Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kay12]

We're a small company trying to get along in a large world, I'd appreciate it if you didn't compare us with Microsoft... (kidding ^_^)

[Andir]

My personal opinion on the matter is that it's your time.  If you want to put it under a restrictive license so the rest of the world cannot benefit from the knowledge... that's your call.  I feel as though Software should only be copyright protected anyway (opposed to copyright + patent).  If you blatantly copy someone's work without their permission and use it as your own then you should be brought up on copyright violations.  If you take my model for setting up classes (or objects on screen) and make it better, more power to you... as long as you don't just copy/paste.  With software development (as you are aware) you can pretty much rewrite anything to make it look like a new implementation.  That alone is why I generally lean on sharing with requests for credit given.

Disclaimer: I work for a very large company doing internal development and pretty much everything I do will never be seen by the public anyway.

[Vector]

I know it's another sexual violence story.  Sue me.  This one is more about trans-ness than anything else, so go read it.

Couple slated to lose home for paying mortgage too early.

[Darvi]

Couple slated to lose home for paying mortgage too early.

What is this bureaucratic madness?

[G-Flex]

I feel as though Software should only be copyright protected anyway (opposed to copyright + patent).  If you blatantly copy someone's work without their permission and use it as your own then you should be brought up on copyright violations.  If you take my model for setting up classes (or objects on screen) and make it better, more power to you... as long as you don't just copy/paste.

Do you have any basis for this at all? I know that software patents are often abused, but is there any reason patents shouldn't apply to software even though they apply to pretty much any other technical innovation or implementation you could think of?

[Nadaka]

Couple slated to lose home for paying mortgage too early.

What is this bureaucratic madness?

Banks believe themselves to be above the law. The only way to get them to follow the law is to publicly shame them.

I feel as though Software should only be copyright protected anyway (opposed to copyright + patent).  If you blatantly copy someone's work without their permission and use it as your own then you should be brought up on copyright violations.  If you take my model for setting up classes (or objects on screen) and make it better, more power to you... as long as you don't just copy/paste.

Do you have any basis for this at all? I know that software patents are often abused, but is there any reason patents shouldn't apply to software even though they apply to pretty much any other technical innovation or implementation you could think of?

1: Software is math. Math can not be patented.

2: Software patents stifle innovation because of the fast pace of advancement in the industry. A 20 year term is more than 5 generations in software.

[G-Flex]

1: Software is math. Math can not be patented.

Er, pretty much any technical design can be expressed in terms of mathematics. Computer code for, say, managing memory or controlling a hardware device is no more or less "just math" than most manufacturing techniques could be considered. I'd also say that conflating hardware instructions or abstract code with "math" is kind of disingenuous; there's a lot more to programming than simple mathematical algorithms, in execution and concept.

The fact is that pure mathematical algorithms are already unable to be patented in the US, so your point is moot.

2: Software patents stifle innovation because of the fast pace of advancement in the industry. A 20 year term is more than 5 generations in software.

So... should patent terms be different depending on the industry? That sounds like what you're saying. That would be a much more rational conclusion than disallowing patents altogether.

[Andir]

I feel as though Software should only be copyright protected anyway (opposed to copyright + patent).  If you blatantly copy someone's work without their permission and use it as your own then you should be brought up on copyright violations.  If you take my model for setting up classes (or objects on screen) and make it better, more power to you... as long as you don't just copy/paste.

Do you have any basis for this at all? I know that software patents are often abused, but is there any reason patents shouldn't apply to software even though they apply to pretty much any other technical innovation or implementation you could think of?

I equate software patents to being able to patent Elves.  Or I should say the idea of Elves.  If someone were able to patent the methods and practices of writing a book that included human-like beings that were (for all intents and purposes) immortal then nobody would be able to write a book with immortal humans.

I see software as an instruction manual id for a computer to perform a task.  Or to put it in book terms, an instruction manual for the reader to place themselves into an environment they are not currently in.

[Heron TSG]

I know it's another sexual violence story.  Sue me.  This one is more about trans-ness than anything else, so go read it.

HRRRRRRRNG. From further research, it seems that trans people are often put into the wrong prison. Also, most jails have 'secure' locations for those deemed vulnerable to sexual assault. Problem: those 'secure' sections are just repurposed isolation cells that require the prisoner to be in them for 23 hours every day.

As for coding and patenting, I was under the impression that you could patent your exact code segments, but not individual lines.

[Virex]

But what if someone invents, say, an electronic filter that could be implemented in hardware (using logic gates for example) but also in software (or hell if you want you could even blur the line by using something like an EEPROM or a GAL)? Should only the hardware implementation be protected in that case? The invention itself is usually a generalized description of such a filter, independent of the exact implementation (because otherwise someone could swap an and gate for a few nor gates and evade the patent in that way). This distinction is rather important because according to the EPO one can patent such a filter, which would include the software-based implementation, but one cannot patent the software implementation itself, assuming the filter was prior art (since the EPO doesn't allow implementing a procedure in code as an inventive step). On the other hand, it's not like anyone wants to patent anything outside of the US anyway, right?

[Nadaka]

As for coding and patenting, I was under the impression that you could patent your exact code segments, but not individual lines.

No, not at all. You patent the idea of the problem that your code is supposed to solve.

You prepend the description of idea with "A process, method or system that solves " and suffix it with " on a computer."
Then after 20 years you change the last bit to " on the internet."
Then after 20 years you change the last bit to " on a mobile phone or hand held device."

Any code that solves the same problem infringes on your patent.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

My job and everything about it.

[olemars]

Software patents only have to describe a method. Add a pretty flowchart or diagram and it's golden.
Here's a great example. Anyone with a little programming experience will notice why this patent is problematic.

[G-Flex]

No, not at all. You patent the idea of the problem that your code is supposed to solve.

This is a completely ridiculous mischaracterization of the patent process. You do not patent "ideas", and it's even worse to say you patent the problem instead of the solution.

You prepend the description of idea with "A process, method or system that solves " and suffix it with " on a computer."
Then after 20 years you change the last bit to " on the internet."
Then after 20 years you change the last bit to " on a mobile phone or hand held device."

In practice, I agree that this happens, but that's a problem with how software patents are handled, not with software patents in principle. It seems that those in charge of granting/approving/questioning patents are out of the loop enough to be pretty bad at judging the inventiveness and originality of, say, software.

As for coding and patenting, I was under the impression that you could patent your exact code segments, but not individual lines.

That's a pretty arbitrary distinction. Obviously, patenting a single line of code is a bad idea, but only because it's usually so miniscule on its own that there's nothing to patent, especially since an individual line of code hardly ever accomplishes a task on its own.

[kaijyuu]

I know it's another sexual violence story.  Sue me.  This one is more about trans-ness than anything else, so go read it.

Couple slated to lose home for paying mortgage too early.

Both of these are total and utter "what the fuck"s.


Re: Software patents. They suck and shouldn't exist. That is all.