5 ms·

The problem, as usual, are software patents. Any other discussion is just a by-product of that.

PietdeVries 10y ago
And is there an alternative to software patents? One of the examples (linked to the case against TomTom) is related to Fat32. I can imagine that if you "invent" a filesystem and everyone is enthusiastic & starts using it - you have the right to be paid for your work?
- Eridrus 10y ago
  Taking a rights based approach to patents is not the right one, we should look at outcomes instead. Independent inventors rarely seek patents and their best bet to contest the patent is to sell it to a patent troll, companies tell their employees to never read patent filings to not be willfully infringing and truly novel patented ideas are simply avoided until the patent expires or alternative methods are found (eg ECC crypto). I'm sure you can find some cases where patents have served as a social good, but I expect them to be outweighed by all their negative outcomes.
- lake99 10y ago
  As far as I know, no one advocating abolishment of software patents sees the need for an alternative. Fat32 is not in common use because people are enthusiastic about it, but because it's easy to implement, and it's compaitble. At a technical level, it's no different from trying to patent a database schema.
- coldpie 10y ago
  > I can imagine that if you "invent" a filesystem and everyone is enthusiastic & starts using it - you have the right to be paid for your work? We tried this. It led to the current insanity with software patents and software trolls. I also don't see any indication that innovation would stop if patents didn't exist (see: everything done in the Linux kernel). The trade-off is clear: patents do more harm than good. Get rid of them.
- kriro 10y ago
  Anyone who has ever ventured into home brew OS development will probably tell you that it is fairly hard not to invent a FAT-like file system (file allocation table). I'm strongly against software patents, period but even if you think they should be granted in some cases...I feel like FAT is actually too trivial. I guess one could argue that using a pair of tables is innovative etc. etc.
- vetinari 10y ago
  Nobody is using FAT32 filesystem due to it being good. It is used, because it is the only one widely compatible, especially with Windows. If Windows supported F2FS for example, everyone would be happier. But what would be a motivation for Microsoft to support a good, free filesystem? One, that it cannot ask a fees for?
- pjc50 10y ago
  The thing about software is that it gets two bites at the IP cherry. If you write some filesystem code: you get copyright in it. If you take out a patent, then if I write a compatible implementation, you claim rights to my work.
- icebraining 10y ago
  The sad thing is that the patents are not even on the filesystem, but on the workaround they had to put it to support long file names. And even that wasn't a novel concept - OS/2 had already added long file names to FAT, just in a different way.
  - ygra 10y ago
    Aren't patents exactly for protecting a particular way of doing things, instead of applying to concepts? Not to defend software patents, I still think they're a stupid idea, but for patents prior art applies to the exact workings of something, not the general idea and concept.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      It's supposed to protect a particular way of solving a problem, but this is more a minor variation of the same way that others have already invented.
mtgx 10y ago
The majority of "software patents" have already been invalidated by the Supreme Court. But I doubt Microsoft is acting like that and giving OEMs a "discount" on their royalty extortion. At this point, thanks to peer pressure ("hey, if everyone pays up, then maybe we should, too") no company seems to dare to even negotiate these contracts anymore, let alone sue Microsoft over it. It's a tragedy. Peer pressure is how Microsoft managed to get everyone to pay them up. They started with small "wins" against small and lesser known manufacturers, building up that extortion list that they could show to others as some kind of sick "social proof". Then they moved to small, but known OEMs, like HTC, and eventually, they took down the giant, Samsung as well, with the "everyone is already paying up" strategy. And once they got Samsung, it was over - whoever was left, or newcomers, "had" to pay Microsoft, too, and wouldn't dare question the royalties anymore.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  So in New Zealand, software is not patentable. I think it was back in 2013 or 2014 where they were banned. Supreme court decisions in the US really bother me because of how far reaching they can be. They can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment or another supreme court decision. Marriage equality in the US is great, but it also came down to a supreme court decision. If it had gone the other direction, getting an amendment added in today's climate would be extremely difficult. We've seen lower courts rule code as speech (in the create encryption/ITAR wars of the 90s): http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr96/cs291/encryption.html http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr96/cs291/encr... ..but if a higher court, or the Supreme court, ruled to enforce software patents, it would create a huge block to development and innovation -- and there would be big questions about open source projects which are free as in speech. Would individual users be required to pay patent fees to use oss tools?
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Why do firms agree to blackmail? In some extremely shortsighted view the cost to settle might be lower than the cost to fight it. Surely the cost to settle them all is more expensive than the cost to fight now. This is the exact same logic as a "don't negotiate with kidnappers/terrorists" stance. Once you negotiate with one you give validity to those tactics and others will try. Giving in to either kind of blackmail makes it impossible to profit in the long run. This is exactly why Newegg fought and crush patent trolls and why HTC and Samsung should do the same.

And is there an alternative to software patents? One of the examples (linked to the case against TomTom) is related to Fat32. I can imagine that if you "invent" a filesystem and everyone is enthusiastic & starts using it - you have the right to be paid for your work?

Eridrus 10y ago
Taking a rights based approach to patents is not the right one, we should look at outcomes instead. Independent inventors rarely seek patents and their best bet to contest the patent is to sell it to a patent troll, companies tell their employees to never read patent filings to not be willfully infringing and truly novel patented ideas are simply avoided until the patent expires or alternative methods are found (eg ECC crypto). I'm sure you can find some cases where patents have served as a social good, but I expect them to be outweighed by all their negative outcomes.
lake99 10y ago
As far as I know, no one advocating abolishment of software patents sees the need for an alternative. Fat32 is not in common use because people are enthusiastic about it, but because it's easy to implement, and it's compaitble. At a technical level, it's no different from trying to patent a database schema.
coldpie 10y ago
> I can imagine that if you "invent" a filesystem and everyone is enthusiastic & starts using it - you have the right to be paid for your work? We tried this. It led to the current insanity with software patents and software trolls. I also don't see any indication that innovation would stop if patents didn't exist (see: everything done in the Linux kernel). The trade-off is clear: patents do more harm than good. Get rid of them.
kriro 10y ago
Anyone who has ever ventured into home brew OS development will probably tell you that it is fairly hard not to invent a FAT-like file system (file allocation table). I'm strongly against software patents, period but even if you think they should be granted in some cases...I feel like FAT is actually too trivial. I guess one could argue that using a pair of tables is innovative etc. etc.
vetinari 10y ago
Nobody is using FAT32 filesystem due to it being good. It is used, because it is the only one widely compatible, especially with Windows. If Windows supported F2FS for example, everyone would be happier. But what would be a motivation for Microsoft to support a good, free filesystem? One, that it cannot ask a fees for?
pjc50 10y ago
The thing about software is that it gets two bites at the IP cherry. If you write some filesystem code: you get copyright in it. If you take out a patent, then if I write a compatible implementation, you claim rights to my work.
icebraining 10y ago
The sad thing is that the patents are not even on the filesystem, but on the workaround they had to put it to support long file names. And even that wasn't a novel concept - OS/2 had already added long file names to FAT, just in a different way.
- ygra 10y ago
  Aren't patents exactly for protecting a particular way of doing things, instead of applying to concepts? Not to defend software patents, I still think they're a stupid idea, but for patents prior art applies to the exact workings of something, not the general idea and concept.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    It's supposed to protect a particular way of solving a problem, but this is more a minor variation of the same way that others have already invented.

mtgx 10y ago

The majority of "software patents" have already been invalidated by the Supreme Court. But I doubt Microsoft is acting like that and giving OEMs a "discount" on their royalty extortion. At this point, thanks to peer pressure ("hey, if everyone pays up, then maybe we should, too") no company seems to dare to even negotiate these contracts anymore, let alone sue Microsoft over it. It's a tragedy. Peer pressure is how Microsoft managed to get everyone to pay them up. They started with small "wins" against small and lesser known manufacturers, building up that extortion list that they could show to others as some kind of sick "social proof". Then they moved to small, but known OEMs, like HTC, and eventually, they took down the giant, Samsung as well, with the "everyone is already paying up" strategy. And once they got Samsung, it was over - whoever was left, or newcomers, "had" to pay Microsoft, too, and wouldn't dare question the royalties anymore.

djsumdog 10y ago
So in New Zealand, software is not patentable. I think it was back in 2013 or 2014 where they were banned. Supreme court decisions in the US really bother me because of how far reaching they can be. They can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment or another supreme court decision. Marriage equality in the US is great, but it also came down to a supreme court decision. If it had gone the other direction, getting an amendment added in today's climate would be extremely difficult. We've seen lower courts rule code as speech (in the create encryption/ITAR wars of the 90s): http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr96/cs291/encryption.html http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr96/cs291/encr... ..but if a higher court, or the Supreme court, ruled to enforce software patents, it would create a huge block to development and innovation -- and there would be big questions about open source projects which are free as in speech. Would individual users be required to pay patent fees to use oss tools?
sqeaky 10y ago
Why do firms agree to blackmail? In some extremely shortsighted view the cost to settle might be lower than the cost to fight it. Surely the cost to settle them all is more expensive than the cost to fight now. This is the exact same logic as a "don't negotiate with kidnappers/terrorists" stance. Once you negotiate with one you give validity to those tactics and others will try. Giving in to either kind of blackmail makes it impossible to profit in the long run. This is exactly why Newegg fought and crush patent trolls and why HTC and Samsung should do the same.