Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9481 misc.int-property:591 comp.unix.bsd:6518 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!craig From: craig@ec.uwa.oz.au (Craig Richmond - division) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors. Date: 14 Oct 1992 09:17:14 GMT Organization: The University of Westrn Australia Lines: 47 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <1bgoiqINN8dc@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> References: <1992Oct6.071314.16966@netcom.com> <11738.Oct1103.23.3892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Oct11.043358.5543@netcom.com> <id.6S0U.TRE@ferranti.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: decel.ecel.uwa.edu.au peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >The LPF advocates eliminating all software patents because they have found >a number of demonstrably harmful ones and no evidence whatsoever that the >mass might be beneficial. In fact, the best evidence is that there is no >observable benefit to patents on purely software systems. Personally, I believe that the problem is not the fact that patents on software systems are unreasonable, but that the time limit on the patent is too long. Software is a product that has a remarkably short marketable lifetime. This may not be true in the future, but is true now. An operating system that is cutting edge now, will be obselete in roughly 5 years and the technology that is at the core of the operating system will be obsolete in say 20 years. Modern day unix systems in no way reflect the unix's of old. Having a 20+ year patent on a software system means that the patent is basically forever because when it runs out, chances are that nobody will want it in the large part. There are of course exceptions. LZRW springs to mind. It is a simple algorithm that provides fast compression of data. It will probably always be relatively useful (I seem to recall it is also patented by 2 independent groups and both of these were after it was posted to the net) The number of totally inane things that are patented boggles the mind. Things as trivial as using the XOR instruction to flash the cursor on the screen. IBM owns that one. There are also thousands of patents every year along those lines. The Megacompanies have obviously made a point (as is typical with research companies) of patenting everything they come up with on principles more than actual expected benefits. My opinion is that there must be a justifyable research cost before a patent is granted. How long would it take the average bozo fresh out of university computer programmer to decide that the best way of flashing a cursor is to use an XOR instruction? I should think that anyone who has done any assembly language programming would come up with that in a good 10 minutes of coffe drinking. Yet it is covered by a patent, so IBM could demand money if you develop your product in the States. In fact I suspect that if you went through and did a 1% royalty for every patented idea in a standard commercial product, you would find that the patent royalties went over the 100% mark :-) Craig -- Craig Richmond. Computer Officer - Dept of Economics (morning) 380 3860 University of Western Australia Dept of Education (afternoon) craig@ecel.uwa.edu.au Dvorak Keyboards RULE! "Messes are only acceptable if users make them. Applications aren't allowed this freedom" I.M.VI 2-4