4 ms·

I'm just saying: it's questionable whether web application would've succeeded this quickly if Microsoft application/desktop development hadn't been impeded. Per

by tmsh 16y ago

I'm just saying: it's questionable whether web application would've succeeded this quickly if Microsoft application/desktop development hadn't been impeded. Perhaps it would've. But it's also questionable whether Linux would've supplanted BSD in popularity, if BSD hadn't been locked in a legal fight. Whether or not these are good for everyone or bad for everyone is hard to judge. But as stated, software patents are a spur to innovation (Linux isn't necessarily better than BSD, but it is its own innovative phenomenon -- the same with the web) by being an antispur (causing stagnation) to greed-touching systems (Oracle, Google, Microsoft, etc., all have parts of their business that are motivated by capitalistic desires or what Gordon Gecko, etc., called greed). I probably shouldn't have said these were the 'best' things to happen to those respective technologies. But who knows how important they are? Certainly it's easy to overlook them -- as the larger frame of reference in which technology develops is often overlooked. So that was my point in responding to the last sentence in the article proper: If you still think software patents are a spur to innovation, you're not paying attention. But, I understand the signal/noise ratio is a big concern, so somewhat argumentative claims are usually discounted. But whatever -- I think it's important not to forget the larger contexts if we can...

prodigal_erik 16y ago
USL vs. BSDi was settled after about one year. BSD's problem is that most progress gets entombed in proprietary forks. It was inevitable that a GPL'd kernel, being immune to that problem, would catch up and displace it. Your overall thesis relies on innovative work being immune from patent holder attacks. I think that might be true in a system that functioned correctly, but not in ours. Patents work if you're forced to claim a specific high-effort solution rather than the entire problem space.
- carbocation 16y ago
  > Patents work if you're forced to claim a specific high-effort solution rather than the entire problem space. This is a beautiful, concise encapsulation of the concerns that some have with how software patents have worked in practice.
- tmsh 16y ago
  BSD's problem is that most progress gets entombed in proprietary forks. It was inevitable that a GPL'd kernel, being immune to that problem, would catch up and displace it. How I read it, fwiw, is that kernel development involves a lot of drivers, and benefits heavily from a leaf-heavy committer structure. Which is what Linux is built on (even if it's perhaps less elegant at the top, with one or two people arbitrating everything instead of the FreeBSD teams, etc.). But I imagine BSD might've adapted / grown a more driver-amenable tree structure if there weren't legal pressures in their inception. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't know how important the GPL was to Linux's success. I think it's a hugely important piece of history -- and a very active one. But the resulting forces from legal outcomes in technology -- they're just so momentuous. Think of other industries. What other industries cycle through major corporations every decade? I mean, that's 4-5 major shifts since personal computing was even thought of. Is it just the rapid speed of technology driving things? Your overall thesis relies on innovative work being immune from patent holder attacks. That's a good point. But my point is that the day you sign up for a patent is the day you've tapped someone else to beat you. And you could go even further and say, the day that happens, you've spurred the next great technology. The day you go anywhere near the law is the day you've crested around exponential growth. The law is too slow. Technology is too fast. But Google would have to detach themselves totally from any form of greed to realize that. I doubt they will, even though I can't think of a single technology firm (in the past 60 years) that has grown exponentially after engaging in a legal fight voluntarily. That said, the points you make are interesting and perhaps more pertinent than the kind of crazy long-term theorizing that I am rather fond of. ETA. One more point. BSD, by actively avoiding any type of legal engagement (i.e., allowing proprietary use via their licensing) -- which decision arguably was a direct result of their involvement in the 90s legal battles -- may prove in the long-run to be something that pushes its adoption further than Linux. BSD ironically forms the basis for iPhones and iPads and all that -- but is it still BSD? It's curious though because whatever it is -- it seems like technology swiftly moves around whatever legal engagements are in place. Whether or not this is a good thing, and whether we should protect free software for the long run, I don't know.

by tmsh 16y ago

prodigal_erik 16y ago

USL vs. BSDi was settled after about one year. BSD's problem is that most progress gets entombed in proprietary forks. It was inevitable that a GPL'd kernel, being immune to that problem, would catch up and displace it. Your overall thesis relies on innovative work being immune from patent holder attacks. I think that might be true in a system that functioned correctly, but not in ours. Patents work if you're forced to claim a specific high-effort solution rather than the entire problem space.

carbocation 16y ago
> Patents work if you're forced to claim a specific high-effort solution rather than the entire problem space. This is a beautiful, concise encapsulation of the concerns that some have with how software patents have worked in practice.
tmsh 16y ago
BSD's problem is that most progress gets entombed in proprietary forks. It was inevitable that a GPL'd kernel, being immune to that problem, would catch up and displace it. How I read it, fwiw, is that kernel development involves a lot of drivers, and benefits heavily from a leaf-heavy committer structure. Which is what Linux is built on (even if it's perhaps less elegant at the top, with one or two people arbitrating everything instead of the FreeBSD teams, etc.). But I imagine BSD might've adapted / grown a more driver-amenable tree structure if there weren't legal pressures in their inception. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't know how important the GPL was to Linux's success. I think it's a hugely important piece of history -- and a very active one. But the resulting forces from legal outcomes in technology -- they're just so momentuous. Think of other industries. What other industries cycle through major corporations every decade? I mean, that's 4-5 major shifts since personal computing was even thought of. Is it just the rapid speed of technology driving things? Your overall thesis relies on innovative work being immune from patent holder attacks. That's a good point. But my point is that the day you sign up for a patent is the day you've tapped someone else to beat you. And you could go even further and say, the day that happens, you've spurred the next great technology. The day you go anywhere near the law is the day you've crested around exponential growth. The law is too slow. Technology is too fast. But Google would have to detach themselves totally from any form of greed to realize that. I doubt they will, even though I can't think of a single technology firm (in the past 60 years) that has grown exponentially after engaging in a legal fight voluntarily. That said, the points you make are interesting and perhaps more pertinent than the kind of crazy long-term theorizing that I am rather fond of. ETA. One more point. BSD, by actively avoiding any type of legal engagement (i.e., allowing proprietary use via their licensing) -- which decision arguably was a direct result of their involvement in the 90s legal battles -- may prove in the long-run to be something that pushes its adoption further than Linux. BSD ironically forms the basis for iPhones and iPads and all that -- but is it still BSD? It's curious though because whatever it is -- it seems like technology swiftly moves around whatever legal engagements are in place. Whether or not this is a good thing, and whether we should protect free software for the long run, I don't know.