Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

muktware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 92 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#11

Post by ffsdfsdfsda »

praptak wrote: post #8
alexchamberlain wrote: post #2

Linus: "I don't actually know the details. I mean Java I really don't care about. What a horrible language. What a horrible VM. So, I am like whatever, you are barking about all this crap, go away. I don't care." My respect for Linus just grew 10-fold!

"My respect for Linus just grew 10-fold!" Why? He just bashes Java using strong language and not providing any arguments. This could get my respect if Java were some kind of sacred cow that nobody dares criticize. This is not the case AFAIK.

Yeah, first Java was criticized by the C (and C++) community saying it was too slow, bloated, write-once-run-anywhere was a joke, etc. Then that viewpoint spread to everyone else. Then Microsoft ditched on it because .Net was so awesome, then Ruby community ditched on it because it required too much code.

I've been a Java developer since the late 90s. I think what Oracle has done should reserve them a place in hell. But Java is not a threat to anyone anymore. It will have no more share than what it already has, with the exception of its (Java subset) use in Android devices, and long-term I think Google probably wants to get rid of it, too, even though it will take them replacing much of their development team first.

Linus made this off-the-cuff remark somewhat in jest, as far as I'm concerned. I take Java hate from seasoned programmers with a grain of salt. What used to bother me though was script kiddies and wannabes that developed simple web apps with languages and frameworks they barely understand ditching on Java with absolutely no fucking idea what they were talking about, just because they didn't like casting or whatever. Now I just take the whole Java hate thing with a grain of salt.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#13

Post by tintin »

Everything we create and think of is based on experiences (sight, smell, feelings....). Therefore it's very strange to have patents. A patent is just a smart mix of things that already exist. Software is always mixing existing things using existing tools. So it's very difficult to have a 'smartness' value for a software patent.

Fortunately Harrison Gray Dyar and Samuel Morse don't have all rights for binary code...

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#14

Post by adestefan »

dolbz wrote: post #9

Well I didn't know that US patent cases can be presented to a jury. I don't envy them on that considering the language these things are written in. I wonder how many hours are spent 'training' the jury in the legalese required to understand the case? And this would have to be done for each and every case that has a jury!

It's the judge's responsibility to explain the legal basis to the jury in the form of jury instructions. These will usually be created in consultation with the lawyers for both sides.

Trial by jury is the reason why East Texas is the court of choice for patent claims. For some reason jury verdicts there seem to be biased towards the patent holder.

I should also note that being a juror in a federal case sucks. The first issue is that you're "on call" as a juror for 30 days instead of a day or two like most counties/municipalities. The second part is the cases are usually boring. People don't like to bring cases that they're likely to lose to a Federal court.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#15

Post by arethuza »

gizmo wrote: post #10
casenelson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rare that I've seen the Java VM described as horrible. In fact, it seems to be quite highly respected and seems to be working out well for Scala and Clojure. Obviously, there's also Twitter who partially moved to the VM from Rails. Would you care to elaborate? Has Linus talked about the VM before?

The Java VM is quite bad. There just isn't an alternative that meets these criteria: 1. cross platform (windows, mac, linux, mobile devices, embedded) 2. kinda fast 3. reasonably mature 4. bunch of libraries If you want to create a new programming language today Java is the only viable platform. .NET and Mono isn't quite mature enough (and it's very similar to Java anyway). If you bootstrap from C it'll be fast and p…

"A simple bytecode layer that other languages can target"

What about the Parrot VM: http://parrot.org/

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#16

Post by godDLL »

praptak wrote: post #8
alexchamberlain wrote: post #2

Linus: "I don't actually know the details. I mean Java I really don't care about. What a horrible language. What a horrible VM. So, I am like whatever, you are barking about all this crap, go away. I don't care." My respect for Linus just grew 10-fold!

"My respect for Linus just grew 10-fold!" Why? He just bashes Java using strong language and not providing any arguments. This could get my respect if Java were some kind of sacred cow that nobody dares criticize. This is not the case AFAIK.

I wish I could just get away with it like that.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#17

Post by maximusprime »

vidarh wrote: post #7
casenelson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rare that I've seen the Java VM described as horrible. In fact, it seems to be quite highly respected and seems to be working out well for Scala and Clojure. Obviously, there's also Twitter who partially moved to the VM from Rails. Would you care to elaborate? Has Linus talked about the VM before?

It's highly respected by people who are willing to use JVM based software. Frankly, typical JVM startup times alone is enough of a pain that I avoid anything-JVM if I can.

> " Frankly, typical JVM startup times alone is enough of a pain"

The default JVM options are biased toward long running processes. That's kinda what most software running on a JVM is going to be though - start it running, leave it for weeks.

If you want a JVM that is tailored for short lived processes, then quick startup time is just a few options away after you RTFM. Or use a language/runtime more tailored to short lived scripting.

FWIW I've never seen a JVM take more than a second to startup though, which is more than adequate for server software.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#18

Post by julsonl »

gizmo wrote: post #10
casenelson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rare that I've seen the Java VM described as horrible. In fact, it seems to be quite highly respected and seems to be working out well for Scala and Clojure. Obviously, there's also Twitter who partially moved to the VM from Rails. Would you care to elaborate? Has Linus talked about the VM before?

The Java VM is quite bad. There just isn't an alternative that meets these criteria: 1. cross platform (windows, mac, linux, mobile devices, embedded) 2. kinda fast 3. reasonably mature 4. bunch of libraries If you want to create a new programming language today Java is the only viable platform. .NET and Mono isn't quite mature enough (and it's very similar to Java anyway). If you bootstrap from C it'll be fast and p…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you confusing Java the language with the actual JVM? On your last paragraph, you pretty much described what the JVM is in my perspective.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#19

Post by LeafStorm »

arethuza wrote: post #15
gizmo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Java VM is quite bad. There just isn't an alternative that meets these criteria: 1. cross platform (windows, mac, linux, mobile devices, embedded) 2. kinda fast 3. reasonably mature 4. bunch of libraries If you want to create a new programming language today Java is the only viable platform. .NET and Mono isn't quite mature enough (and it's very similar to Java anyway). If you bootstrap from C it'll be fast and p…

"A simple bytecode layer that other languages can target" What about the Parrot VM: http://parrot.org/

Parrot is basically just a VM for Perl. The opcodes are tied heavily to Perl 6 semantics (type coercion for everyone, the string "0" is false, etc etc).

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#20

Post by alok-g »

tintin wrote: post #13

Everything we create and think of is based on experiences (sight, smell, feelings....). Therefore it's very strange to have patents. A patent is just a smart mix of things that already exist. Software is always mixing existing things using existing tools. So it's very difficult to have a 'smartness' value for a software patent. Fortunately Harrison Gray Dyar and Samuel Morse don't have all rights for binary code...

Patents are about ideas and inventions which must be "novel", "useful" and "non-obvious". A smart mix of things that already exist would not be patentable unless it is "inventive", "novel", useful" and "non-obvious". If it is all of these, it should be patentable whether it is software or hardware. (Note however that laws of physics, mathematical formulas, etc. are not patentable.)

What's broken is not the concept of a patent, what's broken is its implementation. Patent applications that do not satisfy the set criterion often get accepted. "Non-obvious" often is equated to "currently non-existing" even though it may be very obvious. (In fact, one of the ways to show non-obviousness of an idea is to show non-existence of it in spite of the problem being existing for long.) As you stated, it is difficult to have a "smartness" value for a software (and I think even hardware) patent.

Another reason why the real-life implementation is broken is that people and companies want it to work both ways based on whether it is helping them or working against them. But nothing specific to software here, the same happens for hardware too.

What needs fixing is the implementation, not the idea itself of the patents, be it software or hardware.

Edit: Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Post reply on HN