Free?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:37:02 -0400, Kagamin <spam at here.lot> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
>
> You can't write software out of thin air. Let's suppose ranges increase  
> usability of a collections library. Can you write a collections library  
> without knowing about ranges concept? That's what patents are for.

patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that would  
otherwise die with the inventor.  The idea is, if you patent something,  
you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits of  
your invention.  In return, you bestow upon the world the secret behind  
your idea.  This allows people to build on your idea in the future,  
instead of nobody ever being able to discover what your invention was.

Not to mention that no other IP protection exists for machine design --  
you cannot copyright a car.

Given that any item of software can be reverse engineered and studied,  
this can never happen with software.  Add that to the fact that software  
patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community.  They are mostly used as  
weapons to stifle innovation from others.  In essence, software patents  
have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something like  
building cars.  In other words, there's no need for patents to allow  
software ideas to be seen by others, it's possible to extract the ideas  
 from the code.

>> 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
>> *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.
>
> Software is a machine: concrete thing doing concrete job. Patent doesn't  
> protect the machine itself, it protects concrete design work put into  
> it. Design is a high-profile work, a good design has a good chance to be  
> more expensive than the actual implementation. So it's perfectly valid  
> to claim ownership for a design work and charge fees for it.

And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?  Again, copyright  
already covers software.  Plenty of software companies have large amounts  
of IP and are successful without having any software patents.

>
>> It can be produced en mass with near-zero cost.
>
> Dead software is seen as unusable. So - no, to produce software you need  
> continuous maintenance and development which is as expensive as any  
> other labor.

What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to recreating  
the machine.  Such manufacturing requires up-front investment that can  
possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the design.  Patents protect  
the entity putting their product out there from having a larger company  
who can throw money around beat you using your idea.  In software, since  
the software is protected by copyright, the competition must build their  
own version of your software ideas first, and the distribution is  
relatively insignificant.  In other words, once you release your idea to  
the world, it can be sold and installed for millions in a matter of days,  
giving you the lion share of the market.

Maintenance costs are not part of distribution, they are part of  
development.  Of course maintenance is required, but maintenance does not  
hinder you from making a profit like manufacturing ramp-up does.

And again, the software you write is already protected IP -- copyright.

>> 4. Unlike a physical entity, it is very likely a simple individual,
>> working on his own time with his own ideas, can create software that
>> inadvertently violates a "patent" with low cost.
>
> I don't see how this doesn't apply to physical machines.

When you are talking about patents for a machine or physical entity, there  
is a large investment and cost in just designing the item, or the means to  
manufacture it.  It's less likely that a simple individual has the capital  
necessary to create it, and if he does, or can raise it, a patent search  
is usually done to avoid complications.  He might also look at expired  
patents to get ideas on how to do things.

However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in a  
couple weeks.  He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just  
2 weeks time to create the software.  Here, the patent system is just  
getting in the way of innovation.  It's having the opposite effect by  
instilling fear in anyone writing software that some patent-holding  
company is going to squash him out of business.

When was the last time you did anything with a patented software  
technology except *avoid it like the plague*?

> How to improve patent system is another question. GPL3 can actually play  
> some role here: there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a  
> patented technology in a GPL3 software.

IMO, there's no reason to ever use any form of GPL anymore.  It's work is  
done.

>> 5. The patent office does *NOT UNDERSTAND* software, so they are more  
>> apt
>> to grant trivial patents (e.g. one-click).
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

I don't get your argument there, that Australia has a lousy patent  
system?  That Australian "innovation patents" are indefensible? How is  
this relevant?

-Steve