Software patents [Was:Re: Oracle intersted in buying Ubunutu]

[Robert McWilliam]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:18:05 +1000, "Alexander Jacob Tsykin"
<stsykin at gmail.com> said:
> On Friday 21 April 2006 00:03, Robert McWilliam wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:22:55 +1000, "Alexander Jacob Tsykin"
> >
> > <stsykin at gmail.com> said:
> > > The companies are not interested in the industry as a whole, nor
> > > should they be. Their job is to make a profit. Sometimes the best
> > > way for them to do this legally is through patents. There are of
> > > course limits. I do not believe in patented vague general ideas. I
> > > do believe in the right to patent specific ones, sometimes. And
> > > certainly, code should be patentable.
> >
> > I can understand the attraction of patents to the people who get
> > them - being granted a monopoly has obvious attractions. But a
> > company should be interested in the industry as a whole: Even if
> > you're market share goes down so long as it is by a smaller % than
> > the industry grows you're sales go up.
> >
> their goal is not just to make a profit but to maximise it, within the
> bounds of the law. They cannot be criticised for trying to do so.

What we are discussing is what the law should be: patents aren't
something that just exist they are granted by government bodies, and the
rules for when they can be granted are laws.

> > Why should code be patentable? To stop other people copying it?
> > Copyright already does that. Patents on software that aren't merely
> > an expensive duplication of copyright have to be on ideas.
> >
> Software should be patentable to provide options. If it is necessary
> int eh eyes of the company, why stop them? Particularly if they will
> copyright it anyway.

What a company wants to do to maximise profits is get as much money out
of people as possible with as little effort as possible. In a free
market they have to provide something people want better than the
competition can, but patents are about the state imposing limits on the
free market because it can be used to convince people to invest in
things like pharmacautical development which costs a lot of money to
develop the product but copying it is trivial by comparison. If the
state is playing with the free market like that then it has a
responsibility to look at whether the granting of software patents is
good for everyone not just the company getting the patent. 

Also copyright isn't something that you actively do: any code you write
is automatically copyrighted.


> > What are the sometimes when an idea gets to be patented? And does
> > this fringe case justify the stifling of innovation in the rest of
> > the software world?
> >

> How can ti stifle innovation? If all the established ideas are
> patented you have to innovate. If anything, it encouraged innovation.

It stifles inovation because it means that whoever first patents a type
of software prevents anybody else from writing the same type of
software. If patents were around a while back Xerox would be the only
company able to make software with a WIMP GUI, whoever made the first
spreadsheet is the only person able to make spreadsheet apps etc. This
prevents other people who have ideas for new features for a spreadsheet
app from making them without the agreeent of whoever holds the patent.  

> What it does not encourage is free software in general. But
> ultimately, this is not the problem of the company. What you are
> saying is that somebody should make less profit so that you are free
> to modify software as you see fit and not pay for
> it. 

What I actually said was that they should make more profit by letting
other people help them increase the overall size of the market.

I never said that companies had to let me do anything with their
software; if they want to they can lock it in a vault and not let
anybody touch it. I only have a problem when there are laws that say I
can't write a piece of software to perform a certain task because
someone else already did. That is what sotware patents are.

> This is not really a moral stance. Saying "its better for me if
>     you do things this way so do it, even if its worse for you" does
>     not encourage freedom and is most definitely not democratic.
>     Freedom is about empowering people, which is in turn about
>     options. I try not to put my interests before those of everybody
>     else, which is why I take the position I do. Provided people are
>     not hurt or injured by it, people should be able to do as they
>     please.
>

Patents are not about giving options to anyone: they are a state granted
monopoly. They are about taking away the option other people would
normally have to copy something. Why should the state be doing that?

Robert
------------------ 
  Robert McWilliam
  rmcw at allmail.net
  www.ormiret.com

  The days of the digital watch are numbered.

------------------ 
  Robert McWilliam
  rmcw at allmail.net
  www.ormiret.com

  The days of the digital watch are numbered.