4 ms·

> Why does he deserve royalties? I take it you don't approve of software patents either? In the interest of consistency, that is.

nkurz 18y ago
Most programmers on this forum, especially those working open source, are opposed to software patents as currently implemented. They make it impossible to do anything non-trivial without running the risk of being sued for infringing what should probably be considered a basic technique. The musical analogy would be something like copyright of chord progressions, such that any time you released what you considered a new piece of music there was a small but real chance that you would be sued for an amount greater than your life's savings. Are you confident of your ability to convince a court that your strumming of GCDG is sufficiently original to be non-infringing? You mentioned in an earlier thread that you worked as a developer, so I presume you are familiar with these issues. Am I right that you 1) presume that you are legally shielded by your employer and 2) that you do not release the source to the code that you write?
- seertaak 18y ago
  > Most programmers on this forum, especially those working open source, are opposed to software patents as currently implemented. They make it impossible to do anything non-trivial without running the risk of being sued for infringing what should probably be considered a basic technique. You raise some valid points. But you're not really disagreeing with me, are you? You say "as currently implemented", which means that you agree in principle to the concept. And if, if you recall, the comment I was replying was questioning whether royalties should exist at all; they weren't suggesting that it be "tweaked", rather that it be abolished altogether. I'm saying that's a pretty extreme view, and used the similar case of software patents to make my point. In any case, I agree that there is a tradeoff, and it's true that in some cases -- especially software patents --we've gotten to a kind of silly season. But I don't think all patents -- even the majority of patents -- are egregious. Perhaps I was too restrictive in specifying software patents. A new question: do you not agree with patents in general? I think it's much harder to argue that, for instance, a pharmaceutical that invests billions of dollars on a new treatment shouldn't be protected from a competitor simply copying its product and putting it to the market. I'm basically arguing that the concept of intellectual property is a valid and fair one. Obviously there can be debates about details, but the principle, in my view, is sound, and even the most ardent of open-source adherents agrees as much, else why the meticulous emphasis on the precise terms of licenses like the GPL? If you don't believe the creator has "ownership" over something that can be copied at zero cost, how can you argue against, for instance, Tivoization? > The musical analogy would be something like copyright of chord progressions I would have thought that the musical analogy is copyright, which refers to an expression -- a somewhat nebulous term but which is nonetheless amenable to common sense judgements. To patent chord progressions would obviously be silly, because there's relatively few of them that sound good. And yes, I am 100% confident that my songs (shameless plug: http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk) are sufficiently distinct from anything else that I could argue that in a court of law and prevail! They are indeed original expressions ;) To answer your questions: 1) You mean from patent infringement? Yes, I would think so. 2) No; I work in a hedge fund. To open-source our strategies would be commercial suicide. I suppose that gives me a different outlook from you. ;)
  - nkurz 18y ago
    Yes, I am disagreeing with you, but probably over matters of implementation rather than of ideals. I'm pro-patents (and pro-royalties) to the extent to which granting a temporary monopoly benefits society as a whole. I do not believe that that one has an innate right to such a monopoly, rather that it is to the advantage of society to grant such a right to incentivize the production of something beneficial that would not otherwise be produced. I presume this is more or less your position as well. Where we likely disagree most is regarding term. The term for (non-software) patents seems almost reasonable, but I find it hard to believe that those 75 years after the life of the author (under US copyright) increases the production of great music. The 50 years from date of production for music under UK law seems more reasonable, but I'd guess that very little of the music I enjoy would suffer if this time was reduced sharply.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
jodrellblank 18y ago
No I don't fully approve of them. That doesn't mean I want to scrap them entirely, or that I have a better replacement for them. I do think it's different - the music industry copyright covers "a song", wheras the software industry patents "a feature". If you asked a band to write you a song, there's no chance they would accidentally come out with music that sounds like Never Gonna Give You Up, the same lyrics, and a singer who sounds like Rick Astley such that someone could sue them for being a close imitation. But if you asked an isolated small development company to develop a program of significant size and ability to be useful and saleable, there's a strong chance they will include some feature somewhere that (arguably) infringes on an existing patent. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_patents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_patents - The patent relates to a progress bar. Filed in 1989. Probably a new thing in 1989. Not in 1999. Certainly not in 2009.

nkurz 18y ago

Most programmers on this forum, especially those working open source, are opposed to software patents as currently implemented. They make it impossible to do anything non-trivial without running the risk of being sued for infringing what should probably be considered a basic technique. The musical analogy would be something like copyright of chord progressions, such that any time you released what you considered a new piece of music there was a small but real chance that you would be sued for an amount greater than your life's savings. Are you confident of your ability to convince a court that your strumming of GCDG is sufficiently original to be non-infringing? You mentioned in an earlier thread that you worked as a developer, so I presume you are familiar with these issues. Am I right that you 1) presume that you are legally shielded by your employer and 2) that you do not release the source to the code that you write?

seertaak 18y ago
> Most programmers on this forum, especially those working open source, are opposed to software patents as currently implemented. They make it impossible to do anything non-trivial without running the risk of being sued for infringing what should probably be considered a basic technique. You raise some valid points. But you're not really disagreeing with me, are you? You say "as currently implemented", which means that you agree in principle to the concept. And if, if you recall, the comment I was replying was questioning whether royalties should exist at all; they weren't suggesting that it be "tweaked", rather that it be abolished altogether. I'm saying that's a pretty extreme view, and used the similar case of software patents to make my point. In any case, I agree that there is a tradeoff, and it's true that in some cases -- especially software patents --we've gotten to a kind of silly season. But I don't think all patents -- even the majority of patents -- are egregious. Perhaps I was too restrictive in specifying software patents. A new question: do you not agree with patents in general? I think it's much harder to argue that, for instance, a pharmaceutical that invests billions of dollars on a new treatment shouldn't be protected from a competitor simply copying its product and putting it to the market. I'm basically arguing that the concept of intellectual property is a valid and fair one. Obviously there can be debates about details, but the principle, in my view, is sound, and even the most ardent of open-source adherents agrees as much, else why the meticulous emphasis on the precise terms of licenses like the GPL? If you don't believe the creator has "ownership" over something that can be copied at zero cost, how can you argue against, for instance, Tivoization? > The musical analogy would be something like copyright of chord progressions I would have thought that the musical analogy is copyright, which refers to an expression -- a somewhat nebulous term but which is nonetheless amenable to common sense judgements. To patent chord progressions would obviously be silly, because there's relatively few of them that sound good. And yes, I am 100% confident that my songs (shameless plug: http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk) are sufficiently distinct from anything else that I could argue that in a court of law and prevail! They are indeed original expressions ;) To answer your questions: 1) You mean from patent infringement? Yes, I would think so. 2) No; I work in a hedge fund. To open-source our strategies would be commercial suicide. I suppose that gives me a different outlook from you. ;)
- nkurz 18y ago
  Yes, I am disagreeing with you, but probably over matters of implementation rather than of ideals. I'm pro-patents (and pro-royalties) to the extent to which granting a temporary monopoly benefits society as a whole. I do not believe that that one has an innate right to such a monopoly, rather that it is to the advantage of society to grant such a right to incentivize the production of something beneficial that would not otherwise be produced. I presume this is more or less your position as well. Where we likely disagree most is regarding term. The term for (non-software) patents seems almost reasonable, but I find it hard to believe that those 75 years after the life of the author (under US copyright) increases the production of great music. The 50 years from date of production for music under UK law seems more reasonable, but I'd guess that very little of the music I enjoy would suffer if this time was reduced sharply.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

jodrellblank 18y ago

No I don't fully approve of them. That doesn't mean I want to scrap them entirely, or that I have a better replacement for them. I do think it's different - the music industry copyright covers "a song", wheras the software industry patents "a feature". If you asked a band to write you a song, there's no chance they would accidentally come out with music that sounds like Never Gonna Give You Up, the same lyrics, and a singer who sounds like Rick Astley such that someone could sue them for being a close imitation. But if you asked an isolated small development company to develop a program of significant size and ability to be useful and saleable, there's a strong chance they will include some feature somewhere that (arguably) infringes on an existing patent. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_patents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_patents - The patent relates to a progress bar. Filed in 1989. Probably a new thing in 1989. Not in 1999. Certainly not in 2009.