3 ms·

Why? Because it (also) places indirect costs and additional onus onto the submitter of the patent; costs beyond the existing filing fees and legal fees. Becau

by Hoff 16y ago

Why? Because it (also) places indirect costs and additional onus onto the submitter of the patent; costs beyond the existing filing fees and legal fees. Because it also provides (some) tangible results for the community. (Now whether the covered source code is judged "good" or "bad" is another matter; there's certainly going to be some cases and some judgement required here around what's covered code, and whether or not the code is obfuscated, etc.) Because it means all of the patent-covered source code eventually gets exposed and licensed, which then gives an advantage to the community. Because even if your organization doesn't produce a product (and for whatever reason), you still have to produce functional source code. And because it means that most closed-source organizations probably won't choose to patent their software.

mseebach 16y ago
In your post you referred prominently to the one-click patent. I fail to see how your proposal would have even slightly curtailed that patent. > Because it (also) places indirect costs and additional onus onto the submitter of the patent; A developer for a day, as I demonstrated. > Because it also provides (some) tangible results for the community. > Because it means all of the patent-covered source code eventually gets exposed and licensed An implementation of an obvious process isn't a tangible, or even particularly valuable, result, as any member of the community could produce it in very little time. > Because even if your organization doesn't produce a product (and for whatever reason), you still have to produce functional source code. No, you just have to throw a $500 project on e-lance. Or about what you pay the lawyer who's writing the patent for you every hour. > And because it means that most closed-source organizations probably won't choose to patent their software. No, at best it would keep the stuff that's actually patent-worthy from being patented (and thus "out there", inspiring others, which is the whole idea behind patents), while the obvious crap gets patented (what does Amazon have to lose from spending a day writing a simple PHP cart?)..
- Hoff 16y ago
  This scheme makes patents part of adding to open-source, and also uses the comparative "allergy" that many commercial entities have to open source. The folks seeking patents will have to decide if they want the patent enough to open-source their covered source code (later). Various firms certainly won't want that. Those that do go for the patents will then serve to produce open-source code. But if you don't think it'll work or if you have a better idea, cool. Post away...
  - mseebach 16y ago
    Code that's provided as part of a patent is tainted beyond reproach, and can never be part of free software. > But if you don't think it'll work or if you have a better idea, cool. Post away... Can we please not go to this level? I did not understand how your proposal would work. Pointing this out does not obligate me to have a better idea.
    - Hoff 16y ago
      Source code is not tainted beyond reproach after the patent expires in the existing patent system, though the source code does reverts to whatever copyright the producer might have. Source code that's been patented under the proposed system becomes open source at the expiration of the patent; the covered source code or the escrow source code becomes open source code under the proposed system. Pointing these details out can be quite useful; it definitely helps refine ideas or elevator pitches.

by Hoff 16y ago

mseebach 16y ago

In your post you referred prominently to the one-click patent. I fail to see how your proposal would have even slightly curtailed that patent. > Because it (also) places indirect costs and additional onus onto the submitter of the patent; A developer for a day, as I demonstrated. > Because it also provides (some) tangible results for the community. > Because it means all of the patent-covered source code eventually gets exposed and licensed An implementation of an obvious process isn't a tangible, or even particularly valuable, result, as any member of the community could produce it in very little time. > Because even if your organization doesn't produce a product (and for whatever reason), you still have to produce functional source code. No, you just have to throw a $500 project on e-lance. Or about what you pay the lawyer who's writing the patent for you every hour. > And because it means that most closed-source organizations probably won't choose to patent their software. No, at best it would keep the stuff that's actually patent-worthy from being patented (and thus "out there", inspiring others, which is the whole idea behind patents), while the obvious crap gets patented (what does Amazon have to lose from spending a day writing a simple PHP cart?)..

Hoff 16y ago
This scheme makes patents part of adding to open-source, and also uses the comparative "allergy" that many commercial entities have to open source. The folks seeking patents will have to decide if they want the patent enough to open-source their covered source code (later). Various firms certainly won't want that. Those that do go for the patents will then serve to produce open-source code. But if you don't think it'll work or if you have a better idea, cool. Post away...
- mseebach 16y ago
  Code that's provided as part of a patent is tainted beyond reproach, and can never be part of free software. > But if you don't think it'll work or if you have a better idea, cool. Post away... Can we please not go to this level? I did not understand how your proposal would work. Pointing this out does not obligate me to have a better idea.
  - Hoff 16y ago
    Source code is not tainted beyond reproach after the patent expires in the existing patent system, though the source code does reverts to whatever copyright the producer might have. Source code that's been patented under the proposed system becomes open source at the expiration of the patent; the covered source code or the escrow source code becomes open source code under the proposed system. Pointing these details out can be quite useful; it definitely helps refine ideas or elevator pitches.