http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1387575,00.html I think this article has an excellent point about copyrights also protecting free software and Americans thinking that it is communism to have any kind of free software. Anyone else any other opinions?

I don't think the article says that Americans think that it is communism to have free software. Nor do Americans think so in real life.

Unfortunately, as an American, what I can say is that most Americans who use computers have very little respect for copyrights, and do not even think twice about violating them. For instance, a month or so ago I lent my friend a copy of the original Diablo. I lent it so that he could use my copy legally, since I wasn't using it and did not currently have it installed on a computer. Instead, this week he gave it back to me, saying that now he had burned a copy! He did not even ask my permission before burning the disk, let alone actually buy himself a copy. I myself, as a programmer who has some vague understanding of the work that goes into it, try to avoid copying disks and what not. However, I have actually been subjected to ridicule before for doing so. When I have said things like, "Well, if we are going to use that program on the other computer, we will need another copy," people have actually responded with, "Why?"!! [/rant]

Oh, and in response to the patent issue: I think patents are a bad idea for software. I am not sure whether having them would make sense from a fairness point of view, but it seems like they would stiffle innovation. What is needed instead is better enforcement of copyrights.

These are solely my opinions. Not facts.

1) Communism is a great idea. Too bad that there is no good way to implement it.
2) Patents are generally a good idea. As long as the patents are not generic such as shoelaces or similar. Perhaps the zipper should be considered as the minimum to qualify as a patent.
3) Software patents suck ass. Software is obviously something different from the jet engine or the telephone.
4) There should be some reasoning in software patents. I've understood that there are patents pending for double clicks, alpha blending, windows (not microsoft, but in general) and lots of generic stuff like that.

What if Newton had patented differential calculus or maybe even the theory of gravitation? Perhaps the latter could not be patented, but patenting a compression algorithm is just like patenting differential calculus. They are a little like the gravitation, both a result of nature of the universe and the laws of mathematics.

The other thing that has to be taken into consideration is that the patents need to be given to their real owners. So if windows were to be patented, the patent of windows should be given to Xerox (from whom Apple stole the idea, from whom Microsoft stole the idea). History can tell us that this will not happen. Alexander Bell did not invent the phone, he just had the resources to get it patented, while the original inventor (can't remember the name) couldn't get money for the patent and died poor.

My personal opinion is that american copyright and intellectual property laws are a result of the equation money = power, and it's not the way it should be.

-Richardo

Okay maybe i was being a bit harsh with the communism thing! I just thought it was a good article about the subject of software patents, and many Europeans who metion any form of "socialism" to an American usually end up with a barrage of how "communism" will destroy us all.

Patenting double clicks is plain stupidity, and on the comment about the Telephone someone has tried to patent e-mails, and he isn't the original inventor either. At least in the case of e-mail we know exactly who invented them.

I obviously got some serious critic from an Anon poster.

I wrote that message in a rush, so I didn't have time to explain properly what I'm after.

First of all, the difference between non-software and software patents. As far as I am concerned, mathematical methods can't be patented. Unless they're software. A compression algorithm, for example. This is a real flaw in the patent law.

Another intresting fact is that two people can develop the same kind of theory/product/invention, independently of each other. This happened with Newton and differential calculus, Marconi and the radio, etc. In cases like this, it's hard to tell, who owns the right to the patent. This is happening all the time, for example it is claimed that Linux violates about 230 patents. Were the developers of Linux even aware that such patents existed or were the patents even published at the time the code ended up in Linux (or it's successors, from which the code might be legally copied from). The "original" authors were not ripped off in any way.

When it comes patents on stuff like jet engines or similar, it's different. Although they obviously obey the laws of nature, they are much much more complex and they are not something simple and general that could be reproduced by anyone. _Real products_. For example, the gif-image format. The compression method used in gif's is very generic, simple and easy to reproduce. Thus, I think it should not be worthy of a patent. Then again, the gif file format as a whole could, in my opinion, be patentable. But without the compression algorithm, the gif file format isn't worth a nickel.

The problem with patents and copyrights is that the laws involved are a mess. The issues are very complex and the situations are quickly evolving. The copyright/patent laws should be adapting, but the more they change, the more complex they get.

In the current situation, the only one suffering from copyright/patent laws is the customer/end user.

-Richardo

The problem with current patent systems is that they don't take into account the lifetime of usefulness of a product. A software patent currently stifles innovation because they protect the software throughout its entire lifetime.

Patents need to only protect something for maybe 1/3 of its lifetime at most (to a maximum of 20 years). For example, a specific software patent might last 3 years while a patent on a new transmission design would last 20 years - each time the length of the patent would have to depend on the how innovative the new thing is, how often such things are changing at the time, and other such factors.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Quote: Original post by RichardoX the patent of windows should be given to Xerox Xerox didn't patent their windowing system because they didn't believe there would be a market for electronic-only publishing. They felt their core business was solely in printing and scanning and no radical innovation would go beyond this. That was a fatal mistake. Where is Xerox now?

A teacher's lounge.

Quote:

Original post by RichardoX These are solely my opinions. Not facts. 3) Software patents suck ass. Software is obviously something different from the jet engine or the telephone. -Richardo

I agree, software is coding, and coding is in a way an artform, it would be like patenting a painting or a song, thus in lieu of patents there are copyrights.

> The act of patenting an invention involves disclosing all the
> details of said invention

True, but anyone can 'work' the system by adding minor modifications every so often before the final publication is done, thus shielding the information until it's too late.

> Coke is such an example

LOL. Maybe I'd stop drinking Coke the day I know what's in it exactly ... ;)

> That's called "prior art".

That's why you can't patent a time machine, btw. The mere fact of going back in time invalidates the patent.


Isn't this thread better in the Lounge?

-cb