Ubuntu's Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator For Life: 'Whole Patent System Is A Sham'
from the and-he-should-know dept
Mark Shuttleworth is probably best known for three things. Selling the certificate authority Thawte Consulting to VeriSign for about $575 million in 1999; using some of that money to become the second self-funded space tourist; and using some more of it to found and sustain the Ubuntu version of GNU/Linux.Given that history, perhaps it's only fair that his title in the Ubuntu community is "Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life". It was using the equivalent acronym "sabdfl" that Shuttleworth took part recently in a Google+ chat organized by Muktware, where he had some scathing things to say about Microsoft's use of patents:
the biggest mistake Microsoft made was to decide that patents would be an effective defence against new competitors because that stops you from really innovating yourselfAnd about the patent system in general:
The whole patent system is a sham, unfortunately. Patents were invented to encourage inventors to publish their trade secrets, because society would benefit from the disclosure. But we now allow patents on things you could never keep secret in the first place, like software and business methods and medicines. That's insanity. Innovation happens because people solve problems, not because they might get a monopoly on it.Shuttleworth's successful record in business means that his words ought to carry more weight with supporters of patent monopolies than they might if he were just a free software project leader. After all, in a world where money talks, half a billion dollars just dismissed the patent system as a "sham."
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: mark shuttleworth, patents, sham
Companies: ubuntu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bah
sorry, I was stuck in copyright troll mode. Hang on, kick lever over to patent troll mode and -
He's just another patent theft apologist looking to profit off of all the hardwork that microsoft has done, and couldn't come up with a successful software product if he had half a billion dollars to- uh, I mean...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, that would mean we should also agree with all the bank executives that messed up our economy because they too have a lot of money....
...and going along with the same logic, we should NOT agree with anything Techdirt says because none of their contributors has hundreds of millions sitting in their bank.
Does that sound about right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should really brush up on your reading comprehesion skills before you embarrass yourself like that.
The article explicitly says that his words should carry weight to people who believe that only rich people understand patents. You know, like the assholes who claim that Linus and RMS don't understand business because they're not multi-millionaires.
Seriously, please complete a third-grade reading comprehension class before posting again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Check your medication.
In the world there is only one monopoly, and that's Microsoft. Globally.
You don't believe competition is necessary for evolution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monopolies
"A monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. (This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry)"
I bolded some words for emphasis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monopolies
Now that he is trying to compete against the larger player (Microsoft) he doesn't like the rules of the game. This is the hypocrisy of the tech sector - people love IP protections (or exclusivity agreements in this case) when they are in their favor and whine about how unfair the system is when they are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Monopolies
His point is very cleverly hidden from anyone who doesn't speak English in this sentence, fiendishly written in plain English:
"Patents were invented to encourage inventors to publish their trade secrets, because society would benefit from the disclosure. But we now allow patents on things you could never keep secret in the first place."
Try addressing that rather than dismissing his concerns as opportunistic whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Monopolies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Monopolies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a hell of a lot of monopolies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
honest question about patents
but now i find myself on the other side of things. i have come up with something that:
- has not been done before, not QUITE this way
- it is unique enough that it deserves a patent under the current broke system
- it will be worth a lot. A LOT
some extra info:
- it is a physical object, let's say "tactical" in nature, for want of a better word.
- looking for funding, from either a gubment grant or private loan, though i hate to give up ownership for a little now that costs me a LOT later
i TOTALLY agree with the WASTE that software patents are(and i have written software, myself, taht helps feed my family).
but, seriously, how do i do this against, say, Raytheon or haliburton or some company with BILLIONS and lawyers that cost BILLIONS and win? seriously? how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: honest question about patents
Should you need a patent for your product to bring it to market and compete with the raytheon's of the world by all means get one.
It's not hypocritical to use a broken system when you must for its original purpose, as you propose to do, and still see the flaws and weaknesses in the current way the system is applied. It's not like the legal system provides an alternative, after all.
You can remain critical of the patent process as its broadening and abuse continues in the United States, Europe,Canada (my home) and elsewhere while using the system as it was originally designed to be used.
Apply for your patent, chedderslam. And good luck in the marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the patent system itself is broken not that patents, as originally envisaged is a bad thing.
Patents are currently being used as a legal mechanism for stifling competition. What is so different about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: honest question about patents
Some big company will come along, sue you into oblivion for allegedly infringing on the patent for 'tactical buttered cheese' which barely peripherally kinda-sorta maybe applies to your invention, you will not be able to afford your own legal defense.
While they're bankrupting you, they'll completely ruin your reputation via some erroneous media scandal which is rooted on absolutely nothing.
Later they'll offer you a pittance, and you'll take it while begging them to accept your accursed patent.
Later, you'll change your name, emigrate to Sweden, and live out your life as a not-quite-prosperous bar owner in a very small town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: honest question about patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: honest question about patents
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: honest question about patents
1. Use NDAs where appropriate early on.
2. Employ trade secrets as often as necessary during development.
3. Publish the design online (OSHW etc.).
4. Be the first to market and nail the quality and support aspect of the business.
5. Profit!
A published design is not patentable in any country (except in the US by the original designer up to a year after publication, as far as I know). This should prevent other people from patenting you out of your own competitive field. Being the first to market with a good product gives you a much better chance at real innovative success than a patent portfolio would.
Ideas are inherently unprotectable, whether or not they are ownable (which I believe they are not). There are a lot of smart people who can probably figure out exactly how your widget works very quickly and come up with a functionally similar design no matter how you try to protect it. There are vast resources in foreign countries that you can't hope to either control or compete with on scale and availability, so compete on time, quality, support, and branding instead. It might not be easy, but it sure is a lot less headache and psychological stress then trying to use IP laws in any way, shape, or form.
And yes, there is a possibility that someone like Raytheon or Halliburton really can do it better, faster, and cheaper than you can. But if that's true, then what right do you really have to stop them, really? Just because you thought of it first doesn't give you a fundamental right to any percentage of profits made from the idea or its derivatives. (I'm not saying you believe this, but it does seem to be the predominant mode of thinking among people today.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lotta things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They take more than they give.
Canonical got an OS for free. What they do give away they have to give away because that's the terms they received it under.
In truth, they contribute very little of their own effort and even that is of dubious value. Thus the "WTF? Listen to the users for a change" kind of remarks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They take more than they give.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They take more than they give.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They take more than they give.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the moon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many people owned one of those? Wonder why Sony didn't keep the rights so tight on BluRay..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's what I said! And I usually point to James Burke's excellent series Connections for a big pile of examples.
I also think this remark from The Ascent of Man is relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ubuntu, Profitable?
(Full disclosure: I use Linux Mint, a derivative of Ubuntu, and I support the way Ubuntu is trying to make inroads into more mainstream markets.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Full patent quote
"The biggest mistake Microsoft made was to decide that patents would be an effective defence against new competitors, because that stops you from really innovating yourself. So Microsoft wasted most of a decade, thinking they could use patents to defend the castle. Meanwhile, others were innovating for real.
The whole patent system is a sham, unfortunately. Patent authorities cannot realistically do their job; it's an impossible job to do, and the patent system has slowly been twisted to do the exact opposite of its PR. It's not, as many think, a system to defend the little inventor against the big bad corporate. Instead, it's a system to ensure the big bad corporate doesn't get any scary new competition. Patents were invented to encourage inventors to publish their trade secrets, because society would benefit from the disclosure. But we now allow patents on things you could never keep secret in the first place, like software and business methods and medicines. That's insanity. Innovation happens because people solve problems, not because they might get a monopoly on it. The reason this is not being changed is simple: legislation evolves to suit those who can influence legislators. And large patent holders tend to be influential in that regard."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the concept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Shuttleworth is a toxic destroyer
mir - stupid
juju - stinks
openstack from canonical repos - brokenstack, broken beyond belief
Ubuntu LTS - 12.04 has had THREE kernels, 3.2, 3.5, 3.8. And to top it off, not bringing in 3.10, the actually decent one of the bunch.
Mark is a dolt, a destroyer, a fragmenter and a scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]