4 ms·

EFF's position is too moderate. 5 year monopoly on software ideas? If not even the EFF is willing to take an unequivocal stance against software patents, the tr

by iwwr 14y ago

EFF's position is too moderate. 5 year monopoly on software ideas? If not even the EFF is willing to take an unequivocal stance against software patents, the trolls and the system will keep their legitimacy. We should not be afraid to take (seemingly) radical positions. Fear of offending the status quo is what keeps it in place. Not too long ago the idea of patenting a theorem or a gene was dubious; the moderates may only slow the tide, not push it back.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago
We don't have unequivocal evidence that the status quo is wrong. It is prudent to take small steps and study the effects carefully after each one. Startups are rewarded for being bold. Countries can't take 80/20 decisions on faith.
- loup-vaillant 14y ago
  Whatever the direction the evidence points to, it's likely massive. The real problem is to sort it out. In this respect, I very much like EFF's proposition to conduct a study about the effects of software patents on the economy. (Personally, I'd do that for the other patents for copyright as well, as well, but narrowing the field has its benefits.) While the EFF is prudent, I expect a proper study to yield much bolder results, with the evidence to back them up.
chj 14y ago
I believe EFF tries to avoid fight back from Big Corps. However, you're absolutely right. Software patents are absurd and should be abolished once and for all.
adventureful 14y ago
Extreme positions can typically only be accomplished in dire times. Outside of an extremely dire scenario, what you'll accomplish by taking the abolish software patents position, is nothing. If you want to make progress, the EFF is taking the right tact. If you want to be idealistic (and that's fine I'll emphasize), then stick to your guns and you'll see zero progress, but your ideals will still be intact.
- loup-vaillant 14y ago
  > then stick to your guns and you'll see zero progress, but your ideals will still be intact. That would require some self deception. Those who have an ideal, and know at the same time that sticking to their guns wouldn't work, shouldn't stick to their guns. Unless of course they only want to signal an ideal, which I concede is easier than actually trying achieve it.
DannyBee 14y ago
So, good engineers know what happens if you try to just take a complex system and change everything at once, instead of incrementally. Certainly government does (witness the number of "hey let's start from scratch and come up with a much better system" that are 10+ years overdue and many billions over budget). The RIAA/MPAA knows too (make small-medium sized changes using bills that push in the direction they want until it's death by 50 cuts). Yet, I always see otherwise rational people wanting to just blow the patent system up. What makes you think this is a goal achievable in one step? Why isn't the EFF position a good starting point to get there eventually? Just because the system sucks really badly doesn't mean you'll be able to change it in one fell swoop. Doing that with healthcare in the US took 20+ years, and we arguably did not end up with a better system, just a bunch of incremental improvements.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  We don't want a different system. We want no system at all. How's that so hard to grasp? Every single proposal to "fix" patents so far either involves fighting bureaucracy with even more bureaucracy (that's suuuure gonna work out) or are based on the naive assertion that a shorter evil is somehow a lesser evil. People need to acknowledge already that the patent system is not just a little broken, it's fundamentally broken to its very core. You can band-aid it all you want, it won't fix the inherent problem, and that is and always was the paradoxical claim that slowing down progress will somehow lead to more progress, as well as the utterly illogical assertion that you can, in any way, own abstract concepts. I completely agree with iwwr: don't be afraid to take the "radical" stance for the sake of a twisted form of political correctness. If something is bullshit, then say so, and demand it be stopped. Not weasel around trying to appease the people who profit from the status quo. Patents are bullshit - the only good patent is a nonexistent patent. Period. So demand that we get rid of this impediment to mankind.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    I think you missed the real question, so let me rephrase. It's not hard to grasp as an abstract concept, and in general it's a concept I mostly agree with. What i'm trying to grasp why you think this "blow up the world" will work as an effective strategy to get there, instead of "incrementally destroy the system". You are trying to fight a political fight here, and "radical stances" rarely work well there. If you are going to "Demand we get rid of this impediment to mankind", expect to never get rid of it. Change doesn't happen by screaming about how bad things are, and taking radical stances, change happens by doing something about it, be it legislative lobbying or otherwise.
JackC 14y ago
What they're doing here is good strategy. Option A: EFF: "Hey, legislators, you should abolish this system that we've had for decades and you don't understand. Let me tell you why the interlocking parts of a software algorithm are totally different from the interlocking parts of a car engine ..." Patent Trolls: "This is a pie-in-the-sky proposal that would never work in practice and would undercut our economy in the one area where we're seriously dominant! [1]." Option B: EFF: "Hey, legislators, our economy depends on software, and patents are screwing it up. Software moves really fast, so we should limit the time a patent lasts to five years. And lots of the things that are getting patented are really obvious, so if something is so obvious that someone else invents it independently, they should be allowed to use it -- that will avoid the need for lawyers to review every single program that gets written. And software projects are often incredibly huge, so we should make it so millions of dollars won't be awarded for a violation that consists of .001% of the project. Can we hold some hearings to talk about this stuff?" Patent Trolls: "These are pie-in-the-sky proposals that would never work in practice! Hang on while I try to come up with a reason for that." Option B is 1000 times more likely to get us in the door. And once public hearings start and legislators actually start to have some idea what the issue is, that's our chance to make the case (in the media, through lobbying, and through testimony) that we'd be better off without software patents at all.[2] [1] "... other than music and pizza delivery, obviously." [2] If this is true. It's totally possible that, within the boundaries the EFF is proposing -- short-lived, open-source, non-obvious, damage-limited, subject to prior art up to 2007 -- software patents would actually become a force for good, in complex areas like compression, encryption, language processing etc. A game where highly-funded research programs are racing to stay 5 years ahead of open source projects that incorporate all their best ideas could be pretty sweet. It's worth discussing anyway.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Besides the above, which is completely and utterly true, legislators often want consensus, if they can get it (I realize how crazy this sounds, given the way bills often end up). They don't want to be forced to pick sides when it's large companies that support one side vs other large companies that support the other. Not just because of the lobbying money involved, but because they think they are trying to do the right thing, and if it's 25 folks they trust on one side of an issue, and 25 on the other, they aren't likely to do anything.
rayiner 14y ago
A 5 year monopoly on software ideas is no more ridiculous than a 5 year monopoly on mechanical ideas or chemical ideas.
- gpvos 14y ago
  True. In fact, for every field X, most X engineers don't want patents to apply to field X.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Most drug researchers I have talked to have been in support of drug patents and only have issue with DNA related patents. I think the real issue is patents work best for well developed fields, and tend to have issues when things start moving quickly.
- sseveran 14y ago
  Very different. The cost of coming up with chemical compounds is often quite large. With software most new work is done by very few people.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    At the same time, a successful chemical compound might mean tens of billions in sales. A modest software innovation might have a very niche application with much smaller sales. Is a small research team less entitled to protect their novel work than a big corporation?
    - jessriedel 14y ago
      If you use the word "entitled", you're thinking about this wrong. Patents are not designed to protect fundamental rights (e.g. to a "reasonable" profit), they are designed to maximize societal good by balancing a monopoly incentive with the benefits of open use.
  - jhdevos 14y ago
    That will be solved in part if patents get assigned a value (on which 'damages' etc. are based) that are proportional to the work that went in. For a software product that contains thousands of good ideas, the value of each of those will be only a fraction of the value of the total product. Then, of, course, the idea of blocking sales of a product because of infringement should also be completely abolished -- some money should be the most you can get.
BadLogInMyAss 14y ago
Yep. Software patents should be abolished. They're a patent on algorithms, and the horseshit workaround to the 1970s ruling AGAINST them should've been closed long ago. Five years is pretty much forever in software. But for software patents, five days is too long. Very disappointing. More sham "reform."

by iwwr 14y ago

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

We don't have unequivocal evidence that the status quo is wrong. It is prudent to take small steps and study the effects carefully after each one. Startups are rewarded for being bold. Countries can't take 80/20 decisions on faith.

loup-vaillant 14y ago
Whatever the direction the evidence points to, it's likely massive. The real problem is to sort it out. In this respect, I very much like EFF's proposition to conduct a study about the effects of software patents on the economy. (Personally, I'd do that for the other patents for copyright as well, as well, but narrowing the field has its benefits.) While the EFF is prudent, I expect a proper study to yield much bolder results, with the evidence to back them up.

chj 14y ago

I believe EFF tries to avoid fight back from Big Corps. However, you're absolutely right. Software patents are absurd and should be abolished once and for all.

adventureful 14y ago

Extreme positions can typically only be accomplished in dire times. Outside of an extremely dire scenario, what you'll accomplish by taking the abolish software patents position, is nothing. If you want to make progress, the EFF is taking the right tact. If you want to be idealistic (and that's fine I'll emphasize), then stick to your guns and you'll see zero progress, but your ideals will still be intact.

loup-vaillant 14y ago
> then stick to your guns and you'll see zero progress, but your ideals will still be intact. That would require some self deception. Those who have an ideal, and know at the same time that sticking to their guns wouldn't work, shouldn't stick to their guns. Unless of course they only want to signal an ideal, which I concede is easier than actually trying achieve it.

DannyBee 14y ago

So, good engineers know what happens if you try to just take a complex system and change everything at once, instead of incrementally. Certainly government does (witness the number of "hey let's start from scratch and come up with a much better system" that are 10+ years overdue and many billions over budget). The RIAA/MPAA knows too (make small-medium sized changes using bills that push in the direction they want until it's death by 50 cuts). Yet, I always see otherwise rational people wanting to just blow the patent system up. What makes you think this is a goal achievable in one step? Why isn't the EFF position a good starting point to get there eventually? Just because the system sucks really badly doesn't mean you'll be able to change it in one fell swoop. Doing that with healthcare in the US took 20+ years, and we arguably did not end up with a better system, just a bunch of incremental improvements.

slowpoke 14y ago
We don't want a different system. We want no system at all. How's that so hard to grasp? Every single proposal to "fix" patents so far either involves fighting bureaucracy with even more bureaucracy (that's suuuure gonna work out) or are based on the naive assertion that a shorter evil is somehow a lesser evil. People need to acknowledge already that the patent system is not just a little broken, it's fundamentally broken to its very core. You can band-aid it all you want, it won't fix the inherent problem, and that is and always was the paradoxical claim that slowing down progress will somehow lead to more progress, as well as the utterly illogical assertion that you can, in any way, own abstract concepts. I completely agree with iwwr: don't be afraid to take the "radical" stance for the sake of a twisted form of political correctness. If something is bullshit, then say so, and demand it be stopped. Not weasel around trying to appease the people who profit from the status quo. Patents are bullshit - the only good patent is a nonexistent patent. Period. So demand that we get rid of this impediment to mankind.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  I think you missed the real question, so let me rephrase. It's not hard to grasp as an abstract concept, and in general it's a concept I mostly agree with. What i'm trying to grasp why you think this "blow up the world" will work as an effective strategy to get there, instead of "incrementally destroy the system". You are trying to fight a political fight here, and "radical stances" rarely work well there. If you are going to "Demand we get rid of this impediment to mankind", expect to never get rid of it. Change doesn't happen by screaming about how bad things are, and taking radical stances, change happens by doing something about it, be it legislative lobbying or otherwise.

JackC 14y ago

What they're doing here is good strategy. Option A: EFF: "Hey, legislators, you should abolish this system that we've had for decades and you don't understand. Let me tell you why the interlocking parts of a software algorithm are totally different from the interlocking parts of a car engine ..." Patent Trolls: "This is a pie-in-the-sky proposal that would never work in practice and would undercut our economy in the one area where we're seriously dominant! [1]." Option B: EFF: "Hey, legislators, our economy depends on software, and patents are screwing it up. Software moves really fast, so we should limit the time a patent lasts to five years. And lots of the things that are getting patented are really obvious, so if something is so obvious that someone else invents it independently, they should be allowed to use it -- that will avoid the need for lawyers to review every single program that gets written. And software projects are often incredibly huge, so we should make it so millions of dollars won't be awarded for a violation that consists of .001% of the project. Can we hold some hearings to talk about this stuff?" Patent Trolls: "These are pie-in-the-sky proposals that would never work in practice! Hang on while I try to come up with a reason for that." Option B is 1000 times more likely to get us in the door. And once public hearings start and legislators actually start to have some idea what the issue is, that's our chance to make the case (in the media, through lobbying, and through testimony) that we'd be better off without software patents at all.[2] [1] "... other than music and pizza delivery, obviously." [2] If this is true. It's totally possible that, within the boundaries the EFF is proposing -- short-lived, open-source, non-obvious, damage-limited, subject to prior art up to 2007 -- software patents would actually become a force for good, in complex areas like compression, encryption, language processing etc. A game where highly-funded research programs are racing to stay 5 years ahead of open source projects that incorporate all their best ideas could be pretty sweet. It's worth discussing anyway.

DannyBee 14y ago
Besides the above, which is completely and utterly true, legislators often want consensus, if they can get it (I realize how crazy this sounds, given the way bills often end up). They don't want to be forced to pick sides when it's large companies that support one side vs other large companies that support the other. Not just because of the lobbying money involved, but because they think they are trying to do the right thing, and if it's 25 folks they trust on one side of an issue, and 25 on the other, they aren't likely to do anything.

rayiner 14y ago

A 5 year monopoly on software ideas is no more ridiculous than a 5 year monopoly on mechanical ideas or chemical ideas.

gpvos 14y ago
True. In fact, for every field X, most X engineers don't want patents to apply to field X.
- Retric 14y ago
  Most drug researchers I have talked to have been in support of drug patents and only have issue with DNA related patents. I think the real issue is patents work best for well developed fields, and tend to have issues when things start moving quickly.
sseveran 14y ago
Very different. The cost of coming up with chemical compounds is often quite large. With software most new work is done by very few people.
- rayiner 14y ago
  At the same time, a successful chemical compound might mean tens of billions in sales. A modest software innovation might have a very niche application with much smaller sales. Is a small research team less entitled to protect their novel work than a big corporation?
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    If you use the word "entitled", you're thinking about this wrong. Patents are not designed to protect fundamental rights (e.g. to a "reasonable" profit), they are designed to maximize societal good by balancing a monopoly incentive with the benefits of open use.
- jhdevos 14y ago
  That will be solved in part if patents get assigned a value (on which 'damages' etc. are based) that are proportional to the work that went in. For a software product that contains thousands of good ideas, the value of each of those will be only a fraction of the value of the total product. Then, of, course, the idea of blocking sales of a product because of infringement should also be completely abolished -- some money should be the most you can get.

BadLogInMyAss 14y ago

Yep. Software patents should be abolished. They're a patent on algorithms, and the horseshit workaround to the 1970s ruling AGAINST them should've been closed long ago. Five years is pretty much forever in software. But for software patents, five days is too long. Very disappointing. More sham "reform."