This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
Posted Oct 4, 2010 12:11 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784)In reply to: This is probably the end of discussion... by khim
Parent article: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)
And if law is not always right then why can't we discuss cases where it's not right?
I think we absolutely have to be able to discuss where the law is not right, why it isn't right, and what one can do to reconcile one's desire to do the right thing with the effect of unjust laws. And it's certainly not inappropriate to indicate that one doesn't accept the law as it stands, even if it does leave a certain amount of uncertainty about what one would recommend to, say, a business that risks getting prosecuted under such laws.
Indeed, when people advocate that others shut up and accept the law, the burden is on those people to clarify whether they are only doing so in support of general obedience of the law (perhaps to caution others that they might be prosecuted, and even then, a continuous insistence that others "observe the law" makes for a tiresome Judge Dredd impersonation), whether they are doing so because they actually support the law as it stands, or whether it is because they see the law as having some legitimacy that is potentially derived from those who openly support it. Take this comment from Mr Mueller, for example:
The NoSoftwarePatents cause has too little support from businesses. I explained in this recent LWN comment what it would take to convince politicians of abolition. So contrary to what some people sometimes allege, I don't just criticize but actually say what would be required.
Beyond the observation that the best way to convince politicians is to show them an open briefcase filled with money, are we to believe that Mr Mueller regards the law as legitimate because large companies support it (or are not opposed to it), and that a revised law would only be legitimate if large companies supported it?
This isn't idle debate, either: such matters have a significant effect on public policy. Should a society only invest in, say, renewable energy when the major oil companies decide it is appropriate? After all, they make the big money in that sector...
Posted Oct 4, 2010 18:19 UTC (Mon)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link] (4 responses)
The rationale used to attack the FSF effort was the size of the companies supporting the bad law (and you gave a great example to show the problems with that approach).
What I find impressive is that, with the limited funds the FSF has, they were able to get a lot of independent units to sign on. A statistically rigorous analysis might confirm the FSF's claims and more.
I think it would help if the FSF went back and encouraged all of those small firms to add to their website a section where customers that supported those firms could easily send a letter (or sign a petition) to gov reps against software patents.
Many engineers that take out patents think it is a joke. And corps that take out many of them may largely use them for defensive purposes (and Sun had many hardware patents, not just software) http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/the_shit_finally_h... . If Sun didn't have to deal with the lawsuits and time and cost and practice of taking out patent, they might still be around. The patent game is won by the most aggressive and by the largest. Most firms have reasons to dislike the economic effects patents (especially those that are but software algorithm patents in disguise) have on their firms. The bigger suitcase of patents and army of lawyer is the net winner, before the product is even looked at. And the stifling effects of patents are part of their overall unethical associations.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 18:37 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (3 responses)
Many engineers that take out patents think it is a joke. Perhaps you imagine that Google should go into court and tell the judge, "But those engineers were just joking when they submitted those patents!" Hey, could work.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 19:04 UTC (Mon)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link] (2 responses)
I think Google may use many tools, and certainly a survey of the motivational and quality value of patent content, generally, by those practicing the art, could be one such tool.
Such opinions could also help adjust the law (which has nothing to do with Google, but everything to do with software patents and the threats these pose to lots and lots of people).
The more people that dislike software patents and can offer reasons, the more likely change will come.
Maybe Google and these suits will become a catalyst for the next major round of activity against software patents.
Posted Oct 4, 2010 19:29 UTC (Mon)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link] (1 responses)
Your point is about dealing with the reality of lawsuits today. Indeed. That is, in fact, the subject of this story, as it turns out: the reality of a lawsuit today. Your point, speaking generously, might be about the desirability of changing the patent system at some unspecified point in the futurebut doubtless too far off to be of any assistance to Motorola, HTC or Googlethrough means that are completely unclear, other than they seem to have something to do with getting greater numbers of people to whine ineffectually about the situation in the comments columns of various web sites. I'm not sure this is really your best strategy. The "last major round of activity against software patents" in the US produced not a lot of comfort for your cause, as Florian has correctly pointed out: of the two routes they might have taken, the court took the more expansive view rather than the more restrictive one, all in all. If you do nearly as "well" in the next round, you'll be complaining even more loudly.
Posted Oct 5, 2010 2:46 UTC (Tue)
by hozelda (guest, #19341)
[Link]
For a number of reasons the situation is better. They agreed machine-or-transformation is a fairly comprehensive test, and they repeated that algorithms are abstract and obvious post solution activity cannot make the invention patentable.
They apparently knocked State Street out, and this had been used to broaden the standard in what machines/processes might be patentable.
They added as void (9-0) another example of a patent many patent supporters thought should have been acceptable.
The main problem for me is desktop software being erroneously patented. Bilski can definitely help fix this by more than just a trivial amount.
Also, a phone and many other devices should be treated similarly for patent purposes if the magic of the phone is via software instructions on ordinarily programmable chips. These are just ideal algorithms being carried out dutifully by a general purpose machine designed independent of the actual software algorithms (so it is non-novel and obvious at the time of the software invention), and the machine works to achieve the same exact value result a human would achieve. All hardware interactions are non-novel in the standard case (of the programmable chips and software). Note, that a machine created specifically to function just with those algorithms might be patentable, but that is different than having a person run those algorithms on their own general purpose machine (or, eg, existing phone). Updatable phones are not being changed in hardware (firmware upgrades might change the equation for the purpose of this narrow analysis).
There is room to argue either way, but the above is mostly why I think the situation is better today. How much near term improvement (anti-sw-pat) happens, if any, will depend on the interpretation adopted by the USPTO and future lower court judges.
Also, others will argue fairly well (and I could to some extent, but, for various reasons, I am willing to focus on the more gross problems) that even much hardware circuit logic (especially using old technology for digital behavior) also should not be patentable because these are an expression of mathematics. Eg, see http://web.archive.org/web/20200102195352/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2010092621054289
Also, the court has not ruled on criteria that I think more clearly should remove software from patenting: does it promote the progress (a monopoly hand-cuffs many in the software field which creates a huge liability, especially because it lasts so long), are the patent laws equitable to all or do they discriminate, is free speech being hindered, etc.
This is probably the end of discussion...
>> > The NoSoftwarePatents cause has too little support from businesses.
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...
This is probably the end of discussion...