In message <ca2ss591nq7rdhspjgmmgchd9vt97ipcpj@4ax.com>, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> writes
>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks
><walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
>>David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
>>> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
>>> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
>>> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.
>>
>>I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
>>have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
>>protecting IP.
>
>But don't they appear to have played and still play a role
>amongst large companies with deep pockets?  I remember quite
>a large payout by Microsoft.

Only in the USA.  I don't thing SW patents are used anywhere else. IT is
also why they never will be.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:44:21 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:

>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks
>> <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
>>>> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
>>>> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
>>>> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.
>>> I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
>>> have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
>>> protecting IP.
>> 
>> But don't they appear to have played and still play a role
>> amongst large companies with deep pockets?  I remember quite
>> a large payout by Microsoft.
>
>Yes, software patents play a role in the USA - especially amongst large 
>companies.

And amongst smaller companies if the leave the "living in the
cracks" and start looking like they are muscling into more
profitable territory.

>But patents were designed, as Walter says, to encourage 
>innovation and to protect IP,

***were*** designed.  I think that is long gone.

>neither of which is at issue in the 
>majority of cases (though patent owners /claim/ they are defending 
>"their" IP.  The role played by software patents does neither - it's a 
>protection racket to squeeze licence fees out of people and sue those 
>who don't quietly pay up.
>
>There's a reason companies whose businesses revolve around patents are 
>known as "patent trolls".  And it's not because trolls are renowned for 
>being innovative or protective.

Yes.

Jon

Jon Kirwan wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks
> <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> 
>> David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
>>> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
>>> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
>>> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.
>> I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
>> have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
>> protecting IP.
> 
> But don't they appear to have played and still play a role
> amongst large companies with deep pockets?  I remember quite
> a large payout by Microsoft.
> 

Yes, software patents play a role in the USA - especially amongst large 
companies.  But patents were designed, as Walter says, to encourage 
innovation and to protect IP, neither of which is at issue in the 
majority of cases (though patent owners /claim/ they are defending 
"their" IP.  The role played by software patents does neither - it's a 
protection racket to squeeze licence fees out of people and sue those 
who don't quietly pay up.

There's a reason companies whose businesses revolve around patents are 
known as "patent trolls".  And it's not because trolls are renowned for 
being innovative or protective.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>David Brown wrote:
>
>> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
>> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
>> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
>> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.
>
>I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
>have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
>protecting IP.

But don't they appear to have played and still play a role
amongst large companies with deep pockets?  I remember quite
a large payout by Microsoft.

Jon

Walter Banks wrote:
> 
> David Brown wrote:
> 
>>> I base that on significantly longer protection and court
>>> precedents over damage awards that could be based on
>>> actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
>>> content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
>>> change actual  over all practice. Software patents give a
>>> lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
>>> redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
>>> gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
>>> for a long period of time.
>>>
>> I agree with Jon that it is very difficult to see what your argument is
>> here.
> 
> The key to my comments are that patents require
> a list of claims be defined when the patent is filed.
> 
> This not only means that the invention must be novel
> but the inventor must have specific vision on how the
> invention is going to be used.
> 
> Copyrights don't have the requirement of vision.
> 
> Jon, David the / redefined / predefined / typo is mine
> and confused my earlier comments.
> 

I see what you are saying now.

I think the confusion was at least partly because you are talking about 
how the /theoretical/ requirements for software patents (it must be 
novel, clearly described, and useful with a view to implementation), 
while we have been talking about the /actual/ requirements to getting a 
software patent in the USA (write enough words, pay the fee).

We agree that even if the patent office did a proper job, software 
patents are unnecessary and provide little or no benefit to anyone.  And 
because of the way the USA patent office actually works, software 
patents are directly harmful.

Note that this is not really due to incompetence or other failings of 
the patent office itself, or its staff.  The current USA patent system 
requires the patent offices to earn money.  Since they earn a fee on 
each registered patent, while any work done checking the validity of a 
patent application takes time and therefore money, the obvious profit 
strategy is to rubber-stamp everything that passes a first-glance 
inspection, and leave it to the courts to figure out if it should have 
been issued or not.  And since the USA civil courts are based on money 
(with a little law on the side) rather than any requirement for truth or 
justice, if you can afford lawyers you can get your dodgy patents 
strengthened just by winning a game of lawyer expenses chicken.

Walter Banks wrote:
> 
> David Brown wrote:
> 
>> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
>> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
>> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
>> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.
> 
> I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
> have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
> protecting IP.
> 

OK, we agree on that - thanks for clearing this up.  I'm think we differ 
a little on the weightings for the reasons for disliking software 
patents - you say they are ineffective at encouraging innovation, while 
I believe they directly discourage far more innovation than they 
encourage.  In other words, they are not just unnecessary, but a direct 
hindrance to progress.

David Brown wrote:

> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.

I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
protecting IP.

w..

On 20/04/2010 16:37, Chris H wrote:
> In message<7199c47f-3c95-4aa1-96d6-87bc91909f7f@f17g2000vbd.googlegroup
> s.com>, Didi<dp@tgi-sci.com>  writes
>> On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, Chris H<ch...@phaedsys.org>  wrote:
>>> In message<l156t9....@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst
>>> <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>  writes
>>>
>>>> There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for
>>>> economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US
>>>> and China would be certain.
>>>
>>> The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military
>>> action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war.
>>
>> Well if they (or anybody else) cannot afford a war things are OK.
>> It gets really bad when someone cannot afford not to go to war...
>> If things get to a large scale war finances are no longer a factor.
>> They are that only while preparing for this war, building up reserves,
>> fuel included.
>
> The Chinese can sink the USD in  matter of hours.  Then the US can not
> buy fuel or food on the international markets.  Actually the US could
> not by anything or do any business.....  no matter how many tanks it
> has.
>

Doing that would do enormous damage to China as well.  What's that 
saying - if you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem, but 
if you owe the bank a billion, the bank has a problem?  China is the 
USA's bank - dropping the USD would mean giving up on the very large sum 
of money owed it by the USA.

Of course, it's a useful last resort (from China's viewpoint).  It's not 
quite MAD, since the USA would come off a lot worse than China, but it's 
no easy option.

On 20/04/2010 16:46, Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>>> Software patents give a
>>> lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
>>> redefined claims for short period of time.
>>
>> I think I understand this.  But I don't fully agree with the
>> thrust.  Patents can last around two decades and in the
>> computer field that is "almost forever."  In other words,
>> about the "same as" copyright protection.  And copyright can
>> be "worked around."  Patents cannot be nearly so easily.
>
> A few years ago I would have agreed with you on speed
> of the computer field. I don't see the speed now. We are still
> selling tools for processors whose instruction sets were
> developed in the mid to late 70's.
>
> One of my current projects started in 1998 and we have
> support contracts to 2016 that are very likely to be extended
>
> 15 or 17 years is is not a long time anymore. It now takes
> 5-8 years to launch new processors and about as long again
> to get them designed in.
>
> A major reference document that we use was written in 60's
> and revised in the 70's. It has a copyright and has outlived many
> patents.
>

You are referring here to a tiny niche market.  In the huge majority of 
the software world, a couple of years is a long time.  Support contracts 
lasting as long as 3 years are extra cost.  If you are a large company 
and want long-term support from a small company with a great new 
product, you can't rely on that company existing in a few years time - 
you just buy the company.

If patents, and software patents in particular, were only given for 
truly new, innovative and useful ideas, then I might agree with you 
somewhat - there have been relatively few good "inventions" in software 
(or processor design, since you mentioned that) in recent times. 
There's been plenty of progress, but little in the way of revolutionary 
ideas that justify a patent.

>> copyright can be "worked around."  Patents cannot
>> be nearly so easily
>
> I don't agree. Patent's are far more protective of a narrow
> range of claims that need to be predefined. The copyright
> control of derivative works makes the copyright holder able
> to control material in ways that were not even imagined
> when the copyright was issued.
>

Patents are typically written as broadly as the author can make it. 
When Jon says you cannot easily work around them, what he means is you 
can do your own development totally independently of the patent - 
typically with no idea the patent exists - and still fall foul of it. 
And because of the way patents are granted, and the way the courts work 
in the USA, it really doesn't even matter if you wrote the software long 
before the person who got the patent.  If the patent-holder wants to sue 
you, it's going to cost you a great deal of money - whether you are 
"innocent" or not, and whether the patent is valid or not.  And that's 
just because you came up with an idea that someone else also had.

Copyrights, on the other hand, are very much narrower - they cover an 
implementation of an idea, not the idea itself.  Thus you are perfectly 
at liberty to do a clean-room re-implementation of the same ideas.  Thus 
you are not allowed to steal other people's work, but you /are/ allowed 
to do the work again yourself.

> Had the LCD control patent been a copyright there would
> still be a lot of licence fees being paid. This patent was
> organized the way a copyright could have been. LCD material
> requires that the average voltage be across the material be zero.
> The patent author detailed essentially all the ways an LCD
> display could be driven or scanned and keep the average
> display voltage zero.
>

Your example doesn't make sense.  You can't copyright an idea, or a 
method, or a way to control an LCD.  You can copyright a datasheet or 
instruction manual for the LCD.  Patents and copyrights apply to 
different things.

Note that I don't think anyone here has argued against the idea of 
patents for this sort of thing.  While many people (myself included) 
would like to see wide-ranging changes to the way patents are granted, 
the duration, and the way conflicts are resolved (in the USA in 
particular, but also more generally throughout the world), I don't think 
patents should be abandoned entirely.  /Software/ patents should be 
abandoned in the USA, like the rest of the world.  But I see nothing 
wrong with the inventor of the LCD (or its control mechanisms) having a 
patent for that, for a few years.

> Once usage goes beyond fair use a copyright can be powerful
> protection. In general fair use does not allow someone to
> profit from the use of a copyright they do not own. (I know
> there are exceptions to this)
>

No one is arguing that copyright can give powerful protection - and that 
one of the main aims is let people have use of the copyrighted material 
without getting economic gain through its abuse.

The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary - 
copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers' 
rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers, 
innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.

David Brown wrote:

> > I base that on significantly longer protection and court
> > precedents over damage awards that could be based on
> > actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
> > content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
> > change actual  over all practice. Software patents give a
> > lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
> > redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
> > gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
> > for a long period of time.
> >
>
> I agree with Jon that it is very difficult to see what your argument is
> here.

The key to my comments are that patents require
a list of claims be defined when the patent is filed.

This not only means that the invention must be novel
but the inventor must have specific vision on how the
invention is going to be used.

Copyrights don't have the requirement of vision.

Jon, David the / redefined / predefined / typo is mine
and confused my earlier comments.

Regards,


Walter..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com