a sort-of related issue:

o.o

Quote: Original post by chronos

Quote: Original post by John Schultz
2nd sentence: I work in a small company: patents have not made life more difficult (nor for any of the other small companies I have worked with. The expert witness case was two larger companies squaring off);

Are you so self-centered that you think your experiences are somehow representative of the industry as a whole?

Nah. I've been working in this industry since it began. I only witnessed one patent related situation. You made a general statement about small companies. My personal experience differs from your general statement. I might agree to a statement such as, "some small companies (such as id vs Creative) have chosen to change their software to get around patent issues". Did id lose any money? While I don't know Carmack personally (I have met him and been to his office years ago when showing him how we ported Quake to stereoscopic 3D (which reminds me: H3D's product was well patented)), I empathize that being forced to change software because of a patent (on what appears to be) simple/obvious, sucks.

My point has been and continues to be, deal with it the best you can by learning as much as you can about the process. Then, if one opposes the patent system, do one's best to get bogus patents thrown out before they're issued. If one does not philosophically oppose the patent system (especially a student or small company) they can protect and license their invention without being ripped off by bigger companies.

Quote: Wouldn't life be easier if you didn't have to worry about software patents? If you could use a "ghost car" system in your game without worrying about losing your shirt? If you didn't have "to be careful" that you "don't step on the claims in said patents [or any other patent, for that matter]"? According to you "it's not a big deal", but I'm sure there are many people who disagree.

I agree, it would be nice not to have to worry aboutdeal with these issues. But, this is the system we are stuck with. I was pretty upset when the company I testified for settled without a fight. Now, years later, I understand why they did it.

Quote:
What you call an alarmist position is shared by numerous important figures such as John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Lawrence Lessig, and many others.

I appreciate what anti-patent and free software people are trying to accomplish. Until the system changes, businesses have to operate under the conditions of the market (and for better or worse, the patent system, at least until a better system is in place).

Quote:

Quote: b). Ignore the issue and hope for the best (certainly low stress, but probably not very wise).

Similarly, pretending that patents are less of a problem than they actually are is very low stress and just as unwise.

Again, I'm stating: work with the system the best you can. A common philosophy regarding things one cannot change: don't worry about it ("no big deal"). I don't see a totally free software and a patent-less system happening any time soon.

Quote: I'm sure that hacks like Carmack, Torvalds, Stallman, Gamedev.net's own Yann Lombard and other opponents of software patents have never created "anything worth patenting to begin with". After all, only incompetent people -- with nothing to show or protect -- are opposed to software patents.

I guess that makes me incompetent too, as I am opposed to software patents (as the system currently stands). Since it is my goal to create commercial software for a living, I chose to work with the system the best I can. Unfortunately, it will take somebody with Bill Gates money to make significant changes to software patent situation (he's given away billions to education/charities: perhaps he'll help the software patent situation after he retires).

Quote:
The point is that a lot of work is involved, even for a patent examiner. As for being disgruntled, that's just a cheap shot on your part and has no bearing whatsoever on the validity (or lack thereof) of his claim.

Do you believe that someone who enjoys working (and is still employed) at the PTO would make such a statement in public? In any case, one examiner's opinion is not a valid representation of the entire organization.

Quote:

Quote: If Eelco's invention (from which this discussion was spawned) is truly novel, and does what he says it will do (with no unforeseen flaws), as a student it's in his best interest to profit from it.

Which brings us back to the reason why you started this thread. You claim it's intended to help other developers, but clearly it is intended as a defense of the patent system by downplaying the actual risks involved. In the end your posts all boil down to "it's not a big deal, don't worry about it."

My only defense of the patent system is that there is currently no better system on this planet (especially in protecting small entities from big ones). When a better system is proposed, I'll be behind it (vote, talk, whatever I can do to help). Downplaying risks? No. Pragmatic. Complaining and not doing anything about it is not efficient (how about proposing a better system based on economics mathematics, game theory, etc.?). Don't worry about things one cannot change. Do the best you can in the world in which you live.

i also think patents give the holder too much power.

protecting ideas is certainly a good concept, but being able to infringe on something unknowingly is indeed a tad twisted. 'oh you infringed on our patent. did you know that as of today it costs (insane amount of money here)? well, now you do'

the power given to the patent holder should be limited. maybe we should only give someone protection of his idea up to a certain amount of money, so you can never be shafted too hard afterwards? then again, how would you go about quantifying such outside of market forces?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
i also think patents give the holder too much power.

Neo Eelco: take the red pill or the blue pill. The choice is yours.

From the other thread..

Eelco.. I still like you! I just argue with passion about things I care about and sometimes a little too much, especially when the Vicodin (root canal) had not kicked in.

John. The Baraff patents are Pixar patents. They are not Baraff patents. IE. A corporation. As far as.. Patents are like taxes and we can't do anything about it.. That is not true. Yes there is. You can speak out against them on every occasion. You can let the new kids know how terrible they are. Change is possible. Change will happen AS LONG AS people do not give up.

John. As far as the ease of which searching for infringement is concerned... I want to do programming. I do not want to read obfuscated shit written by a lawyers. In fact.. Reading patents is considered by many as bad practice because knowably infringing on a patent is worth 3 times the damages. I go out of my way to try and NEVER read any patent.

Eelco. If you truely want to go down the patent path.. As at least part of your research you should watch this video..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6390784544771380326&q=patents

Let this be a lesson, John: no good deed goes unpunished.

Quote: Original post by billy_zelsnack
The Baraff patents are Pixar patents. They are not Baraff patents.

Patents are awarded to the inventor(s). They can be assigned (and sold) to others (including, but not limited to, corporations).

Quote: Original post by billy_zelsnack
Patents are like taxes and we can't do anything about it.. That is not true. Yes there is. You can speak out against them on every occasion. You can let the new kids know how terrible they are. Change is possible. Change will happen AS LONG AS people do not give up.

By following John F. Nash's Equilibrium Theory, for which he won a Nobel Prize in 1994, one must work toward the common good (promoting change in the patent system) and at the same time work with the patent system (protecting the individual business (person or company)).

Quote: Original post by billy_zelsnack
As far as the ease of which searching for infringement is concerned... I want to do programming. I do not want to read obfuscated shit monkey-doodle written by a lawyers.

While I too would rather be doing activities that promote business (including writing code), reading patents is educational, interesting, and sometimes even entertaining (including, but not limited to, antigravity machines powered by Pepto-Bismol (not kidding)).

In order to change the system, more people should be reading patents and understanding how the systems works (and how it could be improved).

Quote: Original post by billy_zelsnack
Reading patents is considered by many as bad practice because knowably infringing on a patent is worth 3 times the damages. I go out of my way to try and NEVER read any patent.

If one reads a patent and discusses it while leaving a paper trail whereby it is clear that they knowingly are infringing on a patent, then they deserve to get nailed for treble damages: Darwin at work. I was not spending my free time poking around the PTO when I ran across the "ghost car" patents. I happened to notice the patent information on an advert for Outrun. If I were to include infringing elements of thoses patents in my game, the patent owner would deserve treble damages for my foolishness/stupidity.

Quote: Original post by billy_zelsnack
As at least part of your research you should watch this video..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6390784544771380326&q=patents

Everyone in business affected by software patents knows the current system needs revision. In the video, Stallman pokes fun at Heckel for his patent. To date, Heckel has not received a dime for his patent. This is an example of a broken system (the patent was invalidated, then re-validated, and appears to be back in court).

Stallman rips the current US government administration (calling patent enforcement akin to murder, and thus the administration are murderers)). He does not mention what any other administration has done to improve the patent situation. Clearly, drug companies require business incentives to help poor countries with patented drugs. Drug companies are ultimately responsible to their shareholders (the people): giving away patented drugs will reduce profit, and thus reduce shareholder income. That's the state of the current system. Changes are required to the government system (businesses aren't likely to volunteer to give away money). WRT patented drugs: what harm would there be to allow poor countries to use (manufacture) patented drugs for free? Those free patented drugs would unfortunately not remain in said poor countries (and would end up in the world market).

Stallman states that patent applications are not searchable. That's not true: patent applications have been published by the PTO since November 29, 2000 (well before the video was created). Anyone can search them. Most of the patents referenced in this thread are patent applications (not patents yet). I found them in just a few minutes of searching: it was quite simple.

Stallman badgers and bullies one audience member asking questions regarding alternatives to software patents. Stallman circumlocutes, stalls, dances, and spins around, never answering the question.

While Stallman makes good points against software patents (which anyone in business having to deal with software patents is already fully aware), he never mentions or proposes any solutions or improvements (other than abolishing all software patents, and implying that all software should be free). His position is based on an extreme view, the ideas of which are not likely to be implemented in a global economy.

It is clear Stallman wishes to be a role model and public figure. It would be to his advantage to not be filmed putting away multiple cans of Pepsi considering his body type is prone to type II diabetes. Over stimulation via caffeine is also not healthy. Fair or not, people, especially politicians (such as Stallman), are judged on their looks and presentation perhaps more than their message. If Stallman wishes to truly effect change, he needs to drop the 'wild hippy' look, cut his hair, shave, cut back on caffeine, get in shape (type II diabetes is a terrible disease that can be cured and prevented) and basically, grow up (I understand where he is coming from: I used to sport long hair myself). Additionally, acrimonious whining about the government makes the speaker look weak (thus weakening any valid points they could have made).

Ralph Nader and Michael Moore have both made good points about changing government policy and corporate greed. However, their presentations can come off poorly, leaving a bad taste in one's mouth. Thus, it is very important for the message delivery system (people, choice of words, not acting in bad taste, etc.) to also be addressed.

Stallman's video also did not mention that IBM has released 500 patents to help the open source movement. While this is clearly a business-related move, it's a move in the right direction nonetheless. Stallman's video was created at least 4 months after IBM's announcement.

I hope it is clear that I'm trying to take a balanced position on this issue. I believe it is dishonest and in poor taste for either side of an issue to mislead people, be it exaggeration, incompetent omissions, and especially intentional misdirection for political gain.

In summary:

1. A new system must be proposed based on economics and game theory (not video game theory, the other kind) that at least theoretically has a chance of working better than the existing system.
2. Businesses will need to play both sides of the issue until the system changes. That's economics. This means speaking-out/lobbying/voting against the current patent issues, while at the same time protecting themselves by using the patent system the best they can. IBM’s 500 patent donation is a step in the right direction (however motivated).

[Edited by - John Schultz on February 19, 2006 6:52:56 PM]

Quote: Original post by John Schultz
Stallman states that patent applications are not searchable. That's not true: patent applications have been published by the PTO since November 29, 2000 (well before the video was created). Anyone can search them. Most of the patents referenced in this thread are patent applications (not patents yet). I found them in just a few minutes of searching: it was quite simple.

John Schultz do you file your patents with Lawyer or you make them yourself?
I do not think people are as smart as you are, you are the man, man. You can read all those patents, and still be able to come up with new inventions.

Quote: Original post by John Schultz
Stallman badgers and bullies one audience member asking questions regarding alternatives to software patents. Stallman circumlocutes, stalls, dances, and spins around, never answering the question.

That bastard, how dare he opposing the pattern system John Schultz fight so hard to protect. I feel very safe here with our crusader John Schultz, his will restore the honor of big corporation and big patent lawyers offices that are only looking after the well being of the big Cooperation. Go get him John.

Quote: Original post by John Schultz
I hope it is clear that I'm trying to take a balanced position on this issue. I believe it is dishonest and in poor taste for either side of an issue to mislead people, be it exaggeration, incompetent omissions, and especially intentional misdirection for political gain.

I really like this topic John Schultz created, hi is the defense, the district attorney, the jury, and the judge. I think he may even protest himself in a occasion or two.
Hey John has a Kool-Aid they are very delicious and refreshing. Oh I forgot Kool-Aid they are patented already.

@jjd: perhaps we can change that.
@AP: LOL. I state some elements are simple/easy to encourage others not be discouraged and to seek the truth for themselves.

Proposals to change the software patent system:

1. If a first entity is using a method in a software system, and has not published or disclosed said method, if a patent application is later filed by a second entity that describes said method (which if granted might prevent one from continuing to use said method), if the first entity can show that their published work (which does not include source code; just binary) predates said patent application, the application will be invalidated due to prior art.

Currently, if one wishes to continue using certain "novel" methods, they must either file a patent application to protect themselves, or publish the methods and lose any trade secret protection, or maintain trade secret status and hope that no one patents their methods.

2. Limit software patents to two years after the patent is issued.
3. Find a way to quantify patents: this would allow maximum license fees to be established (difficult, but perhaps something from economics game theory can be used to non-arbitrarily determine value).
4. Require a patent holder to allow anyone to use their IP for a fee set forth by 3 above.
5. Set a maximum patent fee per product whereby a product can use any number of patents and still only pay a maximum fee (with multiple tiers (bigger companies pay more, up to N patents for M dollars, etc.) and special Small Entity pricing for small companies/individuals). Each patent holder would then receive an equal share of the maximum fee. The product manufacturer would pay the PTO said maximum fee (and disclose any known patents in use), and then let the PTO handle disbursing fees (and handling additional claims against the product). Once a claimant proves the software application in question is infringing, they'll begin receiving their cut. This should completely remove software patent litigation issues for the software developer.

I think that there should not be a patent for a recipes run on a computer, but I'll play along.

1. that's how it already is.
2. i don't think slow crappy corporations would like that.
3. how about each patent is worth IN TOTAL $1,000,000. once that license has been paid, it is public.
4. if you are going to have patents, then patent terrorists are a good idea
5. corporations would never buy that.

here's my suggestion other than junk software patents completely..

the system works the other way around. you patent something and it is secret. if nobody else patents it within 10 years you can start going after people. they can either license, or change their CURRENT implementation.