Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Matt Giuca]

By the way, I just saw this story hit Slashdot:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/05/19/1518200/software-patents-good-for-open-source

Good discussion there (out of a pretty lousy summary). I noticed that Ben
Sturmfels commented too.

Best comment was
this
:

It is as if someone is trying to create the impression there is an ongoing
> 'debate' about about the pros and cons of software patents. There is no
> debate. Software patents are harmful nonsense. and this is the general
> consensus amoung [sic] people who write software (supposedly the people
> that these patents 'protect'). I'm sure you could scrape up some guy who
> swears blind that smoking cured his sinus problems but that doesn't mean an
> article 'Smoking - good for your health?' should hit the front page.
>
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Ben Finney]

Matt Giuca  writes:

> To put it another way, if the idea can be quickly conveyed in a
> meeting with lawyers, then it *is an idea and not an invention* and
> should never have been patented. Patents are awarded for inventions,
> not ideas -- something the system seems to have forgotten.

That's very succinctly put, Matt. Consider it an idea I will copy :-)

I hope you're saying this on the software patent discussion group Ben S.
indicated earlier; this kind of thinking sounds like it would be very
helpful there.

-- 
 \“I was once walking through the forest alone and a tree fell |
  `\   right in front of me, and I didn't hear it.” —Steven Wright |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Russell Coker]

On Wed, 23 May 2012, Matt Giuca  wrote:
> To put it another way, if the idea can be quickly conveyed in a meeting
> with lawyers, then it is an idea and not an invention and should never
> have been patented. Patents are awarded for inventions, not ideas --
> something the system seems to have forgotten.

Sometimes the critical thing is not to have the idea, but to have tested 
hundreds of ideas and found the one that worked.

Consider the NetApp WAFL filesystem and the patent dispute with Sun about ZFS.  
The concepts of WAFL, ZFS, and BTRFS aren't particularly difficult to 
understand for anyone who has a good knowledge of computer science.  It's easy 
to have ideas for things that might work, but getting them to work IRL is 
hard.  Presumably NetApp implemented more than a few different data structures 
for filesystems before coming up with one that works well.  The fact that the 
WAFL design can be quickly described in broad terms to anyone with a good 
knowledge of CD doesn't make it less of an invention IMHO.

There are a lot of really good documentaries about the history of engineering. 
Pretty much every technological development that they feature is something 
that was retrospectively obvious once it's been shown to work.  But the 
historical record is of people who devised the inventions often had a lot of 
trouble getting finance because no-one thought that it would work.

-- 
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Matt Giuca]

Bless John Carmack. He's a fantastic example for the games industry. Of
course, he doesn't develop free software, but once his technology is
reasonably old that there is no further commercial value, he kicks it into
GPL mode and breathes a whole new life into it. I can't really ask for more
than that.

Of course, he has a particular grudge against patents: he personally
invented the "Carmack's reverse" technique for doing dynamic shadows (a
genius technique, by the way -- if anybody is interested in computer
graphics, you should look it up), and then as he was preparing to ship Doom
3, Creative Labs informed him they had a patent on the same technology so
he couldn't release. Hence:

"*The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically
solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not
be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some
years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.*"

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Brian May
wrote:

> My understanding, based on media coverage (so I might be wrong), is it
> is a bit more complicated then that. It seems that Ric Richardson
> tried to license his patent to Microsoft. Negotiations failed. Ric
> Richardson claims they used his ideas as presented to Microsoft in the
> negotiations after the negotiations failed. Microsoft claim that they
> implemented something different.
>
> *If* Ric Richardson's claims are true, its hard to defend Microsoft's
> actions even if you assume that the Patent system is broken.
>

I can try to defend them. Say someone calls you up and says "hey, I have
some great technology you guys might be interested in licensing." You call
them into a meeting (maybe that was a mistake) and then he tells you his
idea: it's basically simple, but he has a patent on it. You're already
working on a similar idea, so you tell him to get lost. Then he sues you
later for using technology which you both independently invented. I don't
know if this is what happened or not, but it's a possibility.

To put it another way, if the idea can be quickly conveyed in a meeting
with lawyers, then it *is an idea and not an invention* and should never
have been patented. Patents are awarded for inventions, not ideas --
something the system seems to have forgotten.

The very fact that it is illegal if someone can has an idea, and they "try
to license it to you, then you turn them down and then rip off their idea",
is what is wrong with the patent system. Ideas (even bad ones, like DRM)
should belong to humanity, and it shouldn't be anybody's right to license
it to you or refuse to, as they see fit.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Brian May]

On 22 May 2012 22:37, Matt Giuca  wrote:
> From what I know about this Ric Richardson, he sounds like a huge patent
> troll. I may have my facts wrong, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under
> the understanding that he came up with a DRM system for detecting when
> software moves from one machine to another to prevent it from being copied.
> He used it to protect his own software, then when Microsoft used similar
> technology, he sued them, won, and was lauded by the media as an "Aussie
> battler" who "beat up big bad Microsoft."

My understanding, based on media coverage (so I might be wrong), is it
is a bit more complicated then that. It seems that Ric Richardson
tried to license his patent to Microsoft. Negotiations failed. Ric
Richardson claims they used his ideas as presented to Microsoft in the
negotiations after the negotiations failed. Microsoft claim that they
implemented something different.

*If* Ric Richardson's claims are true, its hard to defend Microsoft's
actions even if you assume that the Patent system is broken.

On the other hand it is also possible that Ric Richardson's licensing
demands were excessive (I can't remember the details now).
-- 
Brian May 
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Alex Fraser]

Well said, Matt.

On May 22, 2012 10:37 PM, "Matt Giuca"  wrote:
> […] If some guy from Australia
> hadn't invented a way of determining when a machine is significantly
> changed, chances are pretty bloody high that someone at Microsoft would
> have.

John Carmack has said something similar; see the third quote here:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/John_Carmack_on_software_patents

Alex
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Russell Coker]

On Tue, 22 May 2012, Matt Giuca  wrote:
> I can never quite justify why I think software deserves a special exemption
> from the patent system. I think what it comes down to is that *so very very
> little* of what we invent is actually non-obvious. I don't wish to deride
> software engineers in any way -- we do a lot of good work. But the fact is
> that nearly all solutions are obviously derivable from the problem
> definition. Ask any software engineer how to stop someone from installing a
> copy of a program on multiple computers and they will probably invent
> something that infringes on Richardson's patent. Unfortunately, lawyers,
> judges and juries don't appreciate the obviousness of most of these
> inventions.

That isn't a reason for exempting software.  It's more of an example of how 
the patent system is broken.

I think that the RSA patent was reasonable.  If Xerox had patented a lot of 
their interface work then that would have been reasonable too.

Patenting simple uses of basic mathematical operations such as XOR is however 
quite bogus.  Submarine patents of all kinds are also bogus as are patents for 
basic derivative works.

> This is the first time I've seen an argument that "the average person
> doesn't know it's a problem, so therefore it's not a problem." Is this guy
> really a lawyer? "Your honour, although witnesses have testified to my
> client's guilt in great detail, if you were to pick a person at random on
> the streets, the chances are that they wouldn't know my client is guilty.
> Therefore, is it really such a great crime?"

I was under the impression that one of the reasons for a jury trial is to 
limit the scope of unjust laws via jury nullification.  So if the system 
worked properly then juries would just void bad patents etc.  Unfortunately 
things don't work that way, rumor has it that the best way to avoid jury duty 
is to make it known that you are aware of the possibility of nullification.

-- 
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Matt Giuca]

Hi, sorry I'm late to the discussion, and Ben, I'm deeply sorry I couldn't
make it to your speech despite being in Sydney (I had another engagement).
If they post the video, please let us know.

>From what I know about this Ric Richardson, he sounds like a huge patent
troll. I may have my facts wrong, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under
the understanding that he came up with a DRM system for detecting when
software moves from one machine to another to prevent it from being copied.
He used it to protect his own software, then when Microsoft used similar
technology, he sued them, won, and was lauded by the media as an "Aussie
battler" who "beat up big bad Microsoft."

I'm usually the last person to defend Microsoft, but honestly, I don't know
what's worse for freedom of expression: a DRM scheme that makes your
software break if you modify your own computer, or suing a company for
building similar technology to you.

But the DRM aside, this is the perfect example of why the patent system is
completely broken. This guy obviously used the technology to protect his
own software. If it wasn't useful to him, he wouldn't have invented it. The
fact is that patents are usually by-products of software engineering --
usually a tiny piece of a larger whole that was developed along the way
(such as a DRM technology). You are compensated for inventing the
technology by being able to use it in your own product -- you don't
*need*to take further royalties unless you're greedy. If some guy from
Australia
hadn't invented a way of determining when a machine is significantly
changed, chances are pretty bloody high that someone at Microsoft would
have. Therefore, the patent system served no "benefit" to society (if
inventing a DRM system can be called a benefit), because society would have
of course invented the same technology with or without Richardson. Does
Richardson therefore deserve a small cut of every sale of Windows XP? He
bloody well does not!

I can never quite justify why I think software deserves a special exemption
from the patent system. I think what it comes down to is that *so very very
little* of what we invent is actually non-obvious. I don't wish to deride
software engineers in any way -- we do a lot of good work. But the fact is
that nearly all solutions are obviously derivable from the problem
definition. Ask any software engineer how to stop someone from installing a
copy of a program on multiple computers and they will probably invent
something that infringes on Richardson's patent. Unfortunately, lawyers,
judges and juries don't appreciate the obviousness of most of these
inventions.

(I use the word obvious not in the sense of "trivial", or to imply that
someone would immediately think of the solution. But in the sense that if
you sat down for awhile to work it out, you could come up with something
close enough to infringe upon the patent.)

As for the article ... well a lot of this is complete trolling.
"And if you were to pick a person at random on the streets, the chance that
they would have an opinion about whether or not genes should be patentable
would be very much greater than the possibility that they are even aware
there is a debate around software patents."

This is the first time I've seen an argument that "the average person
doesn't know it's a problem, so therefore it's not a problem." Is this guy
really a lawyer? "Your honour, although witnesses have testified to my
client's guilt in great detail, if you were to pick a person at random on
the streets, the chances are that they wouldn't know my client is guilty.
Therefore, is it really such a great crime?"

Progressive and conservative governments both back something so therefore
it must be good?

The patent system was supposed to provide a net benefit to society, and
maybe it doesn't always work, but it's the best thing we have?

Start-ups and open source software still exists, so what are you
complaining about?

These aren't even arguments!!
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[George Patterson]

On 22 May 2012 19:51, Adrian Colomitchi  wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:27 PM, George Patterson
>  wrote:
>> On 22 May 2012 18:59, Adrian Colomitchi  wrote:
>>>
>>> See: http://wiki.freesoftware.asn.au/AustralianFreeSoftwareProjects -
>>> not that many IMHO.
>>>
>>
>> You would need to identify why the list is so short first. How many
>> Australia open source software authors know about it
> I don't know how many. By the number of entries, I suspect not too many of 
> them.
> Which leads me to think that the "FOSS national identity" is a topic
> that worth discussing:
> - if deemed important, probably we would see more efforts to create
> awareness of the list existence
> - if deemed not (so) important, the fact the list is short is not a problem.
>
>> and if they do, why isn't it listed there?
> Well, the way I see: it's a *Wiki*, so if they know about it it should
> be easy to add their projects.
> I don't know if adding/editing that page is restricted, I suspect it is not
>
>>
>> A promising big one is the Serval project http://www.servalproject.org/
>> A short run down, it's a application that allows phone calls  to be
>> made (or even sending text messages) via mesh networking where theres
>> limited infrastructure. Think after a natural disater and the phone
>> exchange has water flowing through it. If you spot something that
>> needs attention such as a broken pipeline or landslide, you can upload
>> the photo to the "Rhizome" and it will migrate via mesh connected
>> phones untill it gets to someone to that can either address it or get
>> a message to the outside world. The sender and receiver do not need to
>> be online at the same time.
> Sounds quite good.
>
>> Serval is being developed at Flinders University.
> Can you ask them to attempt adding the project to the list *if interested*?
> Or, if you are a contributor yourself, can *you* try to add it?
>

I am not that interested, certainly not enough to apply for a login or
expose my ip address. MoinMoin syntax is also a negative to me. It was
an example for discussion only.
Nor am I a contributor, just someone that found out about it at
linux.conf.au earlier this year in Ballarat and having worked in
developing country thought that it was an amazing idea.

Regards


George
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Adrian Colomitchi]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:27 PM, George Patterson
 wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 18:59, Adrian Colomitchi  wrote:
>>
>> See: http://wiki.freesoftware.asn.au/AustralianFreeSoftwareProjects -
>> not that many IMHO.
>>
>
> You would need to identify why the list is so short first. How many
> Australia open source software authors know about it
I don't know how many. By the number of entries, I suspect not too many of them.
Which leads me to think that the "FOSS national identity" is a topic
that worth discussing:
- if deemed important, probably we would see more efforts to create
awareness of the list existence
- if deemed not (so) important, the fact the list is short is not a problem.

> and if they do, why isn't it listed there?
Well, the way I see: it's a *Wiki*, so if they know about it it should
be easy to add their projects.
I don't know if adding/editing that page is restricted, I suspect it is not

>
> A promising big one is the Serval project http://www.servalproject.org/
> A short run down, it's a application that allows phone calls  to be
> made (or even sending text messages) via mesh networking where theres
> limited infrastructure. Think after a natural disater and the phone
> exchange has water flowing through it. If you spot something that
> needs attention such as a broken pipeline or landslide, you can upload
> the photo to the "Rhizome" and it will migrate via mesh connected
> phones untill it gets to someone to that can either address it or get
> a message to the outside world. The sender and receiver do not need to
> be online at the same time.
Sounds quite good.

> Serval is being developed at Flinders University.
Can you ask them to attempt adding the project to the list *if interested*?
Or, if you are a contributor yourself, can *you* try to add it?

Adrian
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[George Patterson]

On 22 May 2012 18:59, Adrian Colomitchi  wrote:
>
> See: http://wiki.freesoftware.asn.au/AustralianFreeSoftwareProjects -
> not that many IMHO.
>

You would need to identify why the list is so short first. How many
Australia open source software authors know about it and if they do,
why isn't it listed there?

A promising big one is the Serval project http://www.servalproject.org/
A short run down, it's a application that allows phone calls  to be
made (or even sending text messages) via mesh networking where theres
limited infrastructure. Think after a natural disater and the phone
exchange has water flowing through it. If you spot something that
needs attention such as a broken pipeline or landslide, you can upload
the photo to the "Rhizome" and it will migrate via mesh connected
phones untill it gets to someone to that can either address it or get
a message to the outside world. The sender and receiver do not need to
be online at the same time. Serval is being developed at Flinders
University.

Regards


George
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Adrian Colomitchi]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Ben Sturmfels  wrote:
> Thanks for the patent related discussion folks. I'll look forward to telling
> you about the presentation I made in Sydney, hopefully at the next Free
> Software Melbourne meeting.
>
> Can I suggest taking further patent discussion to the End Software Patents
> Australia list? That way others can be involved too.
Can I suggest as a topic of discussion (sometime): "The need of
national identity for FOSS"?
Rationale: "End Software Patents Australia" doesn't *seem* to have
enough ammunition in raising to *Australian* politicians the point of
"But is the *Australian* FOSS movement that suffers because of the
software patents".

See: http://wiki.freesoftware.asn.au/AustralianFreeSoftwareProjects -
not that many IMHO.

Adrian
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Ben Sturmfels]

Thanks for the patent related discussion folks. I'll look forward to 
telling you about the presentation I made in Sydney, hopefully at the 
next Free Software Melbourne meeting.


Can I suggest taking further patent discussion to the End Software 
Patents Australia list? That way others can be involved too.


http://lists.endsoftwarepatents.org/mailman/listinfo/australia-public-discuss

P.S. Interesting that "Patentology" wrote their article about the event 
based only quotes from two other news articles about the event (iTnews 
and Computerworld/CIO).


There's be a video out soon, but the non-tech community don't publish 
videos so quick. :)

___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Adrian Colomitchi]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Les Kitchen  wrote:
>
>
>> > 2. Even though Patentology is correct in pointing that the GPL
> ...
>> Plus, patents != copyright, just because they share the IP umbrella.
>> For the most part it should be pretty trivial for an individual to not
>> violate copyright when writing software, but it can be impossible to
>> even know if you are violating a patent.
>
> Yes, Tim.  Agreed.
>
> And, keeping straight the difference between copyright and
> patents, I notice the recent movement to criminalize copyright
> violation (when once it was just a civil matter).
On the "unexpected side" - Google for news along the line of:
"MPAA’s Chris Dodd Admits That Calling Piracy Theft Is A Bad Idea"
Not that it would matter too much
(to paraphrase: "that which we call a FUD by any other name would
stink as bad").

Regards,

Adrian
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Adrian Colomitchi]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Tim Cuthbertson  wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Les Kitchen  wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 2. Even though Patentology is correct in pointing that the GPL
>>   (and copyleft) technically relies on copyright law, he omits
>>   to mention that that's only a defence against a system that's
>>   largely biassed against free flow of ideas and methods and
>>   code.
>
> Plus, patents != copyright, just because they share the IP umbrella.
> For the most part it should be pretty trivial for an individual to not
> violate copyright when writing software, but it can be impossible to
> even know if you are violating a patent.
The interesting part with software and its protection by copyright
that I see: software=speech.
Thus, at least in my mind, if  one:
a. pulls a software patent
b. implement it
c. distribute the implementation *in source code only* (as any
"artistic creation")
then this way of distributing should be protected by the "right to
freedom of expression".

Now, the mileage may vary from legislation to legislation.
I know that Aus. laws doesn't have an *explicit* protection for the
right to free speech, but by the US system of laws (I don't know which
of their constitution amendments) the protection of free speech should
trump the existence of the patent (I remember that mid-90-ies have
seen some squabbles over the export of crypto software - not patented
but classified as ammunition - that were solved by printing the source
code in books/T-shirts, etc and exporting them as such until their
gubt. gave up).

Personally, I'm highly tempted to give the above a try. Any opinions
about other risks, please?

Regards,

Adrian
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Les Kitchen]

> > 2. Even though Patentology is correct in pointing that the GPL
...
> Plus, patents != copyright, just because they share the IP umbrella.
> For the most part it should be pretty trivial for an individual to not
> violate copyright when writing software, but it can be impossible to
> even know if you are violating a patent.

Yes, Tim.  Agreed.

And, keeping straight the difference between copyright and
patents, I notice the recent movement to criminalize copyright
violation (when once it was just a civil matter).  Then I
fantasize about a world in which knowingly or negligently
putting in a bogus patent application would be a criminal
offence -- attempting to obtain a monopoly by deception.

More another time...

-- Smiles, Les.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Les Kitchen]

> One could accuse them of intellectual cowardice. Or at the very least,
> engaging in a campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Yeah, Lev, on second reading it does seems to smell more like
FUD.

-- Smiles, Les.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Tim Cuthbertson]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Les Kitchen  wrote:
>
> ...
>
> 2. Even though Patentology is correct in pointing that the GPL
>   (and copyleft) technically relies on copyright law, he omits
>   to mention that that's only a defence against a system that's
>   largely biassed against free flow of ideas and methods and
>   code.

Plus, patents != copyright, just because they share the IP umbrella.
For the most part it should be pretty trivial for an individual to not
violate copyright when writing software, but it can be impossible to
even know if you are violating a patent.

Cheers,
 - Tim.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[lev]

>
>> http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/05/bickering-about-software-patents-misses.html
>
> Yeah.  Even though Patentology seems to come out in favor of
> (software) patents, he seems at least to give a sane account of
> the contending sides -- considering that being a patent attorney
> it's clear on which side his bread is buttered.

Specifically, from their conclusion:

"Any attempt to exclude ‘software inventions’ from patentability is
therefore likely to have wide-ranging and unintended consequences, all to
solve what seems largely to be a non-problem outside the minds and
writings of a vocal minority."

The issue is that they don't actually state what they think these
"wide-ranging and unintended consequences" are.

One could accuse them of intellectual cowardice. Or at the very least,
engaging in a campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

All the best,



Lev

___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Les Kitchen]

> 4. I also noticed a link to his commentary from early this on

s/from early this on/from early this year on/
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb

Re: [free-software-melb] Patentology report on Ben Sturmfels at IP Australia event on Software Patents

[Les Kitchen]

> http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/05/bickering-about-software-patents-misses.html

Yeah.  Even though Patentology seems to come out in favor of
(software) patents, he seems at least to give a sane account of
the contending sides -- considering that being a patent attorney
it's clear on which side his bread is buttered.

Can't do this justice now -- but just some thoughts:

1. Patentology's pro-patent arguments (and assumptions) need to
   be probed.  If they're the sort of argument a patent attorney
   makes, then being able to refute or at least weaken those
   arguments would be useful.

2. Even though Patentology is correct in pointing that the GPL
   (and copyleft) technically relies on copyright law, he omits
   to mention that that's only a defence against a system that's
   largely biassed against free flow of ideas and methods and
   code.

3. He does gloss over a lot of the difficulties with software
   patents.

4. I also noticed a link to his commentary from early this on
   the apparent go-head for Amazon's `one-click' patent in Canada:

  
http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/01/canadian-patent-office-concedes-allows.html

   I must say, it didn't make sense to me.

All for now...

-- Smiles, Les.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb