Software patents suck!
Did you know a programmer, or guy can get sued, because he didn’t research whether his algorithm is already patented! Even is he came up with the algorithm by himself!
Just because you come up with a neat idea, shouldn’t mean someone else is not allowed to come up with the same great idea himself and use it!
I am all for copyright, but patenting software algo’s is wrong IMVHO!
Nutty
Opla,
these aren’t just software patents. SGI has built hardware for years and filed patents while doing so.
Originally posted by Nutty:
Software patents suck!
I agree fully on that. I generally don’t like patents at all, at least not as they are currently working in most countries, software patents sux most of them all. To get a patent I think at least you should have something radically different, something you can really call an invention. That alpha blending patent earlier in this thread is just plainly ridiculous, just about anyone could have come up with it, it’s so obvious and it’s really nothing but a simple equation, linear interpolation, whatever …
I find patents to be counterproductive and cause all kinds or problems. Ok, as long as this world is market driven (or greed driven) we’ll need a way to protect inventors from being crushed by companies stealing your inventions, but the way patents are set up today it’s just causing more problems than it solves. Most inventions are based on work done earlier by other people, so who we really should call the inventor is often not the same as the one getting the patent. And that you can patent the most simplistic things, it just makes me sick. If people believed in sharing and cooperation more than greed and profit this world would be a much better place to live on. Oh well …
I can believe in sharing, cooperation, greed, and profit all at the same time. Works out best that way. 
(And I would hate to live in a world without greed and/or profit.)
I am not necessarily convinced that software patents are all bad. I think there are some problems with the patent system, but they are not huge problems, and fundamentally patents are OK.
> There’s no patents on software in Europe
> anyway, so it’s only a USA and Japon
That’s not true, although a widely believed myth.
Just like a software guy can infringe a patent “even though he thought of it himself,” a mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineer can do the same. However, those disciplines have gotten used to actually researching patents before shipping highly visible applications.
The idea behind a patent is that if you patent something which is “stupid” then other people will be encouraged to find a better way. If you find a better way, then there is no harm in the patent. If you do NOT find a better way, then there is actual value in the patent – and it’ll be in the public domain after 17 years, instead of being lost as a trade secret forever.
The problems with software patents today seem to be two-fold:
Seems to me that the law isn’t being followed, because the whole validity of the patent system hinges on these fairly high bars actually being maintained. But, hey, what do I know?
Seems to me that if the government actually grants monopolies through patents, they should also provide enforcement. But, hey, what do I know?
I’m just a programmer.
Yea let’s build a bloated enforcement beaurocracy to blow our tax dollars chasing people over civil issues.
Companies violate each others patents all the time. Do you really want a third party to step in and tell ATI, NVIDIA, Matrox, SGI (oops I mean Microsoft) et.al that they can’t use each others I.P? I can guarantee you that every one of these companies will be violating some patent claims of every other. Your suggestion doesn’t help innovation, it screws everyone.
The pretext of patents is to encourage progress through investment in R&D, when they start to do the opposite then they need reform, but the reform should be directed at the original goal, not some other hair brained nonsense.
Note a dollar spent on genuine R&D is not the same as a dollar spent trying to circumvent another’s patent.
[This message has been edited by dorbie (edited 01-19-2002).]
these aren’t just software patents
I know dorbie, I was just talking about OpenGL.
I think everybody (except patent lobbies) agree that software patents sucks. There was a debate in Europe about that (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/14933.html))
OpenGL is essentially a trademark now, it’s the implementations (which happen to include hardware) which could fall foul of the SGI/Microsoft patents.
I don’t know the exact wording, but I think there’s also a qualifier to what you are saying. I’ve read that European software patents which are innovative and technical in nature are permitted.
I’ve read that European software patents which are innovative and technical in nature are permitted.
it was out of question to allow business patents like the amazon 1-click patent anyway. there was no question about it: it’s bad.
to allow “innovative and technical in nature” software patents, the patent lobbie will have to prove that it’s good for innovation.
patents are not the only way to protect innovation. many people (including me) think that copyright and author’s right are enough.
Without commenting on what the law should be, I think the current status of the law in Europe is such that you can file software patents if they meet certain requirements. IANAEL
It seems to me that’s its difficult to prove that someone has violated a software (or algorithm) patent.
If someone figures out a solution on there own, produces an implemetation that appears to have identical behavior to your own, how can you sue them without solid proof that they violated your patent?
It’s not like that someone has stolen your source code or your object code. That person put a lot of effort to produce his version.
V-man
Exactly V-man! But it can happen!
It it your responsability to make sure your code doesn’t infrigne upon someone elses patent.
But, I dont know of a single person who actually cares about this stuff here in the UK.
Nutty
Remember when Lotus sued Borland for having the same menu tree ?
Even if you win or lose, if you’re a small company, you can’t spend much money to defend your rights … http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/int-prop/lotus/lotus-borland-appeal-Mar95.html
It makes me think of Creative Labs who sued Aureal.
AFAIK Aureal actually won the trial, but went bankrupt because it spent all its money to pay lawyers.
Patents good for innovation?? Aureal’s A3D was innovative, and far better than Creative’s EAX. Using the crappy patent law, Creative just crushed an innovative competitor to keep its monopolistic situation.
it’ll be in the public domain after 17 years
What a joke. Everybody knows that 17 years in computer science is like 100 years in other fields. Remember the state of the art in 1985? I don’t, I was too young .
SGI insisted at the time these are “non core” technologies, but sources close to the Mountain View are emphatic that these represent the bulk of SGI’s 3D intellectual property assets, a view confirmed by documents disclosed to The Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
I think that about says it all. Nothing is confirmed as yet.
V-man, you don’t have to ‘prove’ anything, you just have to convince a jury of 12 people in Delaware (or some other place)that you are right, there’s no ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ here. Now remember that Bill Gates beat out Thomas Edison as the greatest ever U.S. inventor in a recent poll of the kind of people who will be on that jury. Infact it’s marginally worse, because if some local knows anything about computers and computer graphics you will have no chance of being allowed on the jury.
Keemalec, what are you saying? The documents the Register has confirm it, they claim. This is the story everyone’s discussing, and for who knows what reason, you are posting a link as if it calls into question the story it presents, it does not. Your selected quote is the most emphatic part of the article, they have documentary CONFIRMATION of the story. Didn’t you read this right?
[This message has been edited by dorbie (edited 01-21-2002).]
That depends. Microsoft has initiated a lawsuit against a Brazilian company becouse of a suposed violation of micosoft code. And is not going to get anything…becouse American laws are not aplicable here. And since micosoft didnt payed a process that the Brazilian government has upon it... Well... it cant get anything here. The law here says that MicroSoft would need to free all their code to show that there is a violation, that is the only way to sue a Braz. company. That is just an example.
Originally posted by dorbie:
The fact that you use OpenGL or don’t does not protect you from someone’s patents. If Microsoft own the right I.P. they can sue you whether or not what you use is called OpenGL. SGI sued NVIDIA over their chip designs and they were an OpenGL licensee sitting on the ARB!
As is often the case with legal issues, the situation is complex. OpenGL licensees (a category which includes Microsoft, one of the original licensees, but I digress) agree to a reciprocal licensing agreement for necessary IP to implement OpenGL. Similarly, when the ARB approves a new extension or version of the core specification, ARB members and participants must either raise IP objections within a defined window after voting, or by not doing so, agree to reciprocal licensing of their necessary IP.
However, necessary IP is not all IP. Frex, when 3dfx patented multitexture hardware, this raised a potential problem for ARB_multitexture. 3dfx eventually agreed that there were commercially reasonable implementations of hardware supporting multitexture which did not infringe their patents. This was sufficient for the ARB to adopt the multitexture extension without concern that anyone implementing ARB_multitexture would necessarily be at risk. However, 3dfx continued to pursue NVIDIA because they felt that NVIDIA’s implementation did infringe their patents.
Necessary disclaimer: I am not speaking as a lawyer or speaking for my employer, just citing some of the details of the licensing and standards process, and one particular example where the process worked as it was supposed to for OpenGL as a whole.
Jon Leech
SGI
Thanks for the clarification, it’s marginally better than I would have hoped, I was aware that various contributors frequently waived I.P. rights to extension proposals, I didn’t know that it was formalized like this. It seems to make the riders on some extension proposals redundant.
Unfortunately the word necessary makes quite a difference, particularly when it comes to hardware accelerated implementations. Is it necessary for OpenGL to be fast? Is it necessary for example to have an on chip texture cache?
I just want to clarify for anyone that may otherwise get the wrong impression that being an OpenGL licensee doesn’t give you rights to this kind of fundamental I.P. and you’re potentially screwed without it.
This seems to confirm that the issue is graphics patents and not OpenGL ownership, with an emphasis on implementation details and non ARB approved extensions.
Thanks again for the informed post.
[This message has been edited by dorbie (edited 01-23-2002).]
Originally posted by dorbie:
Unfortunately the word necessary makes quite a difference, particularly when it comes to hardware accelerated implementations. Is it necessary for OpenGL to be fast? Is it necessary for example to have an on chip texture cache?
Terms like necessary and commercially reasonable often have precise legal meanings that are well removed from how they’re used casually by engineers. Working this stuff out within an IP framework defined by a standards body is a large part of why standards bodies exist at all.
But for the most part the disputes that have escalated to public notice have to do with hardware patents, not APIs. The ARB as a whole shouldn’t get in the middle of arguments between individual members over the implementation details of their chips; the disputes would be much the same even if completely different vendor-specific APIs were being used by the parties to the dispute. What the ARB needs to do is define APIs that are reasonably possible to implement without tramping on IP that companies want to protect.
Jon Leech
SGI