5 ms·

Software patents can only be fixed in the near future if the largest software companies in the world work together. Sadly, some of them profit (immensely) from

by jeswin 11y ago

Software patents can only be fixed in the near future if the largest software companies in the world work together. Sadly, some of them profit (immensely) from putting up that huge barrier for smaller companies to compete with them. Case in point, Microsoft has had to pay hundreds of millions in damages to trolls like Eolas, yet stand solidly behind software patents. For the millions they paid Eolas, Steve Ballmer could claim that Linux infringes over 200 patents. Oracle gets to claim $9B for 37 methods in the Android code. Apple gets to sue Samsung over icons, among other things. Basically, this is a cartel. They even have a website: http://ww2.bsa.org http://ww2.bsa.org These companies thrive on mind share. As is evident with MS shipping Linux subsystems with Windows 10, they have to court developers or their influence will wane. The loss of developer community happened over many years, and it should continue until these companies change their approach. Get projects you have influence over to try open alternatives. Spread the word in forums and meetups. Make their platforms uncool. Being Open Source friendly isn't about releasing code under liberal licenses. It is about the commitment to software freedom. Not differentiating these two is ignoring history.

Ace17 11y ago
There's been some progress: http://aomedia.org/ http://aomedia.org/
throwawaykf05 11y ago
>Sadly, some of them profit (immensely) from putting up that huge barrier for smaller companies to compete with them. Patents go both ways. Studies that while patent thickets may discourage entry [1], this effect is limited, and smaller companies are more likely to enter the same markets (and succeed) if they have patents themselves [1, 2, 3, 4]. > Oracle gets to claim $9B for 37 methods in the Android code. This has nothing to do patents and everything to do with copyright licenses like the GPL. And just to be pedantic, it's 37 whole packages. And without this, Google would have been rip off Sun's hard work of building a developer base for Java. "Free software" should not mean "freeloading". > Apple gets to sue Samsung over icons, among other things. And without those, as ridiculous as they are, Samsung would have gotten away with ripping off Apple wholesale. > Being Open Source friendly isn't about releasing code under liberal licenses. It is about the commitment to software freedom. False dichotomy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11583749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11583749 1. http://people.bu.edu/cockburn/cockburn_macgarvie_entry_and_patenting_in_software.pdf http://people.bu.edu/cockburn/cockburn_macgarvie_entry_and_p... 2. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103 3. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=989592 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=989592 4. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926204 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926204
astrodust 11y ago
There's a huge difference between trade dress patents, which are analogous to trademarks in their extreme specificity, and software patents which are deliberately vague. Unless a software patent can be described in actual, working code they should reject it, and if it is granted, it should cover that specific implementation and not all possible forms such code might take.

by jeswin 11y ago

Ace17 11y ago

There's been some progress: http://aomedia.org/ http://aomedia.org/

throwawaykf05 11y ago

>Sadly, some of them profit (immensely) from putting up that huge barrier for smaller companies to compete with them. Patents go both ways. Studies that while patent thickets may discourage entry [1], this effect is limited, and smaller companies are more likely to enter the same markets (and succeed) if they have patents themselves [1, 2, 3, 4]. > Oracle gets to claim $9B for 37 methods in the Android code. This has nothing to do patents and everything to do with copyright licenses like the GPL. And just to be pedantic, it's 37 whole packages. And without this, Google would have been rip off Sun's hard work of building a developer base for Java. "Free software" should not mean "freeloading". > Apple gets to sue Samsung over icons, among other things. And without those, as ridiculous as they are, Samsung would have gotten away with ripping off Apple wholesale. > Being Open Source friendly isn't about releasing code under liberal licenses. It is about the commitment to software freedom. False dichotomy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11583749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11583749 1. http://people.bu.edu/cockburn/cockburn_macgarvie_entry_and_patenting_in_software.pdf http://people.bu.edu/cockburn/cockburn_macgarvie_entry_and_p... 2. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103 3. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=989592 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=989592 4. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926204 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926204

astrodust 11y ago

There's a huge difference between trade dress patents, which are analogous to trademarks in their extreme specificity, and software patents which are deliberately vague. Unless a software patent can be described in actual, working code they should reject it, and if it is granted, it should cover that specific implementation and not all possible forms such code might take.