*BSD News Article 3365


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.unix.admin:6701 comp.unix.solaris:81 comp.unix.bsd:3409
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!uunet!sun-barr!ames!purdue!news.cs.indiana.edu!umn.edu!kksys.com!quest!digibd!dellr4.digibd.com!rhealey
From: rhealey@dellr4.digibd.com (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: Another zealot saves the world!!!
Message-ID: <1992Aug07.211811.25404@digibd.com>
Date: 7 Aug 92 21:18:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: digibd.1992Aug07.211811.25404
References: <l6nkifINNjoo@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul22.103717.17224@uropax.contrib.de> <1992Jul29.194040.855@digibd.com> <Bs7nKr.3xr@well.sf.ca.us> <1992Aug03.180937.2507@digibd.com> <1992Aug3.224746.25893@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Sender: @digibd.com
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Lines: 135

In article <1992Aug3.224746.25893@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, steagall@amber.uh.cwru.edu (Bob Steagall) writes:
|>     1.  What company has patented or attempted to patent an idea?  I'm sorry
|>         if this is an ignorant question, but if you're going to start throwing
|>         flames at companines, let's see your facts to back them up (C,D).
|> 
	Well, I COULD post a long list and waste increadable amounts of net
	bandwidth. Instead I would ask you to review the list of software patents
	granted. Since you are at a University you should be able to get access
	to this information fairly easily.

	Check some recent periodicals about the various compression fiasco's, this
	should start you on the road.

|>     2.  How much "blood money" has been extracted from small comapanies (D)?
|> 
	   Probably billions by now. This could be a little more difficult to
	   track down due to the nature of non-disclosure agreements usually
	   made between the larger companys and small businesses that have
	   to pay. Or didn't you already know this? Since you're address is
	   from a University I have no idea if you have any extended experience
	   with business related non-disclosure agreements and common terms
	   of such agreements. Usually the contract forbids either side from
	   revealing the details of the agreement, especially $$$$ costs. Things
	   that would have very limited unit numbers are usually lump sum, larger
	   numbers of units are usually some base sum plus a percentage of unit sales in
	   cost. The exact details vary of course.

|>     3.  The implementation of an idea for a device is patentable.  The
|>         expression of an idea is copyrightable (E).  It seems obvious to
|>         me that you don't understand the difference, as you seem to mix them
|>         in (C),(E) and (F). 
|> 
	   I think this is more how we define the word "implementation". In the
	   patent sense it's the physical entity made from the process being
	   patented or parts thereof, for everything except software that is as
	   it's very difficult to pin down the "physical" part of software... In the
	   software sense I was using it in it's the "coding" of the idea. We're
	   interpreting the word differently I guess. The main point being the software
	   IDEA is what is patented, a code implementation, a.k.a. listing, is what
	   is copyrightable. I.e. the IDEA of various compression methods are patented,
	   not a specific coding of them. I can't sell a version of LZW compression
	   I would code from the algorithm published way back when, I would have
	   to pay royaltys to UNISYS(tm)(?)

|>     4.  How many patent officers have you ever met?  By what criteria and by
|>         what experience do you have the authority to pronounce them all
|>         incompetent (E)?
|> 
	   I didn't say ALL, I said the CS related ones. If they had any significant
	   training in the design and implementation of software VERY few of the
	   patents would have been granted because it would possible for them
	   to understand WHERE the ideas actually came from. In CS this tends
	   to be from University research or a combination of various University research
	   projects that a decent CS graduate would have put together to solve the
	   same problem. I.e. the "obviousness" of the solution by a person well
	   versed in CS will be different for someone who has little training in
	   CS.

|> 
|>     If you think the world will be a better place by giving away the software 
|> you write, by all means give it away.
	
	Please quote the EXACT line were I said copyrighted software should be
	given away. I stated that software patents were oximoronic, not that
	I think copyrighted software should be given away.

!> I'm sure you could make a great living 
|> doing that, and your boss would be beside himself with joy.  In fact, since you
|> seem to dislike corporations so much, why not quit your job right this minute,
|> move across either of the "ponds", and join your associates in a blissful
|> software commune.  That way, you could sever any contact with those nasty
|> companies and that disgusting (ughhh, shiver,...) profit motive.  You could
|> rejoice in the fact that you've left that awful US legal system with all those
|> pesky rights and things.
|> 
	Hmmm, great logic you are using here...

	1) As I said before, I believe in software copyright. I do NOT believe in
	   software patents and view them as a direct threat to currrent and
	   future practitioners of the software profession.

	2) After you have researched all those software patents you'll see who owns
	   the most rediculous ones and who most often goes after small businesses
	   to enforce them. It's the companys with huge legal staffs that have
	   to be kept busy... Small companys have better things to do
	   with their money, like actually PRODUCING things, rather than living
	   off of income from dubious software patents.

	3) I love profits. I hope to make quite a bit from consulting someday
	   however if software patents continue it will be impossible to
	   program for a living as an individual or small company because you'll
	   either have to
	   a) pay large sums to the various software patent holders for any non-trivial
	      software package
	   or
	   b) lose all your money fending off constant lawsuits whether they are
	      valid or not. I suppose in ivory towers you might never see how the legal
	      system is used by shrewed businesses to eliminate competition, thus
	      gaining a monopoly, or bankrupt the competition by bogus legal proceeding
	      after bogus legal proceeding slowly draining the others coffers. I've
	      seen this many times and have friends who have lost their jobs at PRODUCTIVE
	      small companys due to this sort of legal BS.

|>     Or, maybe you could click the zealot switch off, and join the rest of us 
|> here in reality.  Certainly no legal system is perfect, and there are problems 
|> on the horizon for the software industry as lawmakers try to define the concept
|> of intellectual property and how it pertains to software.  But screaming about
|> the issue, calling people names and making slanderous accusations is not going 
|> to help advance the cause, it just wastes net bandwidth.
|> 
	Interesting, you did the same. Maybe you should have reread your post.

	There's nothing zealous about my position. My position IS the reality. If
	software patents are allowed to continue, individuals and small companys
	will be unable to produce computer software for a living due to the high
	legal and patent search costs as well as retroactive surprises. i.e.
	some software patent wasn't publically available when you researched
	patents, you spent thousands of dollars and hours developing a package, released
	it and were sued retroactivally because you violated a patent that was
	being evaluated at the time and thus not available publically. THIS is
	the reality of software patents and the small software business. The odds
	would be VERY high that this patent would be either be a fundemental idea of CS
	or a combination of fundemental ideas as most of the software patents granted
	so far are.

	The CS profession has the problem in many cases that nobody published papers that
	could be considered prior art because most felt the concepts were "blatently"
	obvious. This is most unfortunate and would have headed off most if not all
	software patents.

	No matter what side of the issue people are on I would STRONGLY urge them to LOOK
	at software patents granted so far. You'll be truly AMAZED at some of the things
	that are being passed off as "original" ideas and trade secrets. B^(.

		-Rob