Yes, Patents Are A Restriction On Freedom
from the does-that-apply-to-all-such-monopolies? dept
Tim Lee points us to an interesting blog post from a patent lawyer who tries to parse out why software patents feel so offensive to some. The lawyer, Steve Lundberg, who tends to be a software patent supporter (and whose blog posts I've strongly disagreed with in the past) does make some interesting points. Lee highlights the following:There is one more factor that makes software very unique — because a single person can successfully develop and distribute software applications, the experience with the system is highly personalized for a large number of developers. Software patents, in a sense, and almost unlike all other technology areas, restrict what feels like our treasured personal freedom, and understandably thus generate a visceral reaction to those so affected. In almost all other mainstream industries, inventors do not act as manufacturers, but are employed by them. This decouples and depersonalizes infringement concerns from the inventor/developer. In actual practice, it is extremely rare that a small developer would ever be sued for infringement by any entity other than a direct competitor. In this instance, the developer would be able to quite easily see it coming, but there is a possibility that they could be sued and not see it coming. So, I can understand why smaller developers would feel personally threatened by software patents. And even software developers in large companies often still fancy themselves as independent souls who, in their dreams, find fame and fortune founding a start-up and striking it rich. So, they too, often can take umbrage as much as an independent developer.Lee responds to this paragraph by almost totally agreeing with a couple of important caveats. First, he notes that Lundberg greatly underestimates how many small and indie developers are hit by patent lawsuits these days. Actually, I'd say even that massively underestimates the problem, because it doesn't take into account all of those who are never sued, but who are hit with threats that can be tremendously damaging to small companies. Lee's other point is also important:
the part about patents restricting “what feels like” freedom. There’s no “feels like” about it. Patents are a restriction on the treasured personal freedom of programmers, which is why so many of us are upset about them.I think that's true, but again, I'd take it even further. I'm not sure I agree with Lundberg's assertion that this is somehow unique to software developers. I think it's absolutely true that we see more software developers than other patent-intensive fields, and thus we see more such activity, but any use of patents (or copyrights for that matter) are restrictions on the freedom of others by definition. Patents and copyrights are rights to exclude. That's their fundamental property. They are a government granted tool with which the holder can restrict the freedoms of others. There is a calculus involved, over whether or not that restriction on freedom is worth it in the long run. Does it incentivize more inventiveness? Does the benefit outweigh the restriction? That's what we're supposed to be determining.
The problem isn't just that indie developers feel super independent and blindsided by patent disputes, but, rather that they don't see the patents helping in any way, and thus the restriction on freedom is way too costly. A big part of the problem, of course, is that thanks (in large part) to regulatory capture, those who benefit most from patents (and copyrights) have done their best to tilt the law over time such that those key questions are never asked. They've created a world in which we are told to first assume that of course such restrictions create more incentives for invention and that of course the benefits outweigh the restrictions. People are yelled at for even suggesting otherwise, and it's rare to find a serious discussion on those topics. Instead, maybe questions are allowed at the margins about a specific part of the law that is seen as going too far. But the larger questions are never asked.
But for the people who live these things day in and day out, they know intuitively that the restrictions on their own freedoms are much much more problematic than any benefits given from patent law. And that is why they're upset. It's not just that the development and the infringement concerns are linked, but that the overall restrictions on freedom are just not seen to be worth it.
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: copyright, freedom, patents, restrictions, software patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So he decided he'd do some random research. What would he need to worry about? Resources: do I have the material and/or financial resources to proceed with this research? If it was something abstract like mathematics it was even better, only some papyrus (!!) and ink were required. Actually with some clever substitutions none of those were actually required.
What would this Euclid Newton Descartes need today? Resources, pretty much the same. Lawyers: to check if he isn't infringing any patents. More lawyers: to check if he isn't infringing in copyrighted round corners (intentional mix). Luck: so no big company feels threatened by his/her invention and end up "making up" some lawsuit to ruin this inventor financially (lawyers again if u think about it). And I'm not even mentioning collaborative invention.
Though Dark Ages I tell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking existing code, adding features, and generally improving it is the basis of software development. Software patents are very much against that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh no duh, genius
ALL PROPERTY is a limitation on freedom. Letting you claim that you own that car severely limits my ability to just jump in and drive. Not only that, but granting you ownership of a fancy car really hurts the feelings of the poor people who can't afford one. Not only is it limiting their freedom to move about the country but it's hurting their self-esteem too.
Sheesh. If you don't like the patent system or the idea of property in general, why don't you move to Somalia where the government is generally too weak to enforce any property laws. I'm sure that there's a huge, burgeoning tech community inventing amazing drugs and Internet thingees without the cruel hand of the legal system crushing their innovation. And each night, there are incredibly cool parties with music from mind-blowing bands that aren't being held back from doing amazing things with remixes by the antiquated copyright law. I hear the place is amazing. Go check it out because there's a TON of AWESOME FREEDOM just waiting for you there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no duh, genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
Patents are the same. Just because I "own" a method for creating some gizmo doesn't stop you from building a different gizmo or even building a better one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
Rounded corners, bob.
Rounded corners.
If you don't get it, ask Apple about their dispute with Samsung over the Smartphone patents...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
Time and time again companies have shown that they can and in fact stop others from building things even if different.
Heck people don't even bother today to show a working prototype, they just patent everything an try to collect from anybody who can possibly come close to the things described in their "method".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The painfully obvious
That's EXACTLY what it means.
You can slap together something that's trivial to implement and claim ownership of that in a way that prevents ME from doing likewise.
It doesn't matter that I've never seen your "invention". It doesn't matter if your "documentation" is effectively worthless. It doesn't matter if it's trivial nonsense.
The problems inherent in patents seem a lot worse in computing because the field is so much more democratic. You don't need a lot of resources to create or contribute. All you really need is a cheap desktop PC.
Any amateur can run afoul of software patents. You don't even have to be a Robber Baron wannabe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no duh, genius
if copyright and patents are *so* good for things...
Why do people run to Canada to get their drugs cheaper (drug patents here in the U.S.)?
Why is it that if I want to play some of the funnest games of all, Super Robot Wars, I have to import them from Japan (copyright and licensing laws)?
Quick, bob, show me where I can legally purchase Familiar of Zero or the novels for the series "The Slayers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
Who knows why the company isn't selling directly in America, but I bet it is because imports suffice and there's not enough demand for the fringe items to bother setting up official US distribution.
And if they're not doing it, that's their choice. Just because you're not distributing the photos you created, doesn't mean I should just be able to blame copyright laws and simply take them. If you created it, then it's YOUR choice whether you distribute them. The same goes for these guys.
Why do you assume that they are required to make you happy?
You're free to buy legit copies from overseas. You're free to import them. You just have to work a bit harder. BFD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
So, people running to Canada to get their drug prescriptions, the same ones they can get in the U.S., but at a much higher cost (in the U.S.) is fringe items, got it.
"And if they're not doing it, that's their choice. Just because you're not distributing the photos you created, doesn't mean I should just be able to blame copyright laws and simply take them. If you created it, then it's YOUR choice whether you distribute them. The same goes for these guys."
Did I SAY that they should be taken?
No, YOU put those words into what I said, bob.
HOWEVER!
Copyright *IS* preventing Super Robot Wars from being brought over to the West outside of people who import.
If you don't think so, try a quick, hmm... Well, since you don't believe in Google, I guess it's impossible for you to find out why.
Hint, the games tend to have well over 20 different series in them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
I know bob, I do know how all works, when some product doesn't show a prospect to the levels of ROI expected all companies run away they also don't want anybody trying because you know somebody may succeed and rip all the benefits, this is why exclusion tools are so important to them.
Companies also evolve, they start small and any profits is good profits then they grow a little and not all profits are good profits, they want more, more and more, up until they become to big to fail and nothing short of gazillions dollars could possible entice them to do anything, while other smaller guys would be happy to do it if they could, but they can't because big companies don't want the small guys succeeding even a little it erodes their profits margins.
Funny how things turn out, in the 80's big companies where all the rage, big companies killed mom & pop's business all over America because they were better at delivering things, today mom & pop's are back with a vengeance but they are excluded from the market because their high ROI is not even in the ballpark expected by some douche-entitled people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no duh, genius
Bang, Bang, Bang
See I can shoot you with my virtual gun all I want and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it!
Here is a little lesson for you,
Types of property include:
real property (the combination of land and any improvements to or on the land),
personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person),
private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities),
public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions)
and
intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.)
Guess what not all laws apply to all types of property. If you want to talk about intellectual property then stop comparing it to personal property they aren't equal, not in life, and certainly not under the law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no duh, genius
Murdering an artificial monopoly is like killing flies nobody cares they are a public nuisance and potential vectors for diseases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no duh, genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
All laws are like this. But saying that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh no duh, genius
And thanks for not attacking me on my use of "you" in my previous post. It is just the way I talk and explain things. I don't normally post with an initial intent of being personal.
Have a great week-end!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no duh, genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no duh, genius
If you don't like Mike exercising his freedom of speech to advocate for the democratic change of laws in a country where such changes are (theoretically) possible, why don't you exercise your own freedom of speech to absurdly suggest that he should move in order to make you happy, though ostensibly because you perceive that his distaste for a bad system of laws relating to patents would be enough for him to want to flee the country.
Oh wait, you already did that... Carry on, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no duh, genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The huge number of software patents has a chilling effect on software development, as no small company can carry out the patents searches to determione the risks if being bullied by a big corporation.
What happens to software compamnies if Microsoft for instance starts to really lose market share, and turns to its patent portfolio to extract license fees. Unless thay identify specific patents, no small company or organisation can determine which ones might be relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time and Resources
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time and Resources
As another software person i agree with this, most are more opaque that APL one liners (written using the language's hieroglyphics). However this is deliberate tactic so that a patent can be squeezed through the patent office, and then its coverage broadened in the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time and Resources
As you develop the prototype, you will likely see a large change from your first patent to your final product. Therefore you either have to have been very unspecific in first patenting or waste money on a new patent on the final product or amend or change the existing patent. In USA it is more or less a requirement that a patent attorney handles these and that is expensive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as I'm concerned, that's the #1 reason to strike down software patents. It's because the USPTO doesn't play by the rules they themselves have stated. The only way I can square their actions in granting patents with their stated rules is if the threshold for obviousness is set at the level of a slighly below-average eight-year-old.
BTW, I say this as a software developer, and as a patentee. My patent is fundamentally a software patent, and I was shocked when it got granted (my employer put it through), because I think, and any skilled programmer I've asked agrees, that it's just bleeding obvious. Anyone worth their salt, faced with that exact problem, would have come up with that exact solution in short order. That should not be patent worthy.
The USPTO needs a serious kick in the shorts to drive its notion of what's obvious out of its rear end and back into its head. And the political backing to stand up to IP law firms that push this drivel and say definitively, "No. Now go away until you *really* invent something."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most software patents don't pass the sniff test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like this...
Process patents should be done away with as well. You should not be able to tell other people that they can't follow these steps to make something. That's like patenting a recipe, which has already been deemed unpatentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's like this...
Process patents are often too broad since they usually dump out of the end of a lawyer before the end-goal of the thing you want patented is reached. That it is granted without demands for specifications will be a travesty in many cases. Patenting software is like patenting processes. You just end up with far too few steps in the process!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's like this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has this guy every actually set foot in anyplace that actually makes anything? This is completely wrong. You don't get sued at all in the begining while you are small, you get sued if you ever manage to amount to anything and people come around with their hands out. They are certainly not your direct competitors who normally be sueing you at that point either, but rather patent trolls.
Either that, or they are the old guard trying to exploit some loophole they found to prevent you from crushing them. They might be your direct competitors when you are sued, but never when you are developing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hotels, coffee shops, bread & breakfast, just about any commercial establishment is being hit by threat of lawsuits for using WiFi and this is happening right now, the patent troll was even musing when they could start threatening users.
That is just one, others sure will fallow since IP law is granting morons exclusive rights, they practically can do anything they like and they are getting away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
- You build new software
- If it's successful, someone sues you for patent junk
- If it's not successful, someone claims your software and uses it to sue others for patent junk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- If you are successful but don't have money they sue you to stop you from making the software. (i.e. open source software)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My proposal, every time sales for any product flatline all protections die with it, since the economic drive ceased why should the monopoly still keep walking around like a zombie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Invention, innovation, creation, progress.... It all works faster and better when patents aren't in the picture/way. It's more than just a theory for us. It's tested and proven and we all know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Patents are to Innovation as Waterfall is to Software Lifecycle Management.
Both are anachronisms of the past, that have been surpassed by something vastly superior, and the only people still wanting to use them are those who dislike change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He missed my objection
It's pretty simple: software patents are generally of such poor quality that it is literally impossible to produce any software of any substance without infringing on one or more of them. Further, it's impossible to know what you're infringing on until you get sued.
I can think of nothing in the software industry that does more harm to innovation than software patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fundamental difference
In a very real (and mathematically provable) way, a software patent is equivalent to a patent on a math. A program that's written in one programming language can be written in any other programming language. This isn't news; Church and Turing proved it in the 1930s. But this means that when somebody takes out a patent on software, they're establishing a monopoly on a specific section of mathematics.
For instance, Lundburg says that software patents aren't fundamentally different than robotics patents; this is simply wrong. Suppose a roboticist invents a new mechanism that can turn a robot arm with greater efficiency and control. If she takes out a patent on this mechanism, everybody else can either license the patent, or invent a better mechanism. If that patent was handled in the same way as a software patent, it would effectively establish a monopoly on any mechanism that turned a robot arm -- not just the specific mechanism the roboticist invented.
Another good metaphor involves gene patents. A gene can code for a specific amino acid; a patentable gene sequence can code for a series of amino acids that assemble into a specific protein. Someone who patents a gene sequence has found a way to code for a protein, but there are many different gene sequences that can code for a specific protein. In this scope, a software patent would be like a patent on an amino acid; the patent would apply to any protein that used that amino acid, and to any gene sequence that coded for those proteins.
Speaking as a programmer, I'm not convinced that software should be patentable at all; it's too different from other forms of invention. I think it would make much more sense to protect software using copyright, which has the whole idea/expression dichotomy. It makes sense to protect the specific expression of a program, but it makes no sense at all to establish a monopoly on the underlying math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ashleyf/archive/2010/09/25/micr ocode-level-hp-35-emulator-in-javascript.aspx?Redirected=true
Want some fun?
How about dumping calculators roms by physically opening them up and copying the bits and then writing a javascript microcontroller?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
restriction on freedom is just the start
But to me, there are very few non-obvious ideas in software.
Oh sure, there are a few brilliant things out there. Public key cryptography, Huffman encoding, things like that. But CEOs, attorneys, and managers don't know the difference between obvious and non-obvious in software, so they try to patent it all.
And while I agree that software patents' restriction on freedom is annoying to me, I'm even more annoyed by the fact that software patents' restriction on freedom is usually for fucking stupid reasons that just don't hold up to reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more dissembling by Masnick
Of course -freedom to steal!
The word on the street is you, Lee, and all the other spin doctors you like to quote are nothing more than paid puppets of the world's largest invention thieves. Their aim is to destroy the patent system so they can rob and destroy their would be competitors. Neither they or you have any scruples.
In Federalist No. 43, James Madison wrote regarding constitutional rights of inventors, "The utility of the clause will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of the individuals."
It's about property rights. Now more than ever small entities need strong property rights including the ability to exclude others from using our inventions without permission. Without them we cannot get funded and commercialize. Without strong property rights China and other low wage foreign nations will keep steam rolling us. Considering we create the lions share of new jobs here at home, America cannot afford to undermine us.
It is not innovation that patents hinder, but the theft of.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
Patents have not been always around. If there was no such thing as patent law or copyright then me basing my work off another is not wrong. I am not physically taking anything. If I wrote a book and you had a dream about it could I call you a theft? Did you steal my imagination? No. What if someone patented the wheel or the plough? How far would inventions have gone long time ago if there was patent law when there was none? If people don't want others to use their ideas why do they use other people's idea? Why do people write in English if they didn't invent it? People shouldn't be so selfish and think just because they have an idea they are entitled to make money off of every use of it. I I build a chair and sell it to you should I be able to sue you if you paint it? Should I charge you everytime a person other than you uses it? How can a nonphysical idea be stolen? How is using an idea of another theft? I don't like patents. What if someone was able to create a life saving medicine ,but in order to do so they had they had to build off of others idea but couldn't invent it because a greedy person used patent law to prevent it and people died.If you a scientist you had to learn science. You read other people's ideas and if you invented something you used your knowledge which you got from other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]