On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 5 of 145:
Next »
« Previous
Against Software Patents and full rational
Read "Against Software Patents" By The League for Programming Freedom
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/against-software-patents.html
It explains why software should be treated differently to other technology.

The above paper was refered to by Bill Gates in his 1991 "Challenges and Strategy" Memo
http://discuss.sarahsbookstores.com/Bill_Gates_Challenges_And_Strategy_Memo
PATENTS: If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then the have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can. Amazingly we havn't done any patent exchanges tha I am aware of. Amazingly we havn't found a way to use our licensing position to avoid having our own customers cause patent problems for us. I know these aren't simply problems but they deserve more effort by both Legal and other groups. For example we need to do a patent exchange with HP as part of our new relationship. In many application categories straighforward thinking ahead allows you to come up with patentable ideas. A recent paper from the League for Programming Freedom (available from the Legal department) explains some problems with the way patents are applied to software.

Even using patent exchange agreements, Patents are inherently bad for software industy.

Business methord and software patents are detrimental to the software industry as a whole, but it is also one of the major driving forces to an interesting trend amongst most of the major IT vendors.

Applying game theory to long term software industry market, for both open and proprietary vendors, based on software patents...

1) Small software developers are unlikely to benefit from the overall balance of payments from licensing of their own and other vendors software patent portfolios, since other software vendors are just as likely to hold other software patents that the developer uses in his own products.

2) Larger software vendors are unlikely to benefit from payments from licensing of their software patent portfolio, as per above small sofware developers plus the software vendor is likely to hold the lion's share of the sofware target market, profit from software patent licensing will be much smaller in proportion to the overall sales of the vendors own products.

3) Third party intellectual property "holding companies", that do not actively participate in selling actual software, are the only class of organization that can benefit from licensing of their software patent portfolios. In most cases these entities have a very tenuous relationship to the ongoing development of the software methords patented.

In 1981 US courts ruled that software and business methord could, without legislation ot the contrary, be patented. From 1981 to 1989, with a few exceptions the entire IT industry just ignored the issue of software patents.

As Bill Gates rightly stated " If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today". The Silicon valley revolution would not have taken place. From 1991 to 1997, the major software vendors slowly began build software patent portfolios and entering into cross licensing arrangements and most of the smaller vendors still ignored the issue entirely.

From 1997 on, driven by the greed of the Venture capitalists of the DotCom era, vendors and other groups began gobbling up businesses based not upon the current business viability, but the so-called intellectual property the business held. Most in the software industry still ignored these third party parasites, but larger vendor also began expanding their software patent portfolios.

Complex cross licensing arangements are increasingly becoming a legal quagmire. Microsoft is facing a number of lawsuits from companies which Microsoft did enter into a formal relationship, for example Timeline Inc
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html

Kodak had a formal relationship with Sun and the SCO Group is also suing IBM based upon the exact same class of legal cross licensing relationship that Bill Gates suggested as a solution to patents back in 1991.

However
While software patents remain a threat to the entire software industry, including Linux, the patent issue is pushing many companies, including IBM, HP, SUN, Oracle, SAP and Novell are turning to a simpler form of cross licensing arrangement - the GNU General Public License, or GPL and LGPL.

Only GPL and LGPL like so-called "viral" licenses effectively grants all downstream users the right to freely use the sofware. A license that even the largest of patent portfolio holders, such as IBM, are adopting to collaboratively develop new software. This, along with customer demand, is the major reason that Linux is being widely adopted and not one or more of the BSD based distributions.
Posted by: David Mohring   Posted on: 10/04/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Do the right thing  Tim Patterson | 10/04/04
No problem here!  dg mh | 10/04/04
*lol*  eLurker | 10/04/04
Can somebody help me about patents?  Kamakazii | 10/04/04
Against Software Patents and full rational  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Good post until...  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
Not altruistic but realistic  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Yes, patents are good.  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
Challenge: Show me a "good" Software patent.  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Only patent attornies need apply  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
Exactly!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Not so  Tim Patterson | 10/04/04
Patent things that are meant to be patented  voska | 10/04/04
Are you suggesting...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
A Challenge Thrice: Then point out a "good" software patent  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Are you ready for surgery yet?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Please point to an argument that I have not addressed  David Mohring | 10/04/04
I notice  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
Yes, exactly  voska | 10/04/04
But I am a developer and your answering a question with a question  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Not that easy  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
So there are no "good" software patents, only "good" Patent attornies?  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Yeah, just like a programmer can make bad open source.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Yes. And patents will continue...  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
"... patent / free competition balance to be dialectical, not static"  David Mohring | 10/04/04
And patents actually do some good...  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
While patents in general my be beneficial, Software patents are not  David Mohring | 10/04/04
David, that is one groups opinion, I can show you others.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
No_Ax_to_Grind, Then please provide links.  David Mohring | 10/04/04
If I were making a theoretical argument for software patents...  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
Re: Yes. And patents will continue...  none none | 10/04/04
Software patents are wrong! Simple  voska | 10/04/04
Not at all...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Unlike Linux, your company researches?  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
Exactly, the problem is open source can't.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Re: Unlike Linux, your company researches?  none none | 10/04/04
Not their domain  IT_User | 10/04/04
Nonsense  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
A couple reasons here.  voska | 10/04/04
Software Patents  charliech | 10/04/04
I got a few.  doe_z | 10/04/04
But does not the copyright protect you?  voska | 10/04/04
Re: Can somebody help me about patents?  P. Douglas | 10/04/04
LOL, Sun, wearing the other shoe this time  FilledOut | 10/04/04
Yeah, come easy, go easy.  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
exactly  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
Against Software Patents and full rational  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Thanks 4 the info  Kamakazii | 10/04/04
Problems with your "game theory" argument  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
Counter...  doe_z | 10/04/04
Check the attic for valuable antiques.  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
So...  doe_z | 10/04/04
The sky is falling....  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Challenge: Show me a "good" Software patent.  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Sorry, patent searchs cost money.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
You said it more briefly than I. (NT)  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
Sorry, you liar, the USPTO provide a free web based search  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Yeah, and I can look at...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Well??? Would you?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
David, I am point you to the above post.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
But if a doctor showed you an Xray of a dog.  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Sorry, wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Axe actually is right  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
If youhire a patent lawyer, it costs to do the search!  B.O.F.H. | 10/04/04
They can't....  el1jones | 10/04/04
They can't ... disprove the existance of Unicorns either  David Mohring | 10/04/04
oh come on david...  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
I was mostly agreeing with you....(and unicorns do exist)  el1jones | 10/04/04
After some quick research, I've concluded that...  el1jones | 10/04/04
Microsoft Next  tero_t_vaananen@... | 10/04/04
You forget who is partners with MS.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Microsoft is parterned with Kodak?  voska | 10/04/04
You bet they are.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
why?  V Sanders | 10/04/04
Ah, so you prefer ignorance.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Not so sure about that  voska | 10/04/04
Nope  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
Great news!  George Mitchell | 10/04/04
Frankly, your dead wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
ms is losing teir monopoly  V Sanders | 10/04/04
Gee, I can't tell.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
No one else thinks so?  IT_User | 10/04/04
Sure  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
Hogwash and you know it.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Not directly  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
Sorry, Kodak started this long ago.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
I am up to speed  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
No, Kodak filed the patent long ago.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
So who's not up to speed  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
patents yes  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
You are right, it's a very old patent.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
No, but they have tried to extort money using them  Taz_z | 10/04/04
Offering a license is extortion? Hmmm, can you say GPL?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Please tell me what patents and GPL have in common.  Taz_z | 10/04/04
They both restrict and limit what may be done.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Only if you redistribute it or sell it  Taz_z | 10/04/04
Yup, same as a patent.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Please show me this  Taz_z | 10/04/04
Sorry, you are wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Speaking of getting a clue,  Taz_z | 10/04/04
Extort?  rapson | 10/04/04
Going a little overboard there, aren't you?  Taz_z | 10/04/04
Taz, this isn't about Microsoft...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
I agree.  Taz_z | 10/04/04
Taz, stop reaching for straws. K? (nt)  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Can you say "BayStar"?  George Mitchell | 10/04/04
What's Next?  coffeenite | 10/04/04
has anyone patented painting pictures of dogs or anything like that  V Sanders | 10/04/04
David Morphing: You asked...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
yep...  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
Simply isn't true...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
We are just at the beginning of this ordeal  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
I've heard that for 30 years. Hasn't happened yet.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
software patents are fairly new  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
Pardon me... Take a look at IBM's patent holdings.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Nobody has "been at it" for 30 years  IT_User | 10/04/04
Not true  IT_User | 10/04/04
Meaning of innovation  Anton Philidor | 10/04/04
You hit the nail on the head.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Yeah, the sky is falling  IT_User | 10/04/04
Re: David Morphing: You asked...  none none | 10/04/04
Notice who is against patents in the talkbacks.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Notice who is getting Sued,not open source but Microsoft's customers  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Never happened. No MS user has been sued.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
Man get your facts straigt  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
Point being, NO MS use has been sued.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
*user*  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
No need to draw  NemesisNL | 10/04/04
Nice rant, have anything of value to contribute?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
What is wrong with you people?  none none | 10/04/04
Let's see if I get this right  IT_User | 10/04/04
The history of blood letting. Accounting and actual software patent returns  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Again, the only ones complaining is the have nots.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
You mean Enron was innocent of accounting fraud?  David Mohring | 10/04/04
Man, you really are reaching for any straw.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
David, you can relax now. You got him.  Taz_z | 10/04/04
It you think ranting about Enron is On Topic. OK.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
She is absolutely right...  BitTwiddler | 10/04/04
Not true.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
It's not as if Americans want to compete!  B.O.F.H. | 10/04/04
What has your post to do with anything in this story?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/04/04
What are you whining about now?  B.O.F.H. | 10/04/04
After looking at all the posts  CobraA1 | 10/04/04
Patents - The First and Ultimate Open Source Project  secureplay_z | 10/05/04
Sounds good but ...  George Mitchell | 10/05/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here