about even market shares (say, 40% MS, 30% linux, 30% macs and others) then software patents MIGHT be a good idea to improve competition in the industry. But IMO don't even think about it while MS has more than 50% market share.

[aRTee]

No, in the current draft it is possible to apply for patents of ideas, or at least of algorithms (like the IsNot patent M$ is trying to apply).

 

The person who *patented it* for M$ thinks it is not a good idea HIMSELF! http://www.panopticoncentral.net/archive/2...11/20/2321.aspx

 

Patents applied to hardware and chemical processes, ... , are a different case altogether.

 

If you want a more expert opinion, as you know, start a thread on Groklaw. Much more knowledgeable people over there. For the IsNot patent issue, see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2...ry=isnot+patent

 

Besided that, it is the process of filing for a patent and possible litigation that discriminates against smaller companies and risks to paralyze the SME market, with several swords of Damocles hanging over them in the form of possible patent infringement lawsuits or expensive patent licenses.

 

The IsNot patent and the blog are US things. Don't confuse them with what's going on in Europe. They are 2 different things. Let's not mix those up in this debate.

 

Gowator, do you believe that MP3 technology should not be patentable? If so, why not?

 

excellent example.... covers many grey areas..

 

The overall answer is no.... because. (all OMHO)

 

1) It is simply an algorithm for reducing the size of an analogue recorded sound.

2) If we allow this IDEA to be patented then any IDEA can be...

however ...

 

Why would it be the IDEA to be patented, instead of the implementation? In the case of MP3 it's clearly the implementation, since the idea of reducing the quantity of audio data by leaving out things that are 'inaudible' according to some human aural model is also successfully applied in Ogg Vorbis, a technology on which MP3 patent holders have no claim.

This is why MP3 is a nice example, it is a patent on a specific use of algorithms, which doesn't disallow competing methods - it's a patent on the (one) IMPLEMENTATION of an IDEA. Which IMHO is fine.

 

a particular CODEC can (and should be copyrighted) ... the best CODEC's will then have value and there isn't particualrly a single best codec since too many unknowns. A hardware player can and should be patented... it is the physical design of this particualr player that is important but the IDEA of a say portable player for playing MP3's can't be.

 

Lets say I make a audio MP3 player specifically designed for in auto use.

Does that patent cover me using a handheld MP3 player in my car... or does it itself infringe on in car CD's or even 8-track players?

 

How is this CODEC copyright going to help me if I develop MP3 and others implement the exact same codec, but not by copying my lines of code, but just implementing the same algorithm, with the same vector values etc (which cost be a lot to refine, since I had no prior knowledge and had to invest into figuring out how exactly to use the algorithms, weighing factors etc - the one copying this knowledge from me likely wouldn't have been able to figure this part out).

So, with just copyright, others will implement the exact same functionality, therefor my copyright is not very helpful.

 

Imagine the idea of incar music was patented... its crazy but this is because it is of a generality not a specific. The same goes for scroll bars, mice et al.

 

Again, you claim that it's general, I have shown you that in the case of MP3 at least, it's specific, or Frauenhofer would have claims on OggVorbis - which they don't.

 

If the IDEA of using a mouse were patented by Xeros then nothing else would have ever got done. Go back even further, what if the IDEA of a computer were patented ...

 

Why do you think that Xerox wouldn't have licenced others to use their idea of a mouse?

In this line of reasoning, how come we all use cdroms, audio cds, dvd roms, video dvds?

Those are all patented technology. Still they are very widespread.

 

So MP3 tracks are copyright.... individual CODEC's have copyright but patenting the idea of an MP3 is crazy because like GIF's it will just lead to PNG's and MP3's to oggs...

All this does is fractionate the market and the consumer ultimately pays.

Sure ogg is superior but unless my portable player plays it... its useless for me...

 

Hence the patent has to stop at the idea of digital music... because for instance nothing is stopping someone ELSE patenting ogg.. unless Xiph.org actually patent it themselves... i.e. the not-for-profit org needs to PAY to prevent someone else patenting their invention..one they specifically designed to be royalty and patent free!!!!!

 

How can someone patent Ogg if the technology is already out there? It's impossible.

Prior art includes the developers own invention out in the open or even: outside the own company. Where I work, they clearly stated we cannot take patents if the object (I'm in hardware) has been to another company or at some event (show or whatever).

 

IMho, AAC (Apple) or ATRAC 3 (Sony) could be patented, but an Open Standard (e.g. suppose Ogg would be one, or suppose the OpenOffice Xml format becomes one) should be exempt from patent claims; and the patents this technology holds should be voided OR those patents should be licensed without restrictions and without cost. De-facto standards like .doc should be sufficiently restricted as well.

 

You cannot know anything about de-facto standards before they become such.

As for Open Standards, they are created to be open and a standard, this implies that the technology is not novel and such by definition this is never patentable.

 

No matter how strongly I feel about fair use, implications for the economy, etc... this I am certain off: There is no place for patents in an Open Standard!

 

I agree fully.

Don't forget most standards are NOT open.

 

Patents have been important in the growth that the 20th century has experienced. But progress can still be made without patents, since all that "unauthorized imitation" that patents aim to prevent are a part of the business world's "survival of the fittest" principle. The best or luckiest product will win, but a lot of ugly things would happen too.

 

Now although I have to admit this is a grey area, since software patents could prevent microsoft imitating "multiple desktops" and such and such if the patent owner was an Open Source organization or individual...

 

You also say that the specifics in the patents themselves are important - i agree. But legalese is very hard to understand and millions of dollars would be wasted in courts arguing over the wording of patents. Millions of dollars would be wasted in buying and enforcing patents. What for? For a healthier competitive atmosphere?

 

No, it just needs someone in the know, like a patent attorney, you don't have to drag it all the way to the courts. (not in all cases anyway)

 

Repeat after me: "The software patenting system as it exists (planned in Europe) now is not going to improve innovation and competition" ;)

 

Wel... that is what I believe :)

 

So my problem is that I read many opinions like that - they are beliefs, and I'm trying to figure out what's left and what's right, and no one knows.

 

Repeating myself:

But let's discuss patents in general.

 

Why are they here?

To what purpose (not: how are they / the system (ab)used today by large corporations)?

How should the patent system function?

 

Once we get beyond these points about patents in general, we can check what in terms of software could or should not be patentable.

 

Can we please find and agree on answers to those questions?

 

[Darkelve]

Repeating myself:

But let's discuss patents in general.

 

Why are they here?

To what purpose (not: how are they / the system (ab)used today by large corporations)?

How should the patent system function?

 

Once we get beyond these points about patents in general, we can check what in terms of software could or should not be patentable.

 

Can we please find and agree on answers to those questions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Repeating myself: try Groklaw ;)

[spinynorman]

Just a reminder that quote tags cease to work after 10 pairs, which is why I have italicised aRTee's quotes to make his post more readable. ;)

[Gowator]

The prior art arguament seems to mean in practice anyone with enough money and a claim to prior art. Hence all the nonsense over scroll bars etc. not to mention the trademarking of Windows etc.

 

Why would it be the IDEA to be patented, instead of the implementation? In the case of MP3 it's clearly the implementation, since the idea of reducing the quantity of audio data by leaving out things that are 'inaudible' according to some human aural model is also successfully applied in Ogg Vorbis, a technology on which MP3 patent holders have no claim.

 

This is exactly the grey area.....

Companies are pushing the bounds of what is patentable all the time and without clear exclusion it is becoming more about the process than the implementation.

 

There is also a matter of 'evolution' .. whether MP4 or ogg vorbis ... backwards and multiformat compatibility are comprimised .. instead of evolving companies are forced to innovate in areas which were not needed when energy would have been better applied to extending an existing format.

Even worse are companies who set out to subvert formats (I think we know who im talking about)... then patent their modifications...

 

The definition to which MP3 is patentable is the critical issue here and if ogg vorbis does prove massively successful and MP3 goes down the drain I guarantee this will be tested in court and I predict the side with the most money will win....

 

It is the intangible nature of software/algorithms which makes this so open to interpretation. With engineering it is a tangible thing... but software is not which is why copyright is more appropraite.

 

Why are they here?

To what purpose (not: how are they / the system (ab)used today by large corporations)?

How should the patent system function?

 

Once we get beyond these points about patents in general, we can check what in terms of software could or should not be patentable.

 

Can we please find and agree on answers to those questions?

 

Good points.... but first question first.

Big corporation tell us they cannot survive without patents.

Noone has actually questioned if we have really gained from them as a society.

Lets look at ethyl lead... a patented process that has killed millions but all the same a process which was never actually needed.

The anti-knock patent actively prevented others patenting other anti-knock methods hence we continued adding lead to fuel. Even though it was easy to see alternatives the patent prevented them.

 

Another example is ranitidine (Zantac) which was patented by Glaxo-Welcome.

It is a true designer drug.... it was designed not to cure a patient but to make them dependant for life. The patent effectively stopped other drug companies researching the area.... and so when a Dr. in Australia discovered a cure for <$1 glaxo got pretty upset and threatened his family and children while using the money they were making to discredit the Dr. Had it not been for intervention by the Australian government then he would probably have been ruined and glaxo would have won.... free to kill millions more people...

 

It has been estimated by the Australian health organisation that hundreds of thousands of people died from complication over peptic ulcers over the time period glaxo were defending their patent. (In Australia alone)...

 

It is even rumoured that glaxo already knew of a cure but just withheld it as their #1 selling drug made them rich...

 

certainly today much advances in cancer treatments are held back because of patents over processes. These patents are only taken to prevent a cure for cancr because cancer treatment drugs are extremely lucrative whereas a cure would be disasterous.

 

So without even talking about software we have to question who patents are really good for.

Imagine progress in the past if the computer was patented....

or how about railways or the wheel.

[aRTee]

Spinynorman, thanks for mentioning that and doing the italics - I didn't realise this was the cause.

 

Darkelve, pointing me to groklaw is no use.

I know the site, can read the comments, don't see enough that makes sense and it's not sure that who's speaking is also in the know, except for the few cases that are clear since they are really investigated - i.e. Pamela Jones (PJ) in her articles, checking and double checking facts.

 

Gowator:

" Good points.... but first question first.

.

.

.

 

So without even talking about software we have to question who patents are really good for."

 

Quoting myself, again:

"Why are they here?

To what purpose (not: how are they / the system (ab)used today by large corporations)?

How should the patent system function?

 

Once we get beyond these points about patents in general, we can check what in terms of software could or should not be patentable.

 

Can we please find and agree on answers to those questions?"

 

We are discussing the propositions for new laws, in which case you have to look at the goals you want to reach.

 

I know that the patent system is often abused by large corporations, that's why I asked:

To what purpose (not: how are they / the system (ab)used today by large corporations)?

 

LEAVE OUT the abuse, and focus on the goals.

 

BTW it's quite easy to see what advances we now have due to patents.

 

Audio cd, cdrom, cdr(w), video dvd, dvd+/-r(w), silicon (chipmaking) technology, dirt cheap memory sticks, solid state music players, mobile telephony systems, loads of competition in the aforementioned fields AND incredibly low prices too (thanks to competition).

 

If you really want, we can first argue if patents are necessary or not. I believe they are and the help to drive technical advancements. Without patents we would not even be close to where we are today in many respects.

 

You can disagree on that, but in that case, please argue your position.

 

 

Again, I'm looking for the right shade of grey, and still have no more to go on than at the beginning of this argument.

[Darkelve]

The patents you mention are not *software* patents.

 

Apatent on a hardware design doesn't mean no-one else can do the same in other hardware, as long as their implementation is different.

 

Also: designing a piece of hardware is expensive and requires heavy investment before a design is found that performs well. The patent protects this and therefore the made investments.

 

But a *software* patent does not cover the software design, but a function that the software can perform. So a software patent protects an abstract idea and not an implementation of the idea. It does not cost money to patent the idea yourself.

 

You do not have to look for a good implementation of the idea, because others will do that for you and then they may have to pay you for using their own work!!

[arthur]

aRTee...yes, not all cases will end up in court, but those "some cases" will still add up to millions. And millions wasted in buying and registering patents, there's no way out of that...

 

now, what are patents for? for a healthy atmosphere of innovation. But the system assumes those people innovating have equal capabilites of owning, buying and creating patents. This is not the case, those capabilities are HUGELY tipped towards MS' end of the scale.

 

Monopolies are the last environments I'd expect a patent system to work. Do you think it would work in the current monopoly?

[Gowator]

Audio cd, cdrom, cdr(w), video dvd, dvd+/-r(w), silicon (chipmaking) technology, dirt cheap memory sticks, solid state music players, mobile telephony systems, loads of competition in the aforementioned fields AND incredibly low prices too (thanks to competition).

 

If you really want, we can first argue if patents are necessary or not. I believe they are and the help to drive technical advancements. Without patents we would not even be close to where we are today in many respects.

 

Thats the point. Would we not have CD's without patents?

I know we can't ever know but take CDR's....

Perhaps if CD's hadn't been patented we might have had CDR's earlier... and if the formats weren't patented (physical format) we might have had DVD's earlier... etc.

 

AND incredibly low prices too (thanks to competition).

Actually the incredibly low prices part works mainly AFTER the patent expiry.

 

Indeed I think it could be argued that patents actually exasperate monopolies not prevent them.

 

What about negative patents... when someone takes a patent to prevent innovation?

[aRTee]

The patents you mention are not *software* patents.

 

Apatent on a hardware design doesn't mean no-one else can do the same in other hardware, as long as their implementation is different.

 

Also: designing a piece of hardware is expensive and requires heavy investment before a design is found that performs well. The patent protects this and therefore the made investments.

 

But a *software* patent does not cover the software design, but a function that the software can perform. So a software patent protects an abstract idea and not an implementation of the idea. It does not cost money to patent the idea yourself.

 

You do not have to look for a good implementation of the idea, because  others will do that for you and then they may have to pay you for using their own work!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point exactly, the hardware patents are patents on an implementation, and as such they are NOT EVIL.

Any patent on an idea, hard- or software, is BAD for innovation.

 

But: is that really what's going on in Europe (answer, as good as I've been able to come up with: no).

 

 

 

aRTee...yes, not all cases will end up in court, but those "some cases" will still add up to millions. And millions wasted in buying and registering patents, there's no way out of that...

 

now, what are patents for? for a healthy atmosphere of innovation. But the system assumes those people innovating have equal capabilites of owning, buying and creating patents. This is not the case, those capabilities are HUGELY tipped towards MS' end of the scale.

 

Monopolies are the last environments I'd expect a patent system to work. Do you think it would work in the current monopoly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is already in effect in a much deeper way in the US, and granted, the USPO is doing lots worse, so this situation is certainly not desirable, but I will come to the purpose of why I think (and what I've been taught - I took classes in patent law during my engineering education, and I have some corporate info from my place of work, and some patent attorney conversations etcetc to lean on) of what exactly makes the patent system a necessary thing.

To answer your last question: it's already in effect, and currently I see no very big harm done to FLOSS or small developers or so - just big corporations fighting things out. So it's not good (in the end, we, the consumers, end up paying, the money is coming from somewhere), but not that bad that MS would suddenly take over (any more than they already do) - to instill fear that that would happen, or the uncertainty that that might happen, or the doubt that that is of any good, is exactly that (read that sentence again if you missed it).

 

 

 

Thats the point.  Would we not have CD's without patents? 

I know we can't ever know but take CDR's.... 

Perhaps if CD's hadn't been patented we might have had CDR's earlier... and if the formats weren't patented (physical format) we might have had DVD's earlier... etc. 

 

AND incredibly low prices too (thanks to competition).

Actually the incredibly low prices part works mainly AFTER the patent expiry.

 

Indeed I think it could be argued that patents actually exasperate monopolies not prevent them.

 

What about negative patents... when someone takes a patent to prevent innovation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We would not have dvd recording technology. And do you know why it took 10 years after the introduction of the audio cd to have cd-r?

Because Philiips was also owner of Polygram, a record label, and they were afraid that the audio cd business would suffer, or even be destroyed.

Please note: due to the patents on cd technology the management was able to be convinced that they really had to put things on the market or they would never make money of them. Without patents they would have milked things as long as possible. You don't slaughter your hen that lays golden eggs, you have her lay some more.

-edit- due to patents, competitors could know what's really driving cd (rom, audio) and so they could have conceived a competing system if Philips hadn't brought cd-r to the market.

 

Without patents, who would have dared to do the necessary investment to develop the dvd?

Or chip technology?

 

No investment, no development.

 

Suppose you have lots of money. Why would you invest it if you'll never see a penny back?

It's ok to take calculated risks, you don't necessarily have to have 300% return on investment for all investments.

And you won't - not all technology is successful, think: betamax, V2000/VCC, CD-i, DCC, etc.

 

So if there is no guarantee that your developments can be protected, what companies will work well?

Simple: those who cannot develop themselves, but are aces at copying and marketing. Like the Japanese manufacturers 15 years ago.

 

(Today, all big ones (I'm talking hardware here, don't bring MS up - that's a cheap shot) have hefty development expenses, and ALL big tech companies do lots of development.)

 

Back to the system with no protection for developments. What happens if company (or person) A invents / develops something?

It gets copied by company B, who can take the refined product from A, without having had to spend the money and effort for the development. So the developing company is at a competitive DISadvantage, they have the cost overhead. Companies like B who are good fast followers drive companies like A out of business.

It will not pay to develop, just to be good at copying - since that's rewarded by the system.

 

In that system, you with your boatload of cash, would you give any money to A to do any development?

I wouldn't.

No banker would.

Rich guys wouldn't. Most people didn't create richess by being stupid. (Not to say that rich people aren't stupid, there I see little correlation..)

So companies would specialise in milking the market for anything they could get, with current technologies - developing new ones doesn't pay, remember. This means the pace of innovation would be very slow.

 

In comes the (granted, very idealised) patent system. (But laws MUST be idealised, else you can't ever write any - it's up to the judges to make things work in real life.)

A patent is a temporary monopoly that grants the holder of it the right to bring products to the market using the technology under the patent claim(s) and the right to licence this technology to other parties, whereas it also disallows any party without such a licence to use or market this patented technology.

The rules for obtaining a patent are quite simple (to exercise them correctly is a different matter): the invention must be new (novel is the legalese word), it must not be trivial (non-obvious) and it must have an industrial application. If I sound different in my wordings here it's because I'm checking my cheat sheet for the right legalese.

 

Novel means: not available to anyone in actual form or description. Meaning: if you blurb something on your (publically accessible) blog, and after this date the same thing gets presented at any patent office - no go. Prior art. Even if you yourself are the one that files and that blurbed.

If some technology is in some demo, and it goes outside your company: no go. The technology was outside your control, therefor even your own implementation can be used against you as prior art. Unless there is no way to tell from the object that this idea is implemented inside, you blew it.

 

Non-obvious means: if someone else wo is skilled in that field (necessary type of education and experience in the particular field of work, etcetc) can look at the issue/problem at hand for months, but still not find the solution that you claim with your patent. Basically, it means that it's a hard nut to crack.

Please note: lots of inventions are trivial AFTER the fact of their invention. The point is: where they that trivial AT the point of their invention (well, the moment the patent claim is filed really) - in some cases you can say: this or that is completely trivial, but at the time of development that was unimaginable.

 

Lastly: industrial application: you can use it in a technical way, so it doesn't concern the way your mother folds her laundry, or that it forbids her to fold it in a specific way.

I must admit, this is not so clear to me, but concensus is that industrial application means that it's technical, not a work of art (sculpture, literary work, painting) or whatever.

 

 

Patents have a maximum running time of 20 years. This means that cd-r(w) is not yet out of that phase, whereas audio cd's are no longer under any patents - but they fall under copyright.

Guess what, cd-r(w) discs are really dirt cheap, but audio cd's are in some cases even more expensive today than they were at their market introduction.

BTW Gowator, are you still with me? I just said it: audio cd technology patents have expired, cdrom technology patents have expired, but cd-r(w) patents haven't.

And if I should be mistaken at this very point, dvd-+r(w) patents have certainly not expired. But I can still buy 1 dvd+r for about 1 USD, which can hold 4.3GB of data which makes it the cheapest data carrier that I know of.

Notice how this technology being patented didn't hurt the price level?

Nor how fast technology has advanced (from 1x to 2x to 4x to 8x to 16x writers in what, 3 or 4 years? Compare that with cd-r.. don't forget, naturally dvd is very similar to cd)?

Seems there's at least no slowdown. And look at bluray? It's already there, although I don't have a big need today (yet) to fit 27GB onto one single layer single sided disc.

 

 

Anyway, with patents, company A develops something, takes a patent, company B cannot downright copy it, they have to take a licence (which everyone did with video-dvd) or develop a competing technology (like China is now doing for video dvd).

So, the company A that develops and drives technology has the competitive advantage, they have more control - can licence technology and make money off of those companies that build on top of their investment, and any competitors who don't licence also have to develop so they will also have to invest so there is no competitive disadvantage for developing companies.

 

Now, would you with your load of cash, be willing to invest in A?

More so than in B?

I would.

Bankers would. Smart rich people would.

This drives technological advancements.

 

In the case of dvd-r(w) dvd+r(w) has been developed, and so there are competing standards that are both patented, and prices have fallen stronger than ever before.

Seems in some ways, the patent system is functioning fine.

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm not done with my explanations but it will have to wait a bit. Feel free to comment on the above stuff for now.

Edited November 25, 2004 by aRTee

[arthur]

saying that software patents would not harm FLOSS is a bit too optimistic.

 

It certainly WON'T kill FLOSS as some doomsayers like to trumpet. but it will hurt linux in the sense that its compatibility, which is part of its marketing strengths, will suffer. Imagine if OpenOffice could not write documents in .doc format anymore. There would be a lot of rewriting going on in linux if software patents push through, and some of that will be good. but some projects will die. Maybe, probably linux could quantify its losses which would make it easier to manage, but a slowdown in its growth is likely to happen.

 

I just find it really annoying that Microsoft stands to gain the most from it. Its size is the biggest obstacle to innovation IMO, not software patents.

 

This is a good discussion, I'm learning a lot. please keep the posts coming.

[aRTee]

arthur, I said that sofar software patents as they exist in the US since some time, have not seriously hurt FLOSS.

 

Please note that the EU proposal is very different from what is implemented in the US, it's much less far going. So if the US system has not severely harmed FLOSS (I don't know of one case where it has), then why would the EU system be worse if the proposal is to allow less?

 

I agree on your thoughs on MS, but to act on the fear that MS takes over, or worse, to instill that fear and hence get voices on your side is FUD.

 

Think about it.

 

I have seen an anti swpat site that compares allowing swpat-s with letting your women and daughters get raped, and condoning that.

 

How can anyone take people who write that seriously??

 

I for one do not want to be associated with people who write that.

[theYinYeti]

I have seen an anti swpat site that compares allowing swpat-s with letting your women and daughters get raped, and condoning that.

 

How can anyone take people who write that seriously??

I agree with you aRTee. Such words go too far, are false, and are plain shocking!

 

Now on the subject:

if the US system has not severely harmed FLOSS (I don't know of one case where it has), then why would the EU system be worse if the proposal is to allow less?

I'm not sure about what FLOSS is, but if I understand you well, I don't agree here. Else why would PLF exist?

- Why do I have to download (or rather "why can't Mandrake ship") libdvdcss (which is perfectly legal for now in France) for watching DVD that I *own*, and have *legally bought*!

- Why do newbies come here and say "Mandrake is s$$t, it can't even play MP3s"? Patenting a file-format is non-sense IMHO.

 

Protecting a non-trivial algorithm to encode/decode faster than anyone else is OK. But protecting the file-format: NO!

My opinion in summary is just that: copyright is perfectly suited to software, not patents.

 

Yves.

Edited November 26, 2004 by theYinYeti

[Gowator]

We would not have dvd recording technology. And do you know why it took 10 years after the introduction of the audio cd to have cd-r?

Because Philiips was also owner of Polygram, a record label, and they were afraid that the audio cd business would suffer, or even be destroyed.

Please note: due to the patents on cd technology the management was able to be convinced that they really had to put things on the market or they would never make money of them. Without patents they would have milked things as long as possible. You don't slaughter your hen that lays golden eggs, you have her lay some more.

-edit- due to patents, competitors could know what's really driving cd (rom, audio) and so they could have conceived a competing system if Philips hadn't brought cd-r to the market.

 

OK so I don't see this. From my standpoit patent's allowed Phillips/Polygram to not develop the technology safe knowing noone else could... while at the same time knowing that an alternative format would go the way of betamax.

 

People already had CD players etc. therefore Phillips was able to use its patent to prevent further development for a while. Without the patent it would have been easy to just copy the technology ... its hardly recket science so I would view it that it held back technology in this case.

 

However this is not isolated because software and even computer hardware develops in a different time scale to engineering. Fromt he Wheel to The motor car was > 10,000 years and even from the Wright Bros to Gargarin was over 100 but from the 286 to the P-IV was 30 years...

 

This brings me to why we had patents in the first place:

Pre-Industrial revoluition we didn't need/use them.

If copernicus designed a telescope then Galileo could make one too. Indeed it was encouraged and a measure of sucess to be copied. However people became known for workmanship, Chipendale, Wedgewood apparently made great furniture and pottery and people were willing to pay more for it.

In the same way certain violin makers, telescope makers etc. were all known for quality. Pilkingtons were known for glass and Im sure many other artisans became manufacturers based on quality.

 

Then the machines came.

 

Unlike a cupboard they needed more complex design and standardisation.

They were designed as opposed to put-together and this all took time.

Patents were away to allow the expensive development allow the manufacturer time to get their machine to market and establish a market.

As an extreme case perhaps you couldn't sell steam locomotives until the track was built... etc.

 

So now we have many clever designs... just go to any Ikea near you and we have patented easy-hold handles in a patented easy-open drawer etc. Not this is bad or evil but what is the point......

 

Patents grew alongside other things such as safetly regulations and it is hard to seperate the two. Developing a car needs safety... and even wa weaving machine is a dangerous thing. Thus a process of testing and retesting was necassary for certain items. Again the patent system allowed a safe testing period without someone else just taking the device and copying it.

 

Designing a modern car costs millions or billions... hence this is a huge investment to protect ... so companies started to patent the parts of their cars.

The concepts were well established 4 wheels and an engine and noone thought to patent this back then. We saw a proliferation of car manufacturers, names we no longer recognise... but incrementally these were reduced down to the 5-6 we have today.

 

I don't think patents are altogether to blame but I think they are a large part of this.

We have 5-6 car manufacturers , the same number of record companies etc. all down to protection of IP leading to consolidation. Again we the customer have missed out. Patent's are now firmly divided into a us/them.

 

The individual can no longer invent and patent, they need the financial backing of a corporation in order to afford to patent... I see adverts from Andersen etc. offering opportunites to inventers to be like Hoover the janitor.

 

Why.... wasn't the patent system to prevent the idea being stolen by the big guys while the inventer got stuff together and got it to production?

Now only the big guys can afford to patent but everyone else can't afford NOT to patent!

 

Instead of beiong able to submit my patent I now need a patent leech to do it for me. Some lawyer-leech that will take a considerable percentage of my idea just to protect my idea from being ripped off?

 

Hence the time of patents has run its course. they are now being abused and have become self perpetuating... like every other capitalist ideal they cannot continue unchecked without intervention.

 

Now I bring in the M$ word....

I mentioned TIME aspects... the time to tool up a factory and train a workforce etc. and the fact that the product should have some value to the customer in terms of quality/cost ratios....bedside cabinets or airplanes have considerable manufacturing costs and the prices are largely regulated by this.

 

The market more or less says find a way to do it cheaper....

 

Software costs near nothing to reproduce.

 

If I lease a car I pay more because the leasing company has depreciation on the car and must maintain it. If I lease software then it costs NOTHING to lease .. all costs are really just admin costs not manufacturing/distribution costs. Even a CD costs cents of a dollar/euro to reproduce and upgrades are a bit of bandwidth.

 

It is like patenting a printing press for money.

 

Whoah... you can't just print money....

 

But you can when you have squeezed out the rest of the market.

OpenOffice and Firefox have shown what can be achieved from FREETIME and linux itself what can be put together and then distributed for FREE.

That never applied to cars or freezer's...

 

In the same way as this can be distributed for free the flip-side is that M$ must squeeze out the rest of the market to survive in its present form and that is the only form they know.

This is why record companies and M$ are the prime examples of patent abusers.

They use patents not to protect investment but to squeeze out the competition.

 

Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that M$ spent 1000x the development costs of Internet Explorer "defending its investment.".. because the investment was market domination not the IP of IE. The money was spent to destroy netscape, not to protect IE...

 

The extreme low development and duplication costs of software make it a completely different ballgame to designing airplanes. This ballgame was explored a long time ago with the written word and resulted in copyright.

 

The intangible nature of software also makes it different.... of course this affects duplication costs ... hence the reliance of the corporations on IP to prevent this...

but also in terms of what is an idea_of and what is a real invention (idea)

 

This is i think your big grey area or one of them....

 

I saw sonme guy on Sat night live claiming a football play should be patentable etc. this is the area SW patents are drifting....

 

Mice, windows, icons etc. all these have been patented as IDEAS...

The idea of using a scrollbar to move up/down the screen... because there is no real way to demonstrate these in an engineering drawing without referring to the idea more than the specifics.

 

Think about the specifics of a a scrollbar... it is its size (relative and absolute) shape and 'tactile' feel maybe... its icons etc.

except we find we are describing what in linux we could call a THEME.

The actual mechanics of it ...aren't enough to make a patent... therefore the patent drifts into the big grey zone where idea_of merges with the idea.

 

English isn't the best here.... but impression vs idea in French.... j'ai l'idea de.....

ou j'ai l'impression de. ...

(Im sure other languages will have a bigger differentiation over this too)

 

 

Prior art will have to wait: except to say it isn't being rigrously applied and then it is being COMBINED with other IP such as trademarks to achieve the same affect.

[spinynorman]

I'm not sure about what FLOSS is...

Free/Libre Open Source Software.