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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
IEEE doesn't support Open access (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Tear up your membership cards (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.
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.
freely searchable database?... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No win, No loose (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
Re:Patents as ex post facto (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 precisely because they independently arrive at the idea that's patented, and then later discover it's patented. In my mind, the fact that they could come to the same idea independently invalidates the patent as being trivial.
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