On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Thanks for "trimming" my message and probably not answering to the
point. I
will try to address your claims, however.
That's a matter of opinion. I thought I hit your point exactly.
Software is a mathematical abstraction and talented people would be
able to
come up with an idea for how to implement an algorithm for
performing a
certain programming task relatively easily that allowing patents on
implementation of programs will do more to stifle competition, than
to protect
the originator of the idea.
The whole point of a patent is to limit, or to use your word stifle
competition. Competition is only good if you are on the receiving end
of the benefit. If you are the one who invested the money a limit on
competition is better for you so you can realize a return on your
investment.
It comes back to your idea of whom should fund research. The "people"
who take the invention itself as the return on investment or the
investors. If there was unlimited comptition with no protection of
ideas only things which would did not need money to be developed would
be invented. Even if they were invented, they would never be realized.
As an experiment, walk around your home or office and look at
everything, from the cucumber sandwich in your lunch, to the computer
you are reading this on, to the clothes that you wear. Assign a value
to you for them, and a value to the inventions and work involved in
making them happen as it were. How many of them would have succeded to
the point that they would have had to be there if there was no private
investment and return on that investment.
According to patent law, you cannot patent an idea, but its
implementation. So
for example, I cannot patent the idea of a starship, but if I know a
method to
achieve it, I can try patenting this method. Other people may be
able to build
starships while using different method, but if they would want to
use my
method, they'll need to pay me for it.
I'll assume you are speaking about patent law in general, not a
specific country. ok.
On the other hand, given a certain programming task, the algorithms
needed in
the implementation are usually not hard to come by independently,
and allowing
to patent them would do nothing except stifle innovation, and allow
patent
trolls and other patent trollers to extort the actually productive
software
developers and houses.
WTF? Where do you get that? There's a lot of suppositions in there.
The way I read that, is "I want to be able to use your ideas for free".
Not only does
your last statement make no sense, it discriminates against software
developers and is totally unsubstanisated.
Discriminates *against* software developers? According to
http://producingoss.com/en/patents.html :
{{{{{{{{{{{
Surveys and anecdotal evidence show that not only the vast majority
of open
source programmers, but a majority of all programmers, think that
software
patents should be abolished entirely.
}}}}}}}}}}}
ROTFL. A survey of 49, that's right FOURTY NINE programers at a
conference FIFTEEN YEARS AGO is the only thing you can use to justify
your claim?
To quote the authors "The remaining 49 constitute a rather small
polling sample." How many programers are there in the world? 50?
1,000? 10,000? 100,000? a million? and you expect me to believe that
50 longer ago than most people on this list have been programing are
relevant?
I even wonder what was the point of the survery, it was limited to
people who stopped by their booth and were willing to take the survey.
If you want anecdotal evidence, then my anecdote is that most
programmers would not have stopped by and few answered the survey
judging by the miniscule number of people who took it.
So who exactly am I discriminating against?
Anyone who invents computer software and wishes to avail themselves of
patent protection. By quoting anecdotal evidence (which is not really
evidence at all, but hearsay) and a single survey that even the
authors doubted the value of, you are attempting to deprive them of
something they want and IMHO deserve).
That's the danger of posting a link, someone might actually read it.
When Richard M. Stallman coined the term "free software" his
intention was not
for developers to make money off it. In fact, I recall reading on
the GNU
site, an old document said that there "will still be programmers"
after free
software takes over, but that they will "earn less money than they
do today".
This did not happen, and open-source software turned out to be a
profitable
avenue in many cases, with several good models. But nevertheless,
the concept
of FOSS is not meant as a way for developers to make more money, but
rather as
a way for users and co-developers to benefit from the availability
of software
under a free licence, which retains their freedoms with the software
Considering the income he has made over the years by releasing his
software as FOSS and then having people pay him money to lecture,
donating to his cause, etc, not only any advancement at MIT because of
his postition, I think he did quite well from it.
There are lots of people on this list, and elsewhere in the world who
make good livings with their support and add-ons to free software.
Patents (and copyrights) are not a "right" in the same sense as the
freedom of
speech, the right of life, the right to bear arms, etc. and other
basic
individual and civil rights are rights. Instead, they are a society-
enacted
monopoly given in order to foster innovation, the sciences and the
arts. As
such, we may rule that there is no place for software patents like
there is
for patents in other realms, simply because we find that they do
more harm
than good.
You keep claiming that, but you have offered no proof. In fact, you
have offered no viable evidence. You should change that to be honest,
which would be "we claim there is no place for software patents .....
because we claim they do more harm than good". Good here being defined
as the ability of anyone, at any time to copy someone else's ideas for
free.
After spending enough time in developing and perfecting the code. If
someone
is smarter than me, why shouldn't he also benefit? I don't see why
there
shouldn't be some healthy competition, especially if coming up with
a method
for implementing a task in software is usually quite trivial.
Ok, are you willing to take a cut to $1 a day because there are lots
of people in China who are smarter than you, or more willing to work
harder than you to copy your idea? The problem is that you define
healthy competition as not causing you to go out of business, or loose
your investment, but do nothing at all to limit that competition to
your definition of healthy. You are expecting people to stay within
you vaguely defined limit of "healthy", while decrying software
patents because you claim they are vague (or vaguely enforced, which
is not a fault with the patents).
I'm sure that most startups today don't end up as consuming the life
savings
of anyone. There are always angel investors, and venture capital
firms, or
also two people working from their house on an idea, which doesn't
consume too
many financial resources. If their startup fails, they can always
find a job
at a software company.
Sorry, it does not work that way. In order to get money from an angel
investor or a VC, you have to make a pitch. That takes time and money
and often angel investors are small investors who do put their house
up, retirement fund or life savings.
I have to go, so I'll continue this later.
Geoff.
--
geoffrey mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Jerusalem Israel geoffreymendel...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
