9 ms·

Software patents are bad, okay? He got into them before that became obvious. Now it is. He is too stubborn or too blind to state this truth; instead he hides be

Software patents are bad, okay? He got into them before that became obvious. Now it is. He is too stubborn or too blind to state this truth; instead he hides behind "business community is still excited". Stallman organizing protest can not be more wrong than Pike not acknowledging the problem.

willvarfar 15y ago
That post shows Rob's opinion in 1982, 1991 and 2006. I wonder what his opinion is now. Whatever it is, its going to be considered. But it doesn't mean it hasn't evolved.
- gcb 15y ago
  my bet, it's an opinion that helps google monetize on software research. whatever that is.
- nknight 15y ago
  How can it be said to show his opinion in 2006? This is the only part of that post written in 2006: "I can't find this on the web, so here follows a note I wrote in 1991 of an odd event in my computing career." Everything after that is from 1991. You have no basis for interpreting the 2006 posting of this 1991 note as anything, save preservation of history.
  - willvarfar 15y ago
    True its strenuous, but its at least indicative in that he didn't distance himself from it in 2006 either. You could imagine that if he felt differently in 2006 he'd have mentioned it in the preamble? He posts one or two entries a year in that blog; this note was not some noise he dumped, it was a deliberate posting.
    - nknight 15y ago
      I can imagine a lot, but that doesn't mean I get to substitute my imagination for reality. You're reading into the post what you want, not what is there. If you actually had any interest in truth, you'd ask him. Instead, you've decided you know what his views and motives are based on no evidence whatsoever, and are asserting your opinion publicly.
luriel 15y ago
Yea, I'm a big fan of much of Rob's work (from Plan 9 to Go), but about this he is plain wrong. At the same time I'm a big critic of RMS and his work (from GCC to the GPL, passing by the Free Software Song ;) but he is right that software patents are a very harmful monster.
- mkopinsky 15y ago
  What's the criticism of GCC?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
stcredzero 15y ago
As a devil's advocate, I'll ask, would software patents be as bad if: 1) The Patent Office gave proper attention to prior art 2) The Patent Office implementation of "obvious" was sane? I'll posit that, given these two stipulations, most of the bad in software patents wouldn't be with us.
- fffggg 15y ago
  "would software patents be as bad if" You've chosen difficult wording here. When you ask if things would be so bad if we lessened their badness the answer is obviously no -- things would be incrementally better if made incrementally better. But this is no more than a tautology. Software patents are bad, in any form. They can be made not-quite-so-bad, but they will always be harmful to the intellectual development of society.
- gruseom 15y ago
  That would help, of course, but what about the situation where A works hard to solve a difficult problem and puts out a product, only to find out later that B had already patented that solution? If A's work was independent of B's, why should B own it? Especially in the egregious and common subcase where B never actually produced anything other than a patent.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    I'd argue that what you propose is covered by a sane approach to "obviousness."
    - willvarfar 15y ago
      So you can defeat a patent by claiming you invented it independently later? ... how would that work?
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        You'd have to prove that you did formulate it independently yourself. There couldn't be other prior art. If your own inventor's journal revealed a large amount of work, that would show the original patent was indeed valid. If you could prove that you did invent it yourself, and that it wasn't that big a deal, the patent should fall. So to win in your case, you'd have to tread a tightrope between "not enough evidence to show independent origin" and "the thing is obviously substantive enough to warrant a patent." Most likely, the thing actually is obvious and there would be other prior art, which the Patent Office currently doesn't pay attention to.

willvarfar 15y ago

That post shows Rob's opinion in 1982, 1991 and 2006. I wonder what his opinion is now. Whatever it is, its going to be considered. But it doesn't mean it hasn't evolved.

gcb 15y ago
my bet, it's an opinion that helps google monetize on software research. whatever that is.
nknight 15y ago
How can it be said to show his opinion in 2006? This is the only part of that post written in 2006: "I can't find this on the web, so here follows a note I wrote in 1991 of an odd event in my computing career." Everything after that is from 1991. You have no basis for interpreting the 2006 posting of this 1991 note as anything, save preservation of history.
- willvarfar 15y ago
  True its strenuous, but its at least indicative in that he didn't distance himself from it in 2006 either. You could imagine that if he felt differently in 2006 he'd have mentioned it in the preamble? He posts one or two entries a year in that blog; this note was not some noise he dumped, it was a deliberate posting.
  - nknight 15y ago
    I can imagine a lot, but that doesn't mean I get to substitute my imagination for reality. You're reading into the post what you want, not what is there. If you actually had any interest in truth, you'd ask him. Instead, you've decided you know what his views and motives are based on no evidence whatsoever, and are asserting your opinion publicly.

luriel 15y ago

Yea, I'm a big fan of much of Rob's work (from Plan 9 to Go), but about this he is plain wrong. At the same time I'm a big critic of RMS and his work (from GCC to the GPL, passing by the Free Software Song ;) but he is right that software patents are a very harmful monster.

mkopinsky 15y ago
What's the criticism of GCC?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

stcredzero 15y ago

As a devil's advocate, I'll ask, would software patents be as bad if: 1) The Patent Office gave proper attention to prior art 2) The Patent Office implementation of "obvious" was sane? I'll posit that, given these two stipulations, most of the bad in software patents wouldn't be with us.

fffggg 15y ago
"would software patents be as bad if" You've chosen difficult wording here. When you ask if things would be so bad if we lessened their badness the answer is obviously no -- things would be incrementally better if made incrementally better. But this is no more than a tautology. Software patents are bad, in any form. They can be made not-quite-so-bad, but they will always be harmful to the intellectual development of society.
gruseom 15y ago
That would help, of course, but what about the situation where A works hard to solve a difficult problem and puts out a product, only to find out later that B had already patented that solution? If A's work was independent of B's, why should B own it? Especially in the egregious and common subcase where B never actually produced anything other than a patent.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  I'd argue that what you propose is covered by a sane approach to "obviousness."
  - willvarfar 15y ago
    So you can defeat a patent by claiming you invented it independently later? ... how would that work?
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      You'd have to prove that you did formulate it independently yourself. There couldn't be other prior art. If your own inventor's journal revealed a large amount of work, that would show the original patent was indeed valid. If you could prove that you did invent it yourself, and that it wasn't that big a deal, the patent should fall. So to win in your case, you'd have to tread a tightrope between "not enough evidence to show independent origin" and "the thing is obviously substantive enough to warrant a patent." Most likely, the thing actually is obvious and there would be other prior art, which the Patent Office currently doesn't pay attention to.