Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:39:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> Cc: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, "P. U. (Uli) Kruppa" <root@pukruppa.de>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use of the UNIX Trademark Message-ID: <1002731960.3bc479b899603@webmail.neomedia.it> In-Reply-To: <20011009231343.C387@blossom.cjclark.org> References: <000601c15084$87edd360$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <1002663600.3bc36eb096ee5@webmail.neomedia.it> <20011009231343.C387@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> wrote: > [OK, way off of -questions. Redirected to -chat.] First of all, I wish to thank you for your detailed response, which I have appreciated very much. > > I seem to undertstand that the law applying to software is different > in > > Europe, ie copyright-oriented (Europe) rather than patent-oriented > (USA). > > > > The patent question perplexes me, probably because I have a very > limited > > understanding/knowledge of its issues and niceties. > > The copyright question has always perplexed me. A computer program is > a set of instructions to make a machine do something. Copyrights have > historically meant to protect artistic works, literature, and the > like. > > I can write a program to do something really l33t and copyright > it. Only I can authorize distributions of copies of that > software. Someone else can write a program to do the same thing and > they can distribute it however they want. It's not a copy of my code, > which is protected, but it does the same thing. Functionality is not > protected by copyrights. I can spend a big wad of cash to come up with > this nifty new idea and develop it, but someone else can come along > and write a program to do the same thing and there is nothing I can > do. What incentive do I have to spend the cash when Microsoft will > make a clone of my neat app and make it a part of their operating > system next month? None. Inovation stops. About the specific point of M$ != innovation, I agree completely. See below. > To use another anology. I build a big mechanical box with lots of > wheels, wires, motors, and vacuum tubes. I takes punch cards in one > end and spits out some interesting output at the other end. I patent > the process. That's what patents are for, no one will argue I cannot > or should not. Now instead of building a big custom box to do this > process, I write a set of instructions that make some other generic > piece of machinery (a com-pu-ter) do this same kind of thing. Why can > I not patent the process? > > > <exercise type="wild imagination"> > > > > For one moment, suppose that the principle of algorithm patentability > came > > true to the fullest extent. [the choice of "come true" is NOT > coincidental > > ;-)] > > > > The next day, I would wake up and patent the algorithm solving 2nd > degree > > algebraic equations. > > You could try, but you couldn't patent the methods to do this that you > find in every basic algebra book. Prior art. You only can patent > something new that you discover. Mutatis mutandis, I would wake up and patent a new informatics theorem/algorithm -- the quickest/shortest/the_best_compromise for some sense of the word best and of the word compromise. :-) Sorry for not being clear enough. <joking> The things mentioned above were new when they were discovered. What if people had "patented" the [more or less trivial] algorithms mentioned the very same day they were created? :-) </joking> Or, to shift the origin of the time axis, what if people patented each and every new mathematical/informatics/routing/whatever theorem and/or algorithm? Should/would you have to pay each and every time a theoretical paper/book of yours made [auxiliary] use of a patented theorem/algorithm? And/or each and every time a program of yours made use of the patented algorithm(s)? How long [reasonably] for? What impact would this have on the development of _new_ works and/or [better] programs in the field (or even in other fields)? Incidentally, AFAIK, the development of Mathematics, Logic, Informatics, Science at large has occurred fast and furious without patents for the last few centuries[1]. Freedom of development has been (and is) of primal importance. It is for **this** reason that you are in a position to develop your new nifty ideas _today_. [1] Informatics is more recent. :-) Curiously, there's no Nobel prize for Mathematics. Yet there would be **no** **science** **whatsoever** without mathematics... As to the "originality" and status of software, let's go for a walk the other way round. Suppose I wrote a program that solved problem X, a program making use of my theorem(s) and/or algorithm(s) T/A1 [, T/A2,... T/An]. Suppose you were interested in the same field and in writing another program solving the same problem. Apart from the obligation to quote my work(s), what could/should you be allowed to do? Nothing at all? And from the point of view of patents, how should an "original" algorithm be defined? Interesting problems. Mind you, neither the copyright nor the patent system is perfect. I tend to see things in a more "scientific" perspective (theorems = knowledge), which is why I wrote the first message in the first place. <beware! dangerous opinion :-)> Theorem/algorithm T/Ai (the ith theorem and the associated algorithm, if any) is a scientific achievement, for i=1,2,...,N. As such, these theorems must figure in the appropriate book(s). They constitute knowledge and as such they must be shared. Not sharing knowledge is a dangerous form of obscurantism. And YES, it should be a national[2] interest to finance researchers rather then make them attempt to *patent* *knowledge*... [2] both public and private. As to my software program, it is _one_ way (out of _many_ possible ones) to make use of those results. I can't see one reason why you, Crist, shoudn't be allowed to write another program utilizing _my _own_ theorems. You could even write a better implementation of my own ideas. :-) In other words, the "implementation" is personal and is, as it were, a form of art. It must be protected as such. Whence the copyright. By the way, there can be many _different_ ways to provide the same functionality. I consider it excessive and wrong to patent the _functionality_. One incidental remark about M$. This kind of extremely large corporations as well as the well-known associated practices are most harmful to any progress. They just shouldn't be allowed to exist. > > I chose a trivial example just for the sake of simplicity. You could > > > substitute algorithms/theorems on [differential or algebraic] > equations; > > numerical analysis/calculus algorithms (eg Runge-Kutta methods); etc. > etc. > > etc. By the way, the discussion is not purely theoretical: think eg > of CRC > > polynomials... > > All of these algorithms already exist. You have no claim to patent > them. OTOH, if you devised a _new_ method to do some interesting math, > yes, you can patent. It is about this point that I disagree. In general, IMO Science should be patent-free. > (Not to say that some people haven't pulled some things off with the > Patent Office. One of the jokes about a former employer of mine was > that the company had a patent on least-squares regression. It really > did.) Urk. > > > Next, I would write a program in BEEEE_sick solving 2nd degree > algebraic > > equations. A month later, you would chance to write another such > program, > > without any prior knowledge of my patent(s) or even my program(s). > > > > Finally, I would sue you for two patent infringements: the algorithm > and the > > program. Rich lawsuits. :-)) > > Probably not. If I had acted in good faith (you admit I didn't know > anything), you probably wouldn't receive much of anything in a civil > court other than an assurance I would stop. I don't have any money > anyway. > > > Alternatively, you would have to pay [$$$]$$$ each and every time you > made use > > of the aforementioned algorithm. Hmm, that would sound like quick and > steady > > progress for the whole field of studies and/or applications. :-) > > Yep. People, corporations, and educational institutions spend > mindboggling amounts of effort and money trying to discover new > medicines, devices, technologies, numerical methods, etc. which they > can patent. > If Numerical Analysis (Numerical Calculus/Methods in English?) were to become a collection of patents, how [fast] would people go ahead? Next, what would prevent all fields of Mathematics from becoming a set of patents? Would you imagine Functional Analysis (cf Quantum Mechanics) to be a collection of patents? You are most probably aware that Q.M. will have a number of consequences for C.S. and computers at large. > > I may be missing something, er, quite a lot of things, but such > scenarios make > > little to no sense (to me) -- however > > subtle/clever/precise/interesting/rigorous/etc may be, computationally > > > speaking, the chosen definition of algorithm complexity and/or ahem > > "originality". > > > > Incidentally -- it's just my impression, mind you -- I would say this > kind of > > law, in the long run, might be very harmful to software industry > itself. > > It's not patents or copyrights that are a hazard, but the shrink-wrap > license agreements. If useful algorthims were properly _patented,_ then > software distribitors might not try to tag on anti-reverse-engineering > clauses and other bogus legalese in their license agreements. They can > even hand out source code without fear. Even if other people can see > the algorithms used in the software in front of their noses, they > cannot steal the distributors investment since making work-alike > (as opposed to not bit-image, copyright-violating) copies would > still violate the _patent._ > > I'm not saying that all software should be patented. But a lot of the > shrink-wrap license hell that we are in is because applying copyrights > to programs isn't a correct fit. Programs are instructions to make a > machine do something. They in effect make a generic piece of hardware > behave like some specialized piece of pseudo-hardware. You patent > devices and processes. If you want to protect what a program _does_ > you should patent the process, the algorithm. There has to be a better form of protection, both of the programmer's work as a form of art and of the programmer's work as science (well, when it is the case :-)), a form of protection avoiding obscurantism. IMO, FWIW, patenting algorithms is a dangerous way. -- Salvo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1002731960.3bc479b899603>