91–100 of 134 posts
Don't sanction the insanity. It would be better that the situation become so dire and painful that the populace wakes up than that software developers actually help make the software patent system appear as if it is reasonable and can "work" in the long run.
There are (at least) three valid perspectives on the patent situation within the software community but part of the reason so little constructive progress is made is that many people with strong opinions will often flat-out deny or reject the validity of the other perspectives because it is outside their experience. Three perspectives of which most people ignore one or more: - Computer technology is over-run with fri…
>Academia is already facing difficulties in computer science because much of the state-of-the-art research is being done by private companies...As a consequence, there are a number of areas in computer science where the leading academic papers are literally a good half decade behind the state-of-the-art that is buried in NDAs. Can you elaborate on which areas of CS academia you think are more sophisticated in the cor…
In all three areas where I have been involved in R&D -- distributed spatial indexing, parallel graph analysis, databases -- the state-of-the-art has been under NDA for years. Basically, any company where pushing the envelope on their advanced software systems is a significant competitive advantage.
The most obvious example is parallelizing graph analysis. Benchmarks like Graph500 are dominated by systems operating at a scale far, far beyond the reach of any algorithm in literature. There is ample evidence that vastly superior algorithms exist relative to what CS academia is producing. In fact, when I was active in this particular area almost four years ago, there were (at least) two different algorithms being used to achieve this kind of scale-out.
On the other hand, most people are not familiar with what is in the literature.
There are (at least) three valid perspectives on the patent situation within the software community but part of the reason so little constructive progress is made is that many people with strong opinions will often flat-out deny or reject the validity of the other perspectives because it is outside their experience. Three perspectives of which most people ignore one or more: - Computer technology is over-run with fri…
>Academia is already facing difficulties in computer science because much of the state-of-the-art research is being done by private companies...As a consequence, there are a number of areas in computer science where the leading academic papers are literally a good half decade behind the state-of-the-art that is buried in NDAs. Can you elaborate on which areas of CS academia you think are more sophisticated in the cor…
At a former company, I learned of the existence of a code packaging technology that would apply arbitrary code changes to a running VM instance atomically. By 2002, it was possible to implement a web application server whose pages were JIT compiled to machine code yet still upload and apply a code change atomically. With some care, transactions in flight could even be stopped mid-way and continue execution on the new code base. On top of that, it was possible to debug page renderings and change and recompile code in the debugger. Not so fancy now, but this was pretty slick in 2002.
Groklaw's editorializing has gone way downhill since the SCO days. E.g. "I know the USPTO doesn't want to hear that software and patents totally need to get a divorce, but since most software developers believe that, maybe somebody should at least mention it to them, if only as a future topic for discussion. Most developers I know believe software is unpatentable subject matter." Ask software developers who work in d…
That's not irony, as "should not be patentable" and "is patentable" are not mutually exclusive (I've also never heard of anyone being sued over the many, many pagerank-like implementations out there, so really the only thing going on there is University patent policies).
"should not be patentable" and "is patentable" is actually a large part of the problem, because you have to engage in the game to not be sued out of existence, but in doing so, you're making the environment even more toxic.
I always like to quote the Gosling story:
"In Sun's early history, we didn't think much of patents. While there's a kernel of good sense in the reasoning for patents, the system itself has gotten goofy. Sun didn't file many patents initially. But then we got sued by IBM for violating the "RISC patent" - a patent that essentially said "if you make something simpler, it'll go faster". Seemed like a blindingly obvious notion that shouldn't have been patentable, but we got sued, and lost. The penalty was huge. Nearly put us out of business. We survived, but to help protect us from future suits we went on a patenting binge. Even though we had a basic distaste for patents, the game is what it is, and patents are essential in modern corporations, if only as a defensive measure. There was even an unofficial competition to see who could get the goofiest patent through the system. My entry[1] wasn't nearly the goofiest."
You make market incentives to get companies to patent everything they can. Companies incentivize engineers to patent everything they can. Patent lawyers rewrite the software patent applications to take what is already an abstract set of instructions and turn it into the platonic form of that idea, to make sure they cover all implementations of that idea. The patent office accepts it after 7 resubmissions. You're not going to end up with a good result.
[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, examples would be interesting. There are counter examples - like the open Opus audio codec, which was developed by collaboration of various engineers and which is state of art precisely because they weren't burdened by stupid patenting issues, and could instead concentrate on creating a beautiful technology.
How is it a counter example? Open Opus is built on patented technologies that are licensed royalty free by the original inventors (Broadcom, Xiph.org, Microsoft, etc). It certainly wasn't cheap to develop--the development cost is just being subsidized so the end result can be given out freely.
In the context of codecs we're actually seeing how it prohibits improvements of technology.
Broadly speaking (i.e. I'm sure there are counter-examples, but they are not significant in the big picture), people didn't patent compiler technology, and we had great progress in compiler technology.
People didn't patent database technology and we had great progress in database technologies, from both academic research and competition.
People didn't patent word processing technologies so that Google can re-implement Word functionality in the browser because none of the fundamental techniques have been patented. Again, lots of progress from competition.
For whatever reason, audio and video codecs are heavily patented and the technology is ludicrously outdated compared to what it could have been if we had progress from competition or academic work of free software implementations because the patents cover basic ideas in compression so no-one can build on them and patent holders have no incentive to improve the technology because it's much easier (and more profitable) to just collect royalty checks.
However, developing video codecs isn't any more expensive than developing databases or compilers or word processors.
See e.g. h264 encoder which is an open-source effort by few amateurs that is widely regarded as being of better quality than commercial offering costing thousands of dollars (because of patent monopolies, not because they were so expensive to develop).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Databases. Oracle, Microsoft, etc. have figured out a lot about how to make high-performance query execution engines and transactional storage systems and written about very little of it. Research has caught up some, but it definitely lags.
I am sure they have a lot of tiny performance improvements. But since when is CS research about tiny performance improvements? It's not like Oracle or anyone else has any secret algorithm which runs in linear time when all of academia only knows of exponential time solutions for the same class of problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do companies want to profit from this computer science research being done under a NDA? Don't they have to release these advances in the form of a product to earn a profit? Then show me some products which demonstrate this "cutting-edge" computer science research.
They don't necessarily have to, and even if they did, it may not be obvious. Consider a financial company working to improve prediction algorithms for their in-house use, hiring smartypants PhDs and giving them free reign and great pay. The result after ten years could be way ahead (or even just a little ahead) of the academic world's work and never release a product with a sticker for a big shiny new algorithm. The…
When I was younger and far more innocent I would do things because of the sheer love of doing, learning and discovery. I'd spend hours, no, days, wiring chips together, writing code, testing, soldering, dreaming, inventing. In college I even published a paper on some work I did in robotics when pushed my my prof's to publish. It was great. I'd like to think I "invented" a few things in the process too. Then I was "bo…
Other than that I found your points on how the current system doesn't incentivize creation but dissuades it instead good, I can say I've been put off from a few of my ideas because I find a patent that's a bit too close and I really don't want to have to face that. Maybe one day when I have billions I can be a renegade, not yet though.
There are (at least) three valid perspectives on the patent situation within the software community but part of the reason so little constructive progress is made is that many people with strong opinions will often flat-out deny or reject the validity of the other perspectives because it is outside their experience. Three perspectives of which most people ignore one or more: - Computer technology is over-run with fri…
There is a strong opinion among computer researchers that pure algorithms are indistinguishable from math, and thus should be unpatentable. The math guy doing research on sound waves might be slightly annoyed when he gets denied a patent, but the guy working "on a computer" with the exact same math, doing the exact same research, gets a patent because he described the math "on a computer".
Of course, we could just start letting math also be patentable, because it too requires non-trivial investment, frequently requiring many many years and millions of dollars. That is, if the work behind something alone is enough to qualify for patentability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's not another way to describe the same situation; it's an entirely different situation. Was this a honest mistake or deliberate sophistry?
When "what's appalling about patents existing" is the emotional argument, "what would be appalling about patents not existing" is a good counter-argument. On the gripping hand, not having patents would only threaten big solutions that work as non-disclosed competitive advantages, where having patents currently threatens all solutions no matter how straightforward.
I thought the argument is actually that they exist in the way they do, not in them existing at all.. ?
"what would be appalling about patents not existing" is a good counter-argument.
Then someone make that argument; the post I replied to didn't IMHO, and here is why: If patents didn't exist, you wouldn't do the same R&D in the same way as you would do in a world with patents. So that's just apples and oranges. "If this chair didn't exist, the person would fall on their butt!" No, actually in that case the person wouldn't even have gotten into a situation where they need a chair to not fall.
Which is of course something that is often claimed, that we need patents to "encourage innovation". But consider all the inventions that are made at more or less the same time by people who never heard of each other. To me it's obvious that (large chunks of) invention are more inherent in the laws of physics and human society than in individual inventors. "I made this" actually means "everything up to and including me made this"... sounds less grand, is so much more true. But I guess taking credit for pre-existing things and squeezing money and power out of them is something we actually got used to. Doesn't make it true though.
To me it's all bogus anyway, I don't even buy the claim that a bunch of molecules and the memories others have of them constitute an entity called "John Carmack", as if that was a real thing. But with that outlook it's very hard to influence the political process, or even to just make sense to the average person.