IEEE Supports Software Patents In Wake of Bilski 122
Mark Atwood points out this critical commentary on the IEEE's response to the outcome of In Re. Bilski, which points out the contrast between work done by IEEE luminaries like Donald Knuth and lobbying for software patents.
speaking of knuth (Score:4, Interesting)
Where is today's huge breakthrough announcement?
Re:speaking of knuth (Score:4, Informative)
not happening til 5:30 pacific time
Re: (Score:1)
LaTeX 3 (Score:2)
...will be released with support for HTML5?
Re:speaking of knuth (Score:5, Funny)
From his wiki page:
"At the TUG 2010 Conference, Knuth announced an XML-based successor to TeX, titled "iTeX", which would support features such as arbitrarily scaled irrational units, 3D printing, animation, and stereographic sound."
Re: (Score:2)
LOL nice try.
But seriously, the XML-based successor to TeX which would support features such as arbitrarily scaled irrational units, 3D printing, animation, and stereographic sound is gonna be called knuth/TeX.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice point. (Score:4, Interesting)
Donald Knuth, and many of the other top names from IEEE, have name-brand power comparable to the IEEE itself. A split is not entirely impossible. If that happens (and in all seriousness, I expect the announcement to be at least a threat of a split) and the rival has reasonable policies and ethics, it will likely capture a fair chunk of the income and PR of the IEEE. (Hell, I've seen arXiv mentioned more in the popular press than the IEEE.) That could cause a serious disturbance in the Force, not to mention a serious disturbance in boardrooms, where there's a heavy reliance on political leverage to get things done. It's extremely difficult to manipulate crusaders - it can be done, but the RIAA and MPAA don't have that kind of Machiavellian skill.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that ACM continue to oppose software patents, that seems an easy place to start.
Re: (Score:2)
somehow i cant imagine donald, with all the work hes put into latex and the public opinions hes made related to open source and copyright law, will take this laying down.
1) Donald Knuth doesn't work on LaTeX. He works on TeX.
2) The IEEE has never been against software patents. So why do you suddenly think this statement is going to be some sort of tipping point?
Re: (Score:2)
1) The announcement will be at the TeX convention, but TeX isn't due for a major release, LaTeX is.
2) This explains everything [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The top 10 Bilski losers (besides Bilski & War (Score:3, Interesting)
It was kind of surprising to see on Twitter that not only open source advocates such as Steven Vaughan-Nichols and Brian Proffitt considered that list a good summary but also ACT, a lobby organization that supports software patents all the way (we lobbied against each other several times). But ACT pointed out that they didn't agree with all I wrote. That didn't surprise me.
Re:The top 10 Bilski losers (besides Bilski & (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot us normal programmers, free software guys or not. Who wants to come up with a neat design, get himself or his company into trouble for it, and be forced to go back and tear out that neat design again?
Muller lies. (Score:2)
That's because Mueller doesn't give 2 shits about normal programmers, or free software, except when it's convenient for him. Remember, he tried to pull a McBride on Oracle [cnet.com] to get them to cave into the crybaby former owner of MySql (the money lost in delaying the Oracle rescue of Sun is that much mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. RMS also has to bear some of the blame.
Re: (Score:2)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10379870-38.html [cnet.com]
It was a total of over 9,000 jobs. Only 3,000 were attributed to the delay - and in the final analysis, the EU agreed, the claims by Mueller etc., were bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agree in part, disagree in part. (Score:3, Interesting)
You can read my submissions supporting Groklaw in the past (I have, what? Maybe 10 accepted SCO stories with Groklaw as a source? I don't remember any more.). I have trumpeted her site quite loudly for several years and cheered SCO's slow demise. I hope you're not going to lump me in with shills & astro-turfers. I honestly question how many of those there are, because PJ lumps *anyone* who disagrees with her in with them, or so it seems. I've also fought against Microsoft on OOXML and the rest and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You raise some valid points. I think part of the problem is that people think that, because groklaw has comments enabled, that "building a community" should be the focus. So I went and walked my dogs again, and here's what I think ... not saying it's 100% right, but ...
Groklaw is not about building an online community, not in the conventional sense that we think of online communities. It's about collecting legal info and putting it out there, and c'est tout! It would probably have been better to conduc
Further response (Score:2)
> Groklaw is not about building an online community, not in the conventional sense that we think of online communities. It's about collecting legal info and putting it out there, and c'est tout!
Well, how can you gather legal information if you're willing to censor legally relevant things you don't want people to mention?
So the point isn't that the tools are inherently evil, it's that the use is abusive and manipulative (seriously, I would ban her or anyone else as a mod for doing these things on any one
Just one point (Score:2)
One point or three? (Score:2)
> 1. Again, IBM did not attack the open source project - and the REAL issue is copyright violation, not patents.
Well, that copyright violation has been around for a long time. Didn't stop them from trumpeting the Hercules emulator in one of their Red Books, now, did it?
And the letters only talk about patents that I saw (and possibly trade secrets, depending on how you parse the words).
I'd reference it, but PJ deleted the comment putting those four letters as text. Never figured out why she didn't put t
Re: (Score:2)
This alone is fatal to the Turbo Hercules program. That's why I said that patents aren't the real issue.
What if you're using open source to pirate books, or movies, or music, or to scam people through spam? As I pointed out above, the real problem for the Turbo
Re: (Score:2)
> What if you're using open source to pirate books, or movies, or music, or to scam people through spam?
The thing is, here, there's no non-infringing use of Hercules, or so it appears from their perspective. What would you run except for one of IBM's OSes? (Yeah, you *could* run other things... but come on...)
> As for the DPL, it's not a case of making lemonade, it's a case of, by adopting it, validating the whole patent troll methodology. It's akin to saying "stealing is wrong, but instead of preve
Re: (Score:2)
There's a gigantic difference between, "keep up to date on practices and algorithms in your field" and "read every patent that might have something to do with your work".
My understanding is that in the programming industry, current best practice is the "ostrich strategy", where you don't look at patents at all because it means you limit your liability if something does come up, because real "due diligence" in this field is pretty much impossible. If there were an impeccably designed and maintained patent i
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Are you the same idiot who didn't know who Knuth was yesterday?
No win, No loose (Score:3, Interesting)
Narrow restrictions but expansive patent system (Score:2, Interesting)
I wish I could agree that the ruling is at least a draw, but unfortunately I can't. It clearly favors an expansive patent system, assuming that new technologies must fall within the scope of patentable subject matter unless there's legislation that sets limits (mentioned in this analysis [blogspot.com], for an example). Such legislation is a long shot to say the least, given the lobbying power of all those favoring software patents.
Through my work on the NoSoftwarePatents campaign (which I founded and managed until 2005)
Tin-foil hat lobbyist Florian Mueller/Mueller (Score:4, Informative)
Make no mistake about it folks - Muller/Mueller is a shill.
This is the same lobbyist who helped delay the Oracle rescue of Sun. The delay cost 3,000 additional jobs over and above the 6,000 that were originally slated [cnet.com].
This is the same lobbyist who is trying to pull a Darl McBride on IBM for Turbo Hercules [slushdot.com] - and who "complained to the establishment" when slashdotters down-modded his bullsh*t.
This is the same lobbyist who is now threatening to "expose" groklaw [slushdot.com] because astroturfers got the boot.
His latest lie? He's now saying that I've claimed he's a Microsoft shill. I've never said anything one way or another on that topic. His tin-foil hat is too tight - or he can't keep his lies straight.
He's no friend of the community.
This court ruling was a win. To say this:
flies against reality.
So why does Mueller continue to lie and spread fud? It's what he does - he's a lobbyist. Not a programmer.
Re: (Score:2)
> This court ruling was a win.
How so? The lower court wanted to force patents to be put through the "particular machine or transformation" test. The Supremes said, well, sure THIS patent is too abstract... but we're not sure about that test. So we'll make a narrow ruling and discourage people from using that test, which could be used to eliminate software patents wholesale, unless they can start convincing the courts to buy trivial "transformations" like the hard drives doing their thing.
In short, nob
Re: (Score:2)
The court said that, at the very least, most "business methods" shouldn't be patentable. That's a big win.
That's what courts do. They don't have a mandate to rule beyond the scope of the case before them. The people arguing their case (for either side) don't have the obligation of addressing anything outside the scope of their case either - that would be an unconstitutional burden. So it is what it is, and we got what we needed.
How so?
Ever talk to the guy? (Score:2)
> Also, Muller's not against software patents. All the DPL does is create even more problems. It's stupid. Let me rephrase that - the Defensive Patent License is REALLY stupid. It's like trying to fix a site with too much flash by adding even more flash, or trying to clean up spaghetti code by adding even more spaghetti code.
No, see, that's a strategy for dealing with them if they become reality (just like the GPL helps us deal with the reality of an out-of-control copyright system). Is it horrible to m
Re: (Score:2)
The software patent issue is a temporary problem. As the nature of software changes, the most advanced software will eventually become unpatentable for reasons that have nothing to do with laws - but that's 20 years down the road.
Lets look at a more immediate case - .h264 codec patents. They might have a "patent pool life" of 20 years, but they only have a "shelf life" of 10 - because 10 years from now, we'll be able to stream uncompressed 1920x1080x32bitx120hz streams in real time, using only non-loss
You should still talk to the guy, BTW. (Score:2)
> The software patent issue is a temporary problem.
The specific patents may be temporary. I don't see the problem going away unless we kill software patents at the root. I really hope we do, though!
> but they only have a "shelf life" of 10 - because 10 years from now, we'll be able to stream uncompressed 1920x1080x32bitx120hz streams in real time, using only non-lossy, non-patented compression schemes.
Are you saying that we'll be using current schemes when the patents expire and better hardware, or
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need for compression at high enough data rates, and we'll be there within the decade. The local cable co has spent the last decade running fibre everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It appears that the case is: No one won, No one lost.
Wrong, the Supreme Court left the door to software patents open and as long as software patents are allowed individual programmers, open source projects, small businesses, on up to medium businesses loses. The only ones to win are the mega-corporations that have the resources, money, to patent everything they can which they can then cross-license to other mega-corporations.
Falcon
lol Roy (Score:5, Informative)
Do people still take Roy seriously? Have people really fallen for his lame rebranding of his site?
As an aside this was amusing quote:
The disparity between these views of Knuth (creator of LaTeX, which is Free software)
Sorry, buddy, but Knuth created TeX. LaTeX was created by Leslie Lamport.
Re:lol Roy (Score:4, Funny)
Pfft...
Everyone knows Dupont invented LaTeX... :P
Re: (Score:2)
Can you elaborate on why I should not take Roy seriously? I've never heard of him before, and thus do not have an initial disregard for his thoughts the way I would for, say, Darl McBride.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
RMS is not in command-line mode, so is indeed daemonized.
Tear up your membership cards (Score:2)
Well, that's it; I'm going to have to cancel my long-standing IEEE membership. I encourage the rest of you to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Your canceling your membership based on a FUD story by Roy Schestowitz? You do realize that IEEE hasn't had a problem with software patents for pretty much forever, right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
but the press release cited is real and states IEEE-USA is pleased that software patents have been upheld.
And that's news, how? IEEE has never been against software patents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It might not be news to you personally but there still may be a few people out there that need clued in.
If the PTO worked as it was supposed to, software patents would be far less of a problem.
However, that isn't the case and we have to deal with the highly non-ideal PTO and courts
that we actually have.
This is a classic case of the disconnect between theory and practice.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
and to elaborate, not being against software patents and being for software patents are two very different things.
Since when has IEEE not been for software patents? They even brag [ieee.org] about how they get cited in more patents than ACM.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please quit spamming this forum about this not being news.
You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as a last straw, a tipping point. You seem to assume that everybody knows everything about IEEE's positions and history. You seem to believe that it's illogical for people to react to an organization doing something that they disagree with.
None of these are necessarily true. We're glad to hear that your opinion of IEEE was already so fully formed, but please let the rest of us react as we will.
Re: (Score:2)
Please quit spamming this forum about this not being news.
So pointing out facts to counter Roy's FUD is now spamming? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen one fact from you, although maybe I missed it. What I have seen is you replying to three or four posts, exclaiming that the news isn't news, and that the poster should just not have bothered. You even copied and pasted the same thing you wrote earlier into a new comment at least once.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen one fact from you, although maybe I missed it.
Yeah, cause posting things from IEEE themselves on their stance to software patents clearly aren't facts.
What I have seen is you replying to three or four posts, exclaiming that the news isn't news, and that the poster should just not have bothered.
It isn't news. IEEE's stance on software patents is pretty well-known by anyone who has had any significant experience with them.
You even copied and pasted the same thing you wrote earlier into a new comment at least once.
No, I haven't. I posted the same link to IEEE twice, but that's not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't facts that contradict anything from TFA, which was your contention.
Basically your point is that nobody can have an opinion on this if they didn't have one a year ago, and my contention is that you can cram it.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically your point is that nobody can have an opinion on this if they didn't have one a year ago, and my contention is that you can cram it.
No, that's not my point at all. Lovely strawman though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that IEEE hasn't had a problem with software patents for pretty much forever, right?
That is the problem, the IEEE does not disavow software patents. With software patents allowed all of those who do not have the big war chests to patent anything and everything loses. Only mega-corporations are safe.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Mega corporations are mostly in favour of patents only because they still think they can get laws introduced to limit damages and prevent complete sales injunctions ... at which point it might really be in their favour. They really don't like paying 100's of millions of dollars every time the Texas jackpot falls again though.
At the moment only the patent trolls and the lawyers always benefit from patent law, they have nothing to fear from patent war chests ...
Re: (Score:2)
You go ahead, mine will remain intact.
I cancelled mine long ago (Score:4, Insightful)
When they started publisinhg so many papers on watermarking and other forms of DRM I realized that the IEEE is no longer an institute of Engineers.
It has become now an institute of the electronics industry.
Re: (Score:2)
I let my IEEE membership expire way back around 2000, long before this software patent controversy came up. I just didn't see what I was getting for the money, except a pretty magazine.
IEEE doesn't support Open access (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing new, just cancel membership (Score:1)
The IEEE-USA, i.e., the United States branch of the IEEE, has in the past lobbied against visas for high-tech workers. They seem to like rather reactionary policies. I long dropped my membership for that very reason. The ACM and USENIX are much better anyway.
Who writes that crap blog? (Score:5, Informative)
Who writes that crap blog?
Here is the actual IEEE press release:
http://www.ieeeusa.org/communications/releases/2010/062910.asp [ieeeusa.org]
They basically complain that there's still no clear litmus test for patentability because the decision was to vague on the definition of what constitutes "too abstract".
-- Terry
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who writes that crap blog?
Renowned internet troll and FOSS FUDster Roy Schestowitz. His blog used be called BoycottNovell but he renamed it in a lame attempt to get people to forget that.
Thanks... (Score:2)
Thanks...
Guess we all just got trolled...
-- Terry
Re: (Score:2)
You're just jealous that he is a better troll than you.
On the other hand (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the part that precedes your quote
"We are generally pleased that the Supreme Court did not introduce rules that would limit the scope of ideas available for patent protection in our current information age," IEEE-USA Intellectual Property Committee Chair Keith Grzelak said.
IEEE a friend of the individual engineer? (Score:3, Informative)
Like so many large established organizations, the IEEE seemingly no longer exists to represent their individual members - but more to increase the need for its own existence. Quite a few years ago, I wrote them to relinquish my membership. One particular objection I stated (among a couple of others) is their heavy promotion of professional certification (the exams of which they would administer, naturally).
It seems to me that they want to become a guild or "engineering bar association". Even were they to grandfather existing members, I oppose such additional gates. They are nothing but protectionist - increasing barriers to entry without adding much societal value. It is clear to me that their support of software patents continues this trend.
(PS: Lest it seem like I'm frightened of "missing the academic boat", I have a Master's degree in Computer Science with many supporting courses in Electrical Engineering and Space Dynamics - along with 30 years experience in developing e.g. guidance systems & firmware).
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, you've given me some more fodder for my own cancellation letter.
Re: (Score:2)
There already exists a system of professional licensing in the states. The IEEE doesn't have much to do with certification or licensing standards. Whether or not they want to get involved in this aea is an interesting question. A number of companies I've delt with tend to send their 'second string' engineers to IEEE conferences (they don't want competitors picking the brains of key people, let alone knowing who's working on what). The IEEE's membership standards aren't that great. And the state PE licensin
I never understood (Score:1)
what the heck IEEE has anything to do with software stuff. They should stick to circuits, devices, CAD and systems, where their strength really is. The Red/Yelllow/White and Violet Journals are still among the most prestigious publications in the electrical engineering field.
Patents as ex post facto (Score:5, Informative)
I oppose patents, as currently implemented in the U.S., for the same reason I oppose our legal code: There are so many patents / laws, that no one can be confident that he's in full compliance.
This means that for all practical purposes, the patent system and the U.S. legal code are ex post facto systems: it's a big trap, just waiting for {well-funded patent attorney} / {prosecutor with an axe to grind} to come after you. In both systems this is compounded by the system permitting patent applications / laws to be so vaguely worded that they could easily cover implementations / situations never precisely anticipated by their author.
Also, in both systems, an innocent person can be bankrupted, or be forced to settle, simply because of the legal cost.
In summary, both of these systems are significant sources of injustice, enacted by a legislature with little self-control.
Re: (Score:2)
I oppose patents, as currently implemented in the U.S., for the same reason I oppose our legal code: There are so many patents / laws, that no one can be confident that he's in full compliance.
This means that for all practical purposes, the patent system and the U.S. legal code are ex post facto systems: it's a big trap, just waiting for {well-funded patent attorney} / {prosecutor with an axe to grind} to come after you.
That's not what "ex post facto" means. Furthermore, every patent is published, in a freely searchable database.
In summary, both of these systems are significant sources of injustice, enacted by a legislature with little self-control.
The first patent act was written in 1790, three years after the Constitution was written. I don't think it really departs from the founding father's intent, considering they were all involved in it. Thomas Jefferson was even the first patent examiner.
freely searchable database?... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patents as ex post facto (Score:4, Insightful)
every patent is published, in a freely searchable database.
But is the source code published? A searchable database doesn't mean much if the searcher can't see how something was done. If more than one person creates a product that does X but they do it in different ways, it's too bad for those who do not get to the patent office in tyme to file a patent.
The first patent act was written in 1790, three years after the Constitution was written. I don't think it really departs from the founding father's intent, considering they were all involved in it. Thomas Jefferson was even the first patent examiner.
Two things here. One is that even when Thomas Jefferson was patent examiner a working copy was required so that the average professional in the industry could duplicate what was being patented. I doubt the compleat source code for software patents is included though. And two, software already enjoys copyrights. And even those copyrights don't include the compleat source code. According to Copyright Witness [copyrightwitness.com] only the first 25 pages of source code is needed.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
But is the source code published? A searchable database doesn't mean much if the searcher can't see how something was done.
It's a pretty terrible programmer who thinks a flow chart is unclear, and needs source code to see how something was done. Why, it's almost as if they want to copy and paste that source code, rather than writing their own from the flow chart!
Wait, what's your point?
If more than one person creates a product that does X but they do it in different ways, it's too bad for those who do not get to the patent office in tyme to file a patent.
Oh... Your point is that if I invent a new way of doing X and I code it in C++, you should be able to copy it in C# and claim that you're not infringing, even though you only copied and pasted my source code into a compiler. Well, I can certainl
Troll (Score:2)
Troll
Falcon
So, how many patents have you implemented? (Score:2)
> Why, it's almost as if they want to copy and paste that source code, rather than writing their own from the flow chart!
You'd almost think that the purpose of a patent was to enable people skilled in the art to make the disclosed invention, rather than for patent lawyers to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd almost think that the purpose of a patent was to enable people skilled in the art to make the disclosed invention, rather than for patent lawyers to make money.
A flow chart and accompanying description is certainly enough disclosure to enable people skilled in the art to write software that follows the flow chart. People skilled in the art wouldn't need source code also. Complaining that you can't understand a flow chart as a reason that software patents should be invalid is like complaining that you, a programmer, can't read a genetic sequence chart and so therefore all pharmaceutical patents should be invalid, or that you can't read an exploded diagram, so all m
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well those flow charts sometimes look a little like this [annieinfinite.com].
And you never answered the question: how many patents have you ever actually attempted to implement from the description?
Or maybe I should just reverse course and say that any patent lawyer who doesn't understand the Curry-Howard correspondence is incompetent? It shows that all software is a mathematical formula. And no, the president of IEEE-USA's amicus brief did NOT do anything but hand wave the response to that. His reply was on the orde
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well those flow charts sometimes look a little like this [annieinfinite.com].
Huh. See, that's a cartoon, not a patent application. I know you meant that as a joke, but if that's your evidence that patents are confusing to "one of ordinary skill in the art", then it's not very convincing.
And you never answered the question: how many patents have you ever actually attempted to implement from the description?
Didn't realize you even asked that, since it wasn't in your post, just the subject line. In any case, dozens. Possibly as many as a hundred.
Or maybe I should just reverse course and say that any patent lawyer who doesn't understand the Curry-Howard correspondence is incompetent? It shows that all software is a mathematical formula.
That's not so much "reversing course" as "completely changing tracks". See, you were previously arguing about 35 USC 112. Now, all of a sudden, you've abandoned
Nani-sama no tsumori? (Score:2)
> See, you were previously arguing about 35 USC 112. Now, all of a sudden, you've abandoned that argument and are instead arguing about 35 USC 101.
You could have just said "enablement" and "patentable subject matter," but you were trying to show off and talk down to us, right? No, I won't believe you if you try to tell me all lawyers talk that way. Ray Beckerman doesn't. You were a jerk to him, too.
> Since that seems to be a horrible mischaracterization of his comments, I'm going to have to say [Ci
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that I've managed to work on everything from zinc fingers to electronics to numerical analysis, I'm not really that impressed that you can manage more than one technical domain.
Did you also manage to get to the gym in 26 minutes? Or get rated an 8.9 on Hot or Not?
Sorry, but with all of the substantive stuff you clipped out of my post so that you could cherry pick your responses, there's really nothing left in your post to address. I don't play the "let's respond to trolls honestly and fully" game ever since I got bitten by Ray Beckerman- sorry, MISTER Beckerman- and his "I'm not responding to anyone who doesn't properly suck up to me" attitude.
So you do make others do your homework? (Score:2)
Here's the amicus brief [groklaw.net] written by the IEEE-USA president Professor Lee A. Hollaar. I direct your attention to footnote #28, which reads in relevant part:
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
There are so many patents / laws, that no one can be confident that he's in full compliance. ...and the reason there are so many patents is because the idea of IP is fundamentally flawed.
The problem as I see it reduces to this:
The ultimate standard for a trivial extension to an existing idea is whether two individuals independently think of the extension.
This is almost always the case, so almost everything is trivial.
The reason why average joe programmer or small business runs into these practices is precis
Wow, so how easy it is to see what has ... (Score:2)
... become of IEEE. I EEEEEE.
Then the IEEE can... (Score:2)
http://en.swpat.org info (Score:2)
I've made a start on documenting IEEE-USA's take on software patents. Help sought:
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.