BBC: Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth on shaking up system software

[Smilax]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17916879

check it out.

[MisterGaribaldi]

"We know that we are sort of dancing naked through a minefield and there are much bigger institutions driving tanks through," Mr Shuttleworth says.

"It's basically impossible to ship any kind of working software without potentially trampling on some patent somewhere in the world, and it's completely impossible to do anything to prevent that.

"The patents system is being used to slow down a lot of healthy competition and that's a real problem. I think that the countries that have essentially figured that out and put hard limits on what you can patent will in fact do better."

There is more said in these four sentences than in most tech news articles out there, and I really love how Mark just nails it like this. Whether anyone out there amongst the "civilian" population will understand the significance or recognize the legitimacy of these statements is, of course, an open question.

[alexfish]

There is more said in these four sentences than in most tech news articles out there, and I really love how Mark just nails it like this. Whether anyone out there amongst the "civilian" population will understand the significance or recognize the legitimacy of these statements is, of course, an open question.

Well said statement
"civilian"

add this

sucking up
our time and brainpower

[MisterGaribaldi]

I know nobody (or darned few) would do this, but my suggestion is for the F/OSS community to ignore the whole patent thing, produce what they want to produce, and then force the hand of governments and businesses everywhere by ignoring such anti-competitive laws or any related anti-competitive court rulings. Keep it up until it forces governments to start acting in utterly irrational ways, and let the people see just how dysfunctional the whole mess truly is.

[JDShu]

I know nobody (or darned few) would do this, but my suggestion is for the F/OSS community to ignore the whole patent thing, produce what they want to produce, and then force the hand of governments and businesses everywhere by ignoring such anti-competitive laws or any related anti-competitive court rulings. Keep it up until it forces governments to start acting in utterly irrational ways, and let the people see just how dysfunctional the whole mess truly is.

I hate patents just as much as you do, but this is frankly a stupid and irresponsible suggestion. Stupid, because knowingly infringing on patents has huge legal consequences. For example, if Canonical ignored patents, then they'd be fined, probably into bankruptcy. Irresponsible, because it's not your money on the line.

[KiwiNZ]

I know nobody (or darned few) would do this, but my suggestion is for the F/OSS community to ignore the whole patent thing, produce what they want to produce, and then force the hand of governments and businesses everywhere by ignoring such anti-competitive laws or any related anti-competitive court rulings. Keep it up until it forces governments to start acting in utterly irrational ways, and let the people see just how dysfunctional the whole mess truly is.

Ignoring patents is what a lot of Tech company's are doing. It is the reason there is so many court cases. If they investigated when developing and find patents contact the rights owner and negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement BEFORE launching a product.

[PeterP24]

I know nobody (or darned few) would do this, but my suggestion is for the F/OSS community to ignore the whole patent thing, produce what they want to produce, and then force the hand of governments and businesses everywhere by ignoring such anti-competitive laws or any related anti-competitive court rulings. Keep it up until it forces governments to start acting in utterly irrational ways, and let the people see just how dysfunctional the whole mess truly is.

Nice idea but totally risky nowadays. The community is made by individuals or teams. It is really easy for a patent owner to go in court and ruin financially the guy (or guys) that assumed your stance. What would be their defence? "Hey judge, I know I've ignored the legal rights of the patent owner - but wait for several years when we have had proven that the whole patent stuff it is impractical and irrational. Please judge us based on this assumption and not on the law". Yup - that would totally work.

[Paqman]

The problem is that patent law regarding software differs widely around the world. Europe takes a very different stance on it than the US does for example, so what's ok in one jurisdiction isn't in another. Hence SABDFL's allusion to dancing through a minefield.

[MisterGaribaldi]

First off, the "software" class of patents is relatively new, and because of the nature of software and coding, is not a boon to anyone, unless you're a patent squatter.

Secondly, this isn't the case of John Smith holding one or two patents on X, and **** Jones holding a patent on Y, and Sally Smith holding a patent on Z. This is a matter of Foo, Inc., holding patents on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, and AZ; and Blah, LLC. holding patents on A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1, G1, H1, I1, J1, K1, L1, M1, N1, O1, P1, Q1, R1, S1, T1, U1, V1, W1, X1, Y1, Z1 and BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO, BP, BQ, BR, BS, BT, BU, BV, BW, BX, BY, BZ, and Wow, GmbH holding patents on... etc., and so forth. You get the idea.

Most of these aren't necessarily things they developed because they intend to pursue them, but as war chests to use to fight off other companies doing the same. And so we the people are stuck in situations where there are these mind-bubbling numbers of patents floating around out there, often for non-obvious things or things which shouldn't probably even be patentable, and yet the moment you either "type that code" or conceive of code which "performs that kind of task" you're screwed.

So no, I don't have the slightest respect for any of the players here, and I don't honestly see why, in good conscience, anyone else should. They're the bad guys screwing us, but we should be the ones wearing kid gloves and playing nice? I don't think so.

[KiwiNZ]

I believe that patents do serve a purpose, however having said that patents should be time bombed with a calculated to give a time period to allow a reasonable return on investment for the creator. With the nature of the software industry and the very high obsolescence rates two years should be a sufficient time frame to hold a patent.

[MisterGaribaldi]

Software patents should *never* have been allowed. That was one helluva con job done on governments everywhere. Moreover, they are often overly broad (progress bar comes to mind), and there's nothing a patent legitimately does that copyright law doesn't already do.

[Smilax]

this patent/antipatent battle has been going on for a while, so maybe KiwiNZ idea might be a direction our idea's could be most effective, as in, some reduction on patent time limits is good start.


james watt: monopolist, he patented his/the steam engine back in the day, From to 1769 to (via act of Parliament) 1800.

defence: thought/worked on it from 1764 to 1768 with 'substantial borrowing'.



I believe that patents do serve a purpose, however having said that patents should be time bombed with a calculated to give a time period to allow a reasonable return on investment for the creator. With the nature of the software industry and the very high obsolescence rates two years should be a sufficient time frame to hold a patent.

[Paqman]

I think the European approach of disallowing patents for software per se, but allowing them for an algorithm is pretty practical.

[MisterGaribaldi]

I think the European approach of disallowing patents for software per se, but allowing them for an algorithm is pretty practical.

I could live with that.

[smellyman]

I believe that patents do serve a purpose, however having said that patents should be time bombed with a calculated to give a time period to allow a reasonable return on investment for the creator. With the nature of the software industry and the very high obsolescence rates two years should be a sufficient time frame to hold a patent.

Also they shouldn't be ludicrous....Like "a button to purchase items from an online store"...

Need more responsible people allowing these patents.

[aysiu]

I don't mind patents for implementations, but patenting ideas is silly. If you read a lot of these software patent descriptions, they're ludicrous.

[Smilax]

I don't mind patents for implementations, but patenting ideas is silly. If you read a lot of these software patent descriptions, they're ludicrous.


i think i agree.

for example, how far would we be along with maths if you couldn't think someone else's idea for X years,

[MisterGaribaldi]

Because the general public -- and it's the general public we need to take action as voters here -- is so unaware of, removed from, and uncaring about these (and many other) issues, that's why this needs to be elevated significantly in the public conscience.

I mean, not that I would wish this to happen, but if people were to start dying over software patents, it would be come such an embarrassment that governments worldwide would have to clean their acts up. Failing that, the general public would have to do something for a change, voter-wise, and MAKE the change happen.

[JDShu]

I don't mind patents for implementations, but patenting ideas is silly. If you read a lot of these software patent descriptions, they're ludicrous.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I believe the whole point of patents are for protecting ideas. Protecting implementations is copyright.

[aysiu]

I think I understand what you're saying, but I believe the whole point of patents are for protecting ideas. Protecting implementations is copyright.
If what you're saying is true, software patents should be abolished completely.

[JDShu]

If what you're saying is true, software patents should be abolished completely.

I actually agree, but just want to caution that ideas are not necessarily easy to come up with. For example, if somebody made up a ground breaking algorithm, that's an idea. But thinking this up would could require hard work and a stroke of genius and I think many would argue that it should be rewarded

[aysiu]

I actually agree, but just want to caution that ideas are not necessarily easy to come up with. For example, if somebody made up a ground breaking algorithm, that's an idea. But thinking this up would could require hard work and a stroke of genius and I think many would argue that it should be rewarded
See, in my terminology, I consider a groundbreaking algorithm to be an implementation and not an idea.

If you read the ridiculous software patents they aren't for things like "our special way of programming swiping to unlock." They are very vague ideas like "moving a finger in a direction to unlock a phone" or "breaking up a longer text message into smaller text messages" or "popping up a menu of application options when a link is pressed."

To bring it to the web to shed light on how ridiculous this is. Google has a search algorithm that is proprietary and constantly shifting. This should absolutely be protected (not sure if it counts as a patent, copyright, or something else). The idea of "taking text input and returning a list of links as feedback" should not be patentable, however.

Yet, if you look at all the high-profile software patent cases, they are all of this ilk. Nothing to do with groundbreaking algorithms or technical implementions--all about vague ideas.

More details here:
When Patents Attack (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack)

[Mikeb85]

Patents are a form of protectionism. Yet most people would argue that other protectionist schemes such as tariffs, selective taxation, etc..., are contrary to free market principles and capitalism, so why are patents accepted?

Also keep in mind that in many countries software patents, as well as drug patents are not recognized...

Patents slow innovation, and create an anti-competitive environment, allowing one company an advantage to the detriment of the economy as a whole. Good ideas can be rewarded without resorting to protectionism - if the inventor is truly the first to discover something and bring it to market, they will reap the rewards. But it's up to the consumer and the market to decide such things, not bureaucrats and judges.

Besides, who's to say that inventing something should be rewarded more than perfecting something? That creating a good idea and devising an implementation is more deserving of reward than actually creating a great physical product?

[KiwiNZ]

Patents help protect profit margins, profit margins put food on tables, roofs over heads and medicines in the cupboard. Fact of life.
That is why I support limited time patents and support profits.

[Mikeb85]

Patents help protect profit margins, profit margins put food on tables, roofs over heads and medicines in the cupboard. Fact of life.
That is why I support limited time patents and support profits.

Not really. If one company is making less money because of competition, then another company is paying it's employees, putting food on their table as well.

[KiwiNZ]

Not really. If one company is making less money because of competition, then another company is paying it's employees, putting food on their table as well.

If profits are diluted then salaries are diluted as is reinvestment and job creation.

[Mikeb85]

If profits are diluted then salaries are diluted as is reinvestment and job creation.

Job creation comes from small business more than big business, as economy of scale makes less jobs necessary for the big business (relative to the amount of work being done), and more low-mid end salaries spreads the wealth more equally throughout society than high-end salaries.

Reinvestment doesn't necessarily come from large companies (although it sometimes does), it also comes from investment banks, individuals, etc... Also, as important as investment it, it's also the average worker's salary being spent on goods and services that truly drives the economy forward.

Look at emerging markets - while some large corporations definitely help drive growth, most growth comes from the ground up - you need to create an inviting environment for investment and entrepreneurship, from which many companies will sprout up, employ the populace, which spend more money, driving more business, etc...

Look at the US and Europe right now - corporations are making more money than ever, yet the unemployment rates are still high because corporations have become too efficient. Taxation, high startup costs and patent litigations make it difficult to start a competitive business, and the economy suffers as a result.

While the idea that a few large, efficient and profitable corporations are all society needs to be productive is a nice idea, it doesn't work, as the communist experiment proves. Anything that hampers competition, whether it's deemed 'fair' or not, in the end hurts the economy.

[alexfish]

I don't mind patents for implementations, but patenting ideas is silly. If you read a lot of these software patent descriptions, they're ludicrous.
They even have a Patent on how one should go to the toilet

it begins with 'method of getting a

[KiwiNZ]

Job creation comes from small business more than big business, as economy of scale makes less jobs necessary for the big business (relative to the amount of work being done), and more low-mid end salaries spreads the wealth more equally throughout society than high-end salaries.

Reinvestment doesn't necessarily come from large companies (although it sometimes does), it also comes from investment banks, individuals, etc... Also, as important as investment it, it's also the average worker's salary being spent on goods and services that truly drives the economy forward.

Look at emerging markets - while some large corporations definitely help drive growth, most growth comes from the ground up - you need to create an inviting environment for investment and entrepreneurship, from which many companies will sprout up, employ the populace, which spend more money, driving more business, etc...

Look at the US and Europe right now - corporations are making more money than ever, yet the unemployment rates are still high because corporations have become too efficient. Taxation, high startup costs and patent litigations make it difficult to start a competitive business, and the economy suffers as a result.

While the idea that a few large, efficient and profitable corporations are all society needs to be productive is a nice idea, it doesn't work, as the communist experiment proves. Anything that hampers competition, whether it's deemed 'fair' or not, in the end hurts the economy.

If a start up or small business approaches a Merchant Bank for venture capital to say bring to market a new software package one of the first questions they will be asked is, is the IP protected and yours and can your product be copied if they cannot show that their revenue stream has protections they will not get the venture capital and the job creation is lost.

[Copper Bezel]

If we're talking about the US, though, that's simply not the function that software patents perform, and I don't know why you're not responding to aysiu's comments on that. Of course the intention of the laws is sound and pro-competitive. Maybe it works elsewhere in the world. But most of the patent battles I've heard about are between big US companies, and they're universally abuses of the system. The Planet Money story aysiu posted argues that this is the rule, not the exception in the way that software patents are enforced in the US.

So yes, patents on a particular search algorithm, or even (much as I hate to say it) a media codec, make sense, particularly with the short-term limits you mention (similar to the ones in the pharmaceutical industry.) The patent disputes that actually happen are nonsense.

[Paqman]

Good ideas can be rewarded without resorting to protectionism - if the inventor is truly the first to discover something and bring it to market, they will reap the rewards.

Not really. It's very easy to reverse engineer and knock out a cheap copy of a lot of stuff. A copycat product can be in the market within days or weeks these days. The original inventor who has then invested years and piles of cash in developing it (and thus has to charge more to pay back their investors) gets undercut by the copycats. In that situation the inventor loses, and the people who invested in them lose. The copycats win, and nobody bothers innovating any more, as it's too risky and no-one will fund it.

The idea of a patent is to give people investing in innovation a reward for their work. So they're given 20 years in which they can corner the market, then the copycats get to go for it.

Patents in general are a very positive thing, but they're were never really designed with digital products in mind. We do need to go through an adjustment period where we find out if current patent law can be adapted to software, or if we need to protect it in some other way.

[azangru]

Free of charge, free of viruses and designed to outpace its rivals on low-end systems - Ubuntu has some obvious advantages.
Isn't it a shame Ubuntu is perceived this way?

[alexfish]

Isn't it a shame Ubuntu is perceived this way?

Think this means Cheapest way to do things, as in desktop or laptop

[Mikeb85]

If a start up or small business approaches a Merchant Bank for venture capital to say bring to market a new software package one of the first questions they will be asked is, is the IP protected and yours and can your product be copied if they cannot show that their revenue stream has protections they will not get the venture capital and the job creation is lost.

Nowadays there's no reason for a small software startup to require funding at that stage of development as digital media can be distributed for little to no cost. If they don't have the talent to create follow up products and their viability depends solely on a protectionist element, then they were never a viable business to begin with.

But I look at some of the software I've purchased recently (alot of mobile apps), and there's alot of companies that are only a few years old, didn't rest their laurels on a single product, kept improving at a quick pace, and are doing well because of it.

Besides, if a big company wants to copy the little guy's work it will happen anyway, in fact, big companies hoard so many patents odds are the little guy infringed somewhere and will get put out of business for a patent he's never heard of, cared about, for something he thought of independently...

[vasa1]

..., for something he thought of independently...
I think the judge in the Oracle v/s Google case had something very similar to say:


In view of the foregoing, this order concludes that our immediate case is controlled by these principles of copyright law:
Under the merger doctrine, when there is only one (or only a few) ways to express something, then no one can claim ownership of such expression by copyright.
Under the names doctrine, names and short phrases are not copyrightable.
Under Section 102(b), copyright protection never extends to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation or concept
33 regardless of its form. Functional elements essential for interoperability are not copyrightable
Under Feist, we should not yield to the temptation to find copyrightability merely to reward an investment made in a body of intellectual property.

[KiwiNZ]

Nowadays there's no reason for a small software startup to require funding at that stage of development as digital media can be distributed for little to no cost. If they don't have the talent to create follow up products and their viability depends solely on a protectionist element, then they were never a viable business to begin with.

But I look at some of the software I've purchased recently (alot of mobile apps), and there's alot of companies that are only a few years old, didn't rest their laurels on a single product, kept improving at a quick pace, and are doing well because of it.

Besides, if a big company wants to copy the little guy's work it will happen anyway, in fact, big companies hoard so many patents odds are the little guy infringed somewhere and will get put out of business for a patent he's never heard of, cared about, for something he thought of independently...

On your logic MSFT, Apple, HP, Ford, ............... Were never viable propositions. I think history proves your hypothesis wrong.

[Mikeb85]

On your logic MSFT, Apple, HP, Ford, ............... Were never viable propositions. I think history proves your hypothesis wrong.

Microsoft did more than just Windows, Apple also evolved, Ford built more than the model T, etc... Ford especially proves my point, they didn't become big because of any invention, but because they made a prior invention economically viable.... If Microsoft didn't do office, Apple didn't do the iPod, if HP never went beyond printers and Ford never developed the assembly line, they wouldn't have made it.

Btw, none of what allowed these companies to succeed is patentable, and none of their main products were their invention...

[KiwiNZ]

Microsoft did more than just Windows, Apple also evolved, Ford built more than the model T, etc... Ford especially proves my point, they didn't become big because of any invention, but because they made a prior invention economically viable.... If Microsoft didn't do office, Apple didn't do the iPod, if HP never went beyond printers and Ford never developed the assembly line, they wouldn't have made it.

Btw, none of what allowed these companies to succeed is patentable, and none of their main products were their invention...

And they financed these with Jelly Beans, all needed finance, in today's competitive market for the finite fiscal resources the start up with protection of their IP will secure funding.

[MisterGaribaldi]

I think the marketing of Ubuntu isn't really germain here in this discussion, but I will agree with the OC that Canonical needs to market Ubuntu Linux as a premier OS platform, not as a system for low end, garbage hardware (which is also what that comment means to me, btw).

Getting back to the thread topic at hand, namely software patents, I think the rest of you folks are doing a darned good job of making and arguing all the points I can think to make, and many more I wouldn't have thought of (or didn't even know about), so thanks!

I've listened to the many points Richard Stallman has made on this subject, and actually I find myself agreeing with him pretty significantly. Moreover, it would seem many of you also agree with his view on patents.

[Paqman]

Nowadays there's no reason for a small software startup to require funding at that stage of development as digital media can be distributed for little to no cost.

Like just about everything, the main cost is going to be labour. If a young company wants to employ more people, they're going to need money. It's a nice idea that you can produce quality software with a couple of geeks sitting in their bedrooms working for peanuts, but if you want to make a business out of it you need to hire folks and pay them properly.

[MisterGaribaldi]

It's a nice idea that you can produce quality software with a couple of geeks sitting in their bedrooms working for peanuts...

I think there's this attitude out there that we can all become billionaires like Mark, Eduardo, Dustin, and Chris (Facebook) or Larry and Sergey (Google), and not that such things can't happen, but that's not how the world normally works. If anything, however, such thinking is just the latest iteration of the "get rich quick" mentality that's been with us forever.

[KiwiNZ]

I think there's this attitude out there that we can all become billionaires like Mark, Eduardo, Dustin, and Chris (Facebook) or Larry and Sergey (Google), and not that such things can't happen, but that's not how the world normally works. If anything, however, such thinking is just the latest iteration of the "get rich quick" mentality that's been with us forever.

But it can be achieved by developing or finding a viable product, protecting it, doing prudent planning and determining your sustainable revenue streams and obtaining affordable venture capital to allow sustainable and fiscal responsible growth.

[MisterGaribaldi]

And this didn't happen back in the 70s (Apple, for instance) or during the 80s, before there were such things as software patents? Hmm?

I just think people thinking in this direction are thinking about it in the wrong sort of way. And no, I don't necessarily know what the "correct" way is. It's just this nagging sense in the back of my head that "needing a software patent to be viable" is akin to "needing 3D stereography to produce a viable movie".

[KiwiNZ]

And this didn't happen back in the 70s (Apple, for instance) or during the 80s, before there were such things as software patents? Hmm?

I just think people thinking in this direction are thinking about it in the wrong sort of way. And no, I don't necessarily know what the "correct" way is. It's just this nagging sense in the back of my head that "needing a software patent to be viable" is akin to "needing 3D stereography to produce a viable movie".

Business environments change, one must operate inthe environment that exists now and anticipate the future. After 300 years ago one could go out into the hinterland put in a stake and say this is my land, now one cannot.

[alexfish]

Business environments change, one must operate inthe environment that exists now and anticipate the future. After 300 years ago one could go out into the hinterland put in a stake and say this is my land, now one cannot.
OR HERE
http://www.deborahshanetoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/apollo12photo.jpg

[MisterGaribaldi]

Ah yes. I love the Ocean of Storms area. Has a great real estate potential. And don't let the area name fool you, it's actually very peaceful and quiet.

Plus, you can stand there and throw rocks and boulders at the people who either support or are abusing software patent law. :lolflag:

FYI, here's a recent aerial photo of the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_12_landing_site_imaged_by_LRO,_2011.jp g). Yeah, it's true that someone left their crap laying around, but I don't think it would take that much effort to clean it up. Freaking USN rednecks anyway... can't be bothered to pick up their trash.