4 ms·

I spent a long time writing advanced code as part of a PhD as well. It relied heavily on existing FOSS code and patent-free work, and would never have been poss

by deogeo 7y ago

I spent a long time writing advanced code as part of a PhD as well. It relied heavily on existing FOSS code and patent-free work, and would never have been possible if I had had to seek permission for each patentable element used. There is hardly any field where you can improve the state of the art, without stepping on dozens of patents. Of course you can ignore those patents if you don't care about making any money off your work. But if that's the case, you don't need patents in the first place.

rayiner 7y ago
YMMV. Unpopular opinion: I don’t really like open source. I like patents and copyrights because they’re property rights you can use as the basis for markets. Markets are good. It’s hard to build markets with open source. Open source has resulted in a world where you can’t make money just selling software, you have to lock people into ecosystems and services to monetize your work. Symbian used to sell you an OS in return for a cash payment. That was it. Now, you get Android for “free” but only by turning your customers into the product. Same thing with web standards. With video coding standards, you just pay some money and you get the necessary patent licenses. But web standards are “free.” In practice that means just two companies (Apple and Google) get to control the standard by fiat. Is this better?
- mch82 7y ago
  Lots of companies use open source wrong. Treat open source like an industry standard[1] and it is very possible to release products built upon open source. Every product Apple sells incorporates various standards, including open source. The key is to use open source to reduce the barrier to participating in a market and then add value on top of open source to make a profit. [1]: https://www.nist.gov/standardsgov/what-we-do/federal-policy-standards/sibr https://www.nist.gov/standardsgov/what-we-do/federal-policy-...
- deogeo 7y ago
  > Open source has resulted in a world where you can’t make money just selling software, you have to lock people into ecosystems and services to monetize your work. Microsoft made a lot of money selling Windows and their Office suite precisely by locking people into their ecosystem. You say you like markets, yet you don't like others offering goods at a lower price (free software), but you do like government-enforced monopolies on ideas (patents, and even copyright). If we're diving things into 'market' and 'not market', shouldn't you categorize them in the exact opposite way as you did? > Now, you get Android for “free” but only by turning your customers into the product. You also get linux for free, or you can pay for Windows and still be made into the product. The only way I can see someone arriving at your position is to selectively pay attention only to cases where free software with anti-consumer features crowded out straight-forward proprietary software, and ignore cases where free software turned out good (compilers, linux, firefox, text editors, libre office, lineageOS, VLC, etc. etc. etc.)
- CalChris 7y ago
  I like both patents and open source because there's a difference between innovation and infrastructure. If I bust my ass in my garage innovating my stealth widget then I'd like to protect that. But I live in the 21st century and I use LLVM, Linux, ... developing said widget. So I like both. I doubt I could get my widget off the ground without open source infrastructure but I'm incented to move the bar with my widget. This is a good thing.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Patents don't give you markets either, they give the base patent holder control over the entire ecosystem.
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  >It’s hard to build markets with open source. Only if you can't create something valuable. But if it's not valuable, then it's not your property, it's worthless. >Now, you get Android for “free” but only by turning your customers into the product. Paid services still turn the customers into the product, e.g. Windows. Also Android is not open source. >get to control the standard by fiat Commercial dealers have a long track record of anticompetitive practices. It's the whole reason why antimonopoly law was written.
  - GoblinSlayer 7y ago
    fix: Android is cancer because it's a proprietary walled garden. Cancer is enforced through walled garden, and walled garden is enforced through closed source. Old tale holds true: proprietary software harms the customer and Android is a vivid example of it.
jacques_chester 7y ago
You are allowed to file patents that are novel extensions of an existing patent. You might not be able to use it because of the original patent, but you can absolutely file one.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > You might not be able to use it because of the original patent, but you can absolutely file one. That is precisely my point.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    Your argument was that it's "impossible" to improve the state of the art due to existing patents. I explained that it's possible. Are we agreeing or have I missed something?
    - deogeo 7y ago
      My argument was that while you can improve the state of the art, rarely do software patents incentivize you to do so.
      - jacques_chester 7y ago
        Why don't they?

by deogeo 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

YMMV. Unpopular opinion: I don’t really like open source. I like patents and copyrights because they’re property rights you can use as the basis for markets. Markets are good. It’s hard to build markets with open source. Open source has resulted in a world where you can’t make money just selling software, you have to lock people into ecosystems and services to monetize your work. Symbian used to sell you an OS in return for a cash payment. That was it. Now, you get Android for “free” but only by turning your customers into the product. Same thing with web standards. With video coding standards, you just pay some money and you get the necessary patent licenses. But web standards are “free.” In practice that means just two companies (Apple and Google) get to control the standard by fiat. Is this better?

mch82 7y ago
Lots of companies use open source wrong. Treat open source like an industry standard[1] and it is very possible to release products built upon open source. Every product Apple sells incorporates various standards, including open source. The key is to use open source to reduce the barrier to participating in a market and then add value on top of open source to make a profit. [1]: https://www.nist.gov/standardsgov/what-we-do/federal-policy-standards/sibr https://www.nist.gov/standardsgov/what-we-do/federal-policy-...
deogeo 7y ago
> Open source has resulted in a world where you can’t make money just selling software, you have to lock people into ecosystems and services to monetize your work. Microsoft made a lot of money selling Windows and their Office suite precisely by locking people into their ecosystem. You say you like markets, yet you don't like others offering goods at a lower price (free software), but you do like government-enforced monopolies on ideas (patents, and even copyright). If we're diving things into 'market' and 'not market', shouldn't you categorize them in the exact opposite way as you did? > Now, you get Android for “free” but only by turning your customers into the product. You also get linux for free, or you can pay for Windows and still be made into the product. The only way I can see someone arriving at your position is to selectively pay attention only to cases where free software with anti-consumer features crowded out straight-forward proprietary software, and ignore cases where free software turned out good (compilers, linux, firefox, text editors, libre office, lineageOS, VLC, etc. etc. etc.)
CalChris 7y ago
I like both patents and open source because there's a difference between innovation and infrastructure. If I bust my ass in my garage innovating my stealth widget then I'd like to protect that. But I live in the 21st century and I use LLVM, Linux, ... developing said widget. So I like both. I doubt I could get my widget off the ground without open source infrastructure but I'm incented to move the bar with my widget. This is a good thing.
pjc50 7y ago
Patents don't give you markets either, they give the base patent holder control over the entire ecosystem.
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
>It’s hard to build markets with open source. Only if you can't create something valuable. But if it's not valuable, then it's not your property, it's worthless. >Now, you get Android for “free” but only by turning your customers into the product. Paid services still turn the customers into the product, e.g. Windows. Also Android is not open source. >get to control the standard by fiat Commercial dealers have a long track record of anticompetitive practices. It's the whole reason why antimonopoly law was written.
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  fix: Android is cancer because it's a proprietary walled garden. Cancer is enforced through walled garden, and walled garden is enforced through closed source. Old tale holds true: proprietary software harms the customer and Android is a vivid example of it.

jacques_chester 7y ago

You are allowed to file patents that are novel extensions of an existing patent. You might not be able to use it because of the original patent, but you can absolutely file one.

deogeo 7y ago
> You might not be able to use it because of the original patent, but you can absolutely file one. That is precisely my point.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  Your argument was that it's "impossible" to improve the state of the art due to existing patents. I explained that it's possible. Are we agreeing or have I missed something?
  - deogeo 7y ago
    My argument was that while you can improve the state of the art, rarely do software patents incentivize you to do so.
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      Why don't they?