Comments on: End software patent wars by making it always legal to run code on a general-purpose computer - Richard Stallman

By: Richard Kirk

Richard Kirk — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:39:00 +0000

Alan Turing described a universal calculating engine which could solve any solvable problem given enough time, electricity, and memory tape. This machine was probably not in itself patentable because of prior art from Babbage, Lovelace and others; but it does anticipate all possible programs, and so should serve as prior art for them all.

By: pjcamp

pjcamp — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 05:54:00 +0000

That would have a pretty interesting effect on Apple. Since their world is curated, they are arguably not general purpose computers.

By: robcat2075

robcat2075 — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 00:33:00 +0000

There is a concept in copyright law already, “mechanical rights”, that allow you to record a new performance of any song that has already been recorded by the original artist, with only the payment of a standard fee, and not needing to negotiate permission.

That idea could be expanded to trivial software patents. That would eliminate court cases except perhaps in cases of actual non-payment.

By: PaulDavisTheFirst

PaulDavisTheFirst — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:31:00 +0000

amazon is not centrally focused on creating, patenting, and licensing software, though it has done all 3 on occasion.

in addition, its not just stallman. any BB reader knows that there are a variety of tech companies starting to speak out about software patents are negatively impacting their business plans and prospects.

By: EH

EH — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:30:00 +0000

Thanks for sharing, Mr. Ballmer.

By: EH

EH — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:28:00 +0000

The Hippocratic Oath vs Iron Law of Institutions Deathmatch:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_institutions

By: robcat2075

robcat2075 — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:34:00 +0000

Perhaps a better idea would be to reform the patent-granting process so that patents for trivial notions are either not awarded or limited as to what they can pursue for licensing. Much in the same way that there are limits on punitive damages for medical malpractice in some states.

That would make more sense than invalidating the whole notion of patents.

By: Florian Bösch

Florian Bösch — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:36:00 +0000

A general purpose computer is quite easy to define.

By: lorq

lorq — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:21:00 +0000

Speaking of relevance…

By: Magnus Redin

Magnus Redin — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:58:00 +0000

Making all that costly corporate bueraucracy irrelevant and making tens of thousands of skilled lawyers, economists, MBA:s etc and square miles of office space avaliable for new jobs would be a major efficiency boost for the economie! It is almost as good as automation is for the physical production, market economie for humanities win!

By: qwerty

qwerty — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:41:00 +0000

Yeah, this is not going to happen.

First, note this fact presented on the website of the patent office:

“IP-intensive industries accounted for about $5.06 trillion in value
added, or 34.8% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), in 2010.
Merchandise exports of IP-intensive industries totaled $775 billion in
2010, accounting for 60.7% of total U.S. merchandise exports.”

Second, note this excerpt of the Fortune 50 list:

1. Apple
2. Google
3. Amazon
5. IBM
17. Microsoft

…and the fact that these companies are centrally focused on creating, patenting, and licensing software.

Third, note that during the debates, both of the leading candidates for president openly referenced the transformation of the U.S. economy from manufacturing to information. Obama noted that manufacturing jobs are not coming back stateside, and that we should be moving toward more R&D – we should be training more engineers and fewer factory workers. And Romney promised to strengthen the enforcement of IP rights around the world, especially against China.

Adding up those three facts – we have an economy that’s heavily based on commercializing software, companies that recognize the role of patents in protecting that software, and a federal government committed to upholding those protections in defense of the economy.

Against all of that, you have Richard Stallman’s urging a fundamental reversal of a huge segment of the economy, in pursuit of idealistic and unproven notions of the value of free (as in speech) software.

By: Magnus Redin

Magnus Redin — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:35:00 +0000

It would make it easier for you to sell your filter since you would not have to worry about some obvious code being patented and patent vultures.

By: ComradeQuestions

ComradeQuestions — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:35:00 +0000

Yyyyyup.

Good luck!

By: robcat2075

robcat2075 — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:11:00 +0000

So if I made a new filter for Photoshop or some audio editing app or whatever or developed some new app entirely, I could no longer have real patent protection for it because it would be used on a general purpose computer.

That makes sense.

By: Shawn H Corey

Shawn H Corey — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:10:00 +0000

End patent wars by ending patents.

By: Funk Daddy

Funk Daddy — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:11:00 +0000

What kind of douche surgeon patents a procedure? I can see them wanting recompense from textbook makers, uni’s or such, as long as it isn’t so much to prevent it’s proliferation, since that would be against their interests too, but a royalty for or license for performing it? C’mon!