M2M website closes in protest of software patents

Aww, I didn’t. :’(

[edit: Oh. Yes, I did. Seems like the limit is 251]

It’s interesting that Greg brings up patents on web technologies since the W3C has solved the problems of patents in standards by only allowing patented technology into central infrastructure if such technology can be implemented freely. In other words, they make patents work in standards by forcing the patent owner to give up their patent rights.

This solution is also used in other industries, such as the aviation industry.

[quote]Copyrights are monopolies as well, by that standard. Why shouldn’t I be able to take your photo, book, game, etc, create the highest quality reproduction of it and sell it for profit?
[/quote]
Yes, it is unfair. Neither engineers nor authors are allowed to copy each others expressions, but authors are the only ones prevented from making new expressions based on the engineer’s ideas. According to your reasoning, authors seem to need a “creative patent” that gives them the exclusive rights to the ideas behind their books, preventing everyone else from writing books based on those ideas. Such ideas would be “thou shalt not kill”, “love conquers all”, “I think, therefore I am”, and “radioactive ants attack village”.

[quote] The patent system is the only thing that lets small companies tax big companies for stealing the software they’ve developed.
[/quote]
No, that’s what copyright do. Patents lock down the ideas behind the software.

Anyway, I actually think your comparison between patents and copyrights is interesting. Copying the principle of independent discovery from copyright law into patent law would probably solve many of the problems with patents, such as making the non-obviousness criteria self enforcing. It would also be fair since surely you should not have the right to tax me for an idea that we both came up with independently…

[quote]The worrying thing is that the requirement of having a working implementation seems to be largly ignored judging by recent US patents
[/quote]
This is quite true. I decided not to research a particular field for my master’s thesis partly because someone had patented what they thought were the necessary components to make a working implementation of an application in that field.

Now, there is no implementation of that field that has been successful, but the patent author described a basic implementation and had some claims that would probably have to be infringed by any implementation.

Btw, the patented techniques are quite old, but the novelty in the patent is that they are implemented using a computer. The real achievement is to make the AI good enough for this job while the patent claims are on the level of “using a computer to do this”. Hopefully the patent will keep the field dead for another 10 years or so until the patent expires, and maybe I will look into it then :slight_smile:

[quote]There was one a couple of months ago that stuck out somewhat - some sort of hologram thing for projecting images onto a virtual screen. The patent basically covered ‘projecting a screen onto a virtual screen of infinate size’ yet their fairly crummy implementation seemed fairly flawed and was seriously limited by good old physics and the focal length of their equipment if i remember correctly. Think i’ve lost the original link though :-[
In short, their actual patent didn’t match their implementation, yet was still granted.
[/quote]
If the implementation didn’t actually match the patent then it would probably be pretty easy to challenge. Also, a completely different implementation of the idea (one that really worked and was truly useful, for instance) would probably not infringe upon the patent.

The title of a patent will almost always look like:

“A Method for [doing something]”

or

“A System for [doing something]”

What most people see in the media is this:

“So and so has received a patent for [doing something]”

This is what often leads people to the misconclusion that someone has managed to patent the idea of “[doing something]”. However, the key phrase in the title of a patent isn’t the “[doing something]” part but the “method” or “system” part. If you have a better method or system for “[doing something]” you’re free to do whatever you want with it, provided you can prove that it isn’t just cosmetically different from the patented invention. In fact, if you can demonstrate that your method or system is novel and non-obvious in light of the previous invention, you can patent it yourself, and the previous patent holder has no claim over you. One of the reasons patents are publicly available is so that other inventors can see exactly what was done before and develop unique and better solutions.

[quote]It wouldn’t bother me too much but the limit of +17 years seems pretty over the top for something as fast moving as computer tech.
[/quote]
This I actually agree with, though I haven’t decided for myself what would feel like the “right” duration.

[quote]I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that you’re pro patents, Athomas? :wink:
[/quote]
Well, spending several years in the research community before entering the commercial world, has given me a different perspective (not that all research scientists are pro-patents)

I find it amusing when developers talk about patents “stifling innovation” Since when is using someone else’s work in your product being innovative? I can understand the concern regarding stifling creativity, but once again, the same can be said for copyrighted material.

To be frank, I’ve seen very little of what I would call “true” innovation happen within the context of commercial product development (and games are no exception). This isn’t to put-down commercial software developers, many of whom are brilliant people. It’s just that when you’ve got 12 - 18 months to release a bug-free, fully documented, feature complete product, you rarely have 2-3 years to tackle any one problem in search of a breakthrough solution. Not that breakthroughs don’t happen, it’s just that any problem that would take more than a month or two to solve probably won’t be addressed. This is why the biggest innovations you see in software always seem to come from small companies who’ve usually been working on a solution for years before releasing their first product. True, many of these companies are subsequently bought by large companies, but without patents they’d probably just get stuffed by the big guys.

[quote]Also, I think I got an extra duke now. =D
[/quote]
Congratulations!

[quote]Yes, it is unfair. Neither engineers nor authors are allowed to copy each others expressions, but authors are the only ones prevented from making new expressions based on the engineer’s ideas. According to your reasoning, authors seem to need a “creative patent” that gives them the exclusive rights to the ideas behind their books, preventing everyone else from writing books based on those ideas. Such ideas would be “thou shalt not kill”, “love conquers all”, “I think, therefore I am”, and “radioactive ants attack village”.

Patents lock down the ideas behind the software.
[/quote]
Once again, this is a common, but wholly incorrect, misconception regarding patents. Engineer’s have no legal claim whatsoever to the ideas behind their work. The idea of “browsing the web” or “creating seamless transitions between animations” is nor more patentable than the idea of having “radioactive ants attack village” is copyrightable. What is patentable is the specific method or system for “browsing the web” or “creating seamless transitions between animations” just as what is copyrightable is the specific book in which “radioactive ant attack village”. If I develop a unique system for “browsing the web” or method for “creating seamless transitions between animations” then I’m not infringing on anyone’s patent, just as I would not be infringing on anyone’s copyright by writing my own “radioactive ants attack village story” If however my method or system is merely cosmetically different (say I wrote it in Java rather than in C) then I am infringing, just as I would if I took your story and merely changed the names, or presented it in a different form (say as a screenplay)

[quote]Anyway, I actually think your comparison between patents and copyrights is interesting. Copying the principle of independent discovery from copyright law into patent law would probably solve many of the problems with patents, such as making the non-obviousness criteria self enforcing. It would also be fair since surely you should not have the right to tax me for an idea that we both came up with independently…
[/quote]
Leaving the “idea” part off for a moment, I don’t entirely disagree with you. The problem is that this is extremely difficult to enforce. Given the degree of communication in the industry, you could really only extend this to offer protection to those who could claim to have come upon the same solution prior to the disclosure of the patented technology.

[quote]This is quite true. I decided not to research a particular field for my master’s thesis partly because someone had patented what they thought were the necessary components to make a working implementation of an application in that field.

Now, there is no implementation of that field that has been successful, but the patent author described a basic implementation and had some claims that would probably have to be infringed by any implementation.
[/quote]
IOW, they were, in fact, the necessary components to making a working implementation of an application in the field. As long as the components do what they’re supposed to in a novel and non-obvious way than that’s what patents are for.

[quote]Btw, the patented techniques are quite old, but the novelty in the patent is that they are implemented using a computer. The real achievement is to make the AI good enough for this job while the patent claims are on the level of “using a computer to do this”. Hopefully the patent will keep the field dead for another 10 years or so until the patent expires, and maybe I will look into it then :slight_smile:
[/quote]
Without knowing the specifics of the patent you’re refering to I will say that from my own perspective the “using a computer” to execute an existing process strikes me as “obvious” though that’s my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the patent office. However. if the specific method for implementing these techniques on a computer was novel, non-obvious and useful, then that process should be patentable, and some other process for implementing the same techniques would probably not infringe.

Just to be clear non-obvious doesn’t mean no one had thought of it before. (That’s what novel means) Just because I didn’t implement some set of known techniques using a computer, perhaps because I didn’t have a computer or had no personal need for a computerized version of the techniques, doesn’t mean the solution for implementing those techniques on the computer wouldn’t be obvious if I had.

BTW: The non-obvious requirement is one of the main reasons patents get rescinded.

Also: Using a patented technology as the basis for your Master’s Thesis would not have made you vulnerable to litigation. However, developing a commercial product based on your thesis and selling it without a license agreement with the patent holder probably would.

So I start by saying ‘3 years!’, you reply with a bid for 15 years, then eventually we haggle it down to a nice power-of-two number that is 8 years.

Just see how much time we could save the EU ;D

/me nips off to patent a haggling system where only one person is involved :wink:

[quote]So I start by saying ‘3 years!’, you reply with a bid for 15 years, then eventually we haggle it down to a nice power-of-two number that is 8 years.
Just see how much time we could save the EU ;D
[/quote]
The closest number I’ve come up with is 7 years. It’s probably somewhere between 5 and 8.

[quote]/me Orangy Tang nips off to patent a haggling system where only one person is involved :wink:
[/quote]
You blew it! You just disclosed before filing, so you’re out of luck! Of course, it probably wouldn’t satisfy the “usefulness” requirement anyway. :wink:

Doesn’t the US (but not the EU) allow filling up to 12 months after disclosure? I think this difference lost IBM a European patent on high temperature super conductors.

I thought it was the other way round, but you may be right. Alright Orangy Tang, get crackin’ on the “system for one person haggling” filing! :slight_smile:

With the speed that the world has advanced I’ve been looking at 5-8 years as a reasonable amount of time for a patent to be out there. It gives the author a fair chance to make some money, and it patent doesn’t stay out there for an extensive amount of time. If you can’t capitalize on a patent in 5-8 years - that’s your fault.

[quote] If the implementation didn’t actually match the patent then it would probably be pretty easy to challenge.
[/quote]
And here all the problems begin. How do I know that my work hasn’t been patented? Who pays my independent developer time/money for challeging a patent?

What I fail to see, is that we’ve had many years of innovation and research WITHOUT patents (even copyright, service marks, trade marks and so forth). Yet now people argue that without patents we’ll be frozen in ice for the rest of humanity…

Take any technology you’re fond of, and ask yourself - would humanity (yes, humanity) be better of by one controlling force of that technology. I have yet to find one that I can answer yes to.

Regarding the link to IETF’s list of patents, those I found relevant all said that they allowed implementations, without royalty. In effect rendering the effect of that patent void (royalty wise). But it still doesn’t change the point, if the Internet core technologies had been patented (and enforced) , it wouldn’t have been as widespread?

[quote] Once again, this is a common, but wholly incorrect, misconception regarding patents. Engineer’s have no legal claim whatsoever to the ideas behind their work.
[/quote]
The border between ideas and expression is a sliding scale and engineers do at least have more rights over something a lot closer to the “pure ideas” than authors do, since both groups have copyrights but only engineers get to patent their ideas.

I guess patents managed to get implemented because people at the time did not truly understand technology’s effect on politics and society. People do seem to be a bit more careful with business method patents as they can easily see that it might not be good for society if McDonald’s would have been able to tax or shut down Burger King for two decades. I guess they are even more opposed to patents on philosophical and political ideas, such as the ones expressed by authors, but I bet you could build a “creative patent” if you just limited to a monopoly on “unimportant entertainment ideas”, such as plots, gameplay, controlling idea etc. Still, I think all are basicly bad and I am happy to see that people try to affect the politics that surround them.

[quote]However. if the specific method for implementing these techniques on a computer was novel, non-obvious and useful, then that process should be patentable, and some other process for implementing the same techniques would probably not infringe.
[/quote]
Well, the true invention in the field would be to replace the human with an AI but the patent’s claims are not centered around building a clever AI. The claims are really more a translation of the human bookkeeping tasks, that others have described in human terminlogy, to computer terminology. That is, “write this down on a list” gets translated into a part of a patent claim that says “method for using a computer memory, create a data structure in the computer memory, store this information in the data structure”.

[quote]Just because I didn’t implement some set of known techniques using a computer, perhaps because I didn’t have a computer or had no personal need for a computerized version of the techniques, doesn’t mean the solution for implementing those techniques on the computer wouldn’t be obvious if I had.
[/quote]
Well, to a small developer or, as in my case, student it matters little whether the patent is valid or completely frivolous (and I do suspect that it could be successfully challenged based on either prior art or perhaps non-obviousness, but I am not certain as I am no patent lawyer). When something gets by the patent examiners it is often too costly and too risky to challenge for anyone but big companies.

Some businesses’ whole strategies are centered around forcing smaller companies to license overly broad patents because the license is cheaper than the legal costs.

Macromedia holds a metric ass-load of patents involving vector graphics for Flash and its the most used display technology on the web second only to HTML itself. Microsoft holds an obscene number of patents and PCs are all over the place. Windows Media Player, Quicktime, and Real Player all have patents associated with them yet they are collectively widely adopted. My optical mouse has patents associated with it, as does my Tivo. There are an incredible number of patents with MP3 and MP4 and they are widespread as well - so I have yet to see how the mere presence of patents somehow decreases the adoption of something.

[quote] Macromedia holds a metric ass-load of patents involving vector graphics for Flash and its the most used display technology on the web second only to HTML itself. Microsoft holds an obscene number of patents and PCs are all over the place. Windows Media Player, Quicktime, and Real Player all have patents associated with them yet they are collectively widely adopted. My optical mouse has patents associated with it, as does my Tivo. There are an incredible number of patents with MP3 and MP4 and they are widespread as well - so I have yet to see how the mere presence of patents somehow decreases the adoption of something.
[/quote]
Ahh, but all of those technologies, are in effect free for consumers, thus the consumer (who doesn’t care about patents) will just use whatever technology is installed on a computer. 90% of all Windows desktops have Flash, Windows Media Player and MP3 players installed. Thats why that particular implementation is widespread. Not because it is the best of breed (IMO).

About Flash and other web plugins, like the Java plugin. I wonder how this patent will affect them, at least Microsoft are big enough to be able to defend themselves.

The ones that need to license the patent will license it, pay royalties and move on with making money :slight_smile: Either that or they will come up with another implementation of plugins as some have and move on.

Its always funny how the press says ‘browser plugins’ and doesn’t list the patent number which would allow people to see how far reaching the patent really is.

[quote] The ones that need to license the patent will license it, pay royalties and move on with making money
[/quote]
That really makes me feel really comfortable considering that I’m posting this from Mozilla. Luckily I don’t develop browser-based Java applications though so I won’t miss not having the Java plugin.

Hopefully they can keep this kind of crap out of EU law, but I must admit that I am not holding my breath for it to happen. Contrary to what Athomas said, big companies are the ones pushing for patents (Microsoft, Sun, IBM, Nokia, Siemens, Matsushita, Philips etc.), and politicians tend to listen to the big existing bucks rather than to the potential growth bucks that the patents may stifle.

Anyway, I’m not blaming the big companies for doing what they do. Several of them got big by focusing on some niche in a market dominated by one big player that did everything for everyone but few things really well. It is understandable that they would like to lock down their whole fields to keep smaller players from doing the same to them now that they have gotten established and comfortable. However, I do blame the politicans that go along with it.

Well I had projects which use IE, Flash, Java, and Director and notice that I lose no sleep at all about this. The companies that need to pay royalities will - and I as a developer don’t have to worry about that just like I don’t worry about the patents involved in OpenGL.

All of the big companies were once small companies and there are plenty of small companies who will one day be big companies. I still have yet to see any credible argument for how patents stiffle innovation personally. From everything I’ve studied in business school the opposite seems to be true as companies that want to compete in stagnant market spaces (the only time business really run into problems) end up coming up with a NEW and INNOVATIVE way to do something to get around someone elses patent and many times end up doing things better than they were being done before.

Considering how long we’ve been advancing WITH patents, I find it very hard to accept that patents are stiffling anyone except for those trying to build IP by simply utilizing someone elses IP as Microsoft has done. If there are small business out there that are being stiffled by patents - I’d like to see them because at the rate that new companies are being created all the time you’d think that if patents were stopping people from doing anything that that number would be trivially small.