warren said:

How is this "going nuclear against Linux"?  They're going after a profitable company for not licensing technology that isn't free, and TomTom is refusing to pay.

Bass said:

warren said:

*snip*

Well specifically the FAT32 patents. They are going against a company not just for it's own technology, but for using a technology that is freely available in Linux.

W3bbo said:

Bass said:

*snip*

I reckon the FAT32 one was thrown in for the sake of it, you'll notice there were other patents they were filing against. Microsoft hasn't previously sued over FAT or FAT32 (IIRC) but the commentators on slashdot think that's because it's likely the FAT patents wouldn't stand scrutiny.

Bass said:

W3bbo said:

*snip*

Yeah it looks like the bulk of the patents have to do with GPS, but just throwing the FAT32 patent in there is kind of strange.

Sabot said:

This is sooooooo not Microsoft v Open Source it's laughable ! People are *****desperately***** trying to turn this into this battle but Microsoft are at pains to say it's not.

Microsoft makes money and registers IP's to protect revenue.

TomTom makes money and registers IP's to protect revenue.

So I see this as two companies that disagree on patents and I'm sure there are plenty more companies doing the same thing all over the world from biology, chemistry, engineering to weaponary.

If you have a good idea you would want to be the person that benefits from it. No point in being a brilliant inventor and not being able to feed your family or pay your morgage.

So give some stuff away, don't be greedy, I get that ... but at least have the courtesy to acknowledge rather than take the whole idea as their own .... and sell it! ... which is what happen to my Open Source code, thats why I don't trust Open Source any more. It's for suckers. This is why there is a patent system and when IT matures it will get it why it needs this system too.

Bass said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." -Bill Gates

The issue I have is with software patents. Software patents make it difficult to write software in general, because there is no guarantee what you are writing is violating some other persons patent. And software patents tend to be sufficiently broad it makes writing any kind of software very easily illegal.

The patents most people are concerned about in this case are the FAT32 patents. It's very clear FAT32 wasn't the work of a "brilliant inventor". TomTom isn't using it because it's a great and amazing technology. TomTom is using FAT32 because between it and NTFS (also patented), it's the only filesystems Windows can read.

Fact of the matter is, it's damn near impossible to inter-operate or write software that works on Windows without violating Microsoft's IP. Anytime you interface with the OS you are likely using some kind of "patented" interface to do it.

So if you support this kind of thing, basically you want a world where you have to get permission everytime you write something that runs on Windows or everytime you make a device that Windows can detect and use. That could give Microsoft significant control of the entire hardware and software industry, and they can do stuff like prohibit competitive products from ever working with Windows. I don't want this personally.

Why is software so hard to patent?

Similar fights over patents where faced with photography and music in times past and some are still going on today. However with code it's abit more scientific to prove unlike a picture or a sound. If you don't wish to patent your code crack on, no problem, but respect the people that have chosen too to protect their revenue.  

Jamie, I don't think we can rely on the fact the Google software will stay free, the T&C point to a future where we are gonna pay and as advertising is the first thing that gets cut in a downturn Google potientially isn't going to have so much cash.

Sabot said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Why is software so hard to patent?

Similar fights over patents where faced with photography and music in times past and some are still going on today. However with code it's abit more scientific to prove unlike a picture or a sound. If you don't wish to patent your code crack on, no problem, but respect the people that have chosen too to protect their revenue.  

Jamie, I don't think we can rely on the fact the Google software will stay free, the T&C point to a future where we are gonna pay and as advertising is the first thing that gets cut in a downturn Google potientially isn't going to have so much cash.

Bass said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

Software should be under by copyright, not patents. Usually you can put something under one or the other. For example, you can't copyright an idea, only patent it.

Patents are bad for software because they make the act of writing software illegal. Yes, WRITING software can be illegal. From scratch. Not copying software. Simply writing it. Like you just made a simple application? Good luck "making money". Did you get a lawyer to do a patent search for you? No? You probably just broke the law. Yes, with software patents the only real way to stay legal is to have a lawyer look over your code every release, and do an extensive (and very costly) patent search. Wow! That sounds really efficient. Do you already do this with your software? No? How do you know YOU aren't violating patents?

That's what Bill Gates ment when he spoke against software patents. If software patents are allowed to continue without restriction, it's quite likely writing any kind of software will very hard to be legal. People have put out patents on stuff like specific HTML tags or something as simple as the generic string datatype. If you use strings in an software application and there is a patent for that, you could be sued! You might lose the ability to sell your software? Is that really fair?

And really you protect your revenue by having a better product, not relying on the government to make sure you'll never have any competition. That's actually the purpose of both copyright and patents. To increase innovation, to promote science and the arts. It's not there their to protect business models and crush competition. And NOT suppose to hinder innovation (which is what software patents tend to do).

Yggdrasil said:

Bass said:

*snip*

For your first claim, I'll argue that in most places, including the US and UK, patent infringement is a civil case, not a criminal case. I feel the cry of "Wrote software? It's illegal!" is a bit alarmist and sensationalistic.

As for your last paragraph - I agree that software patents as used today are a legalistic exercise in money-grabbing and fearmongering that do not serve their original purpose. But you have to remember that they do have an original purpose - allowing inventors to benefit from their invention. If they didn't exist, any product I released could be reverse-engineered within hours and competition thrive without having to spend the R&D time I did. Not only that, but big companies could spend that R&D budget on marketing and overtake my business by a mile. 

I'm not trying to defend the current practices, but just to avoid the kneejerk "All patents are evil!" reaction. The "you'll succeed if you just have a good enough product" line works only in Horatio Alger stories, not in the marketplace where PR can make or break a product.

Bass said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

I agree with what you said but I want to make it clear that I am talking about software patents. I don't have problems with patents in general, as long is they follow the original guidelines (ie, they must be detailed and well written enough so that some one competent in the subject can understand and reproduce the invention in question). Software is already established under copyright.

It's not alarmist at all by the way. I hope you realize that Microsoft themselves loses billions of dollars from what amounts to frivolous patent lawsuits. At one point they had to cripple IE for one of the patents. A patent if broad enough (and there is no legal limit to what is considered "broad", only "obvious") it a lawsuit could be enough to ban the sales of Windows or any software, until it no longer violates the patent. Plus billions of dollars in fines can be issued. This is not being alarmist at all, this is being realistic. All I am saying is how it is. I am not a moralist or an idealist. This is stuff that could directly affect me and probably anyone else who works with software.

Bass said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

I agree with what you said but I want to make it clear that I am talking about software patents. I don't have problems with patents in general, as long is they follow the original guidelines (ie, they must be detailed and well written enough so that some one competent in the subject can understand and reproduce the invention in question). Software is already established under copyright.

It's not alarmist at all by the way. I hope you realize that Microsoft themselves loses billions of dollars from what amounts to frivolous patent lawsuits. At one point they had to cripple IE for one of the patents. A patent if broad enough (and there is no legal limit to what is considered "broad", only "obvious") it a lawsuit could be enough to ban the sales of Windows or any software, until it no longer violates the patent. Plus billions of dollars in fines can be issued. This is not being alarmist at all, this is being realistic. All I am saying is how it is. I am not a moralist or an idealist. This is stuff that could directly affect me and probably anyone else who works with software.

Sabot said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Ok, if you write a bit of code differently from Microsoft and come up with a result that is the same that's not patent infringement, Microsoft have a department to work with companies that are in this situation, they have coughed up millions (if not billions by now) of dollars to companies where they weren't the first to patent.

Some people out there have made allot of money out of Microsoft, I actually do know one guy that has retired because he 'sold his company' to Microsoft so they could have his code (he had to register a company first for Microsoft to buy)

If you want to use a piece of code that Microsoft has already patented but can't afford it, again, they are happy to cut a deal. In one case I read that Microsoft could clearly see the advantage to them of a good interoperability story, they let the fee slide.

However, FAT32, you can't argue that you wrote a bit of code and it came out exactly the same as FAT32. Gee-whizz! How did that happen?!

Then if the owner of that patent finds out and gives the person an opportunity to sort it out and tries to get in contact but gets stone-walled ... and this goes on for a YEAR ... this is clearly taking the mick! What recourse do you have over than to go legal?

TomTom aren't a small company, they clearly sell stuff for profit, they charge £30 for a data-file that tells you where the 'safety-camera's' are, however this file is offered free by almost everyone else, infact the Transport Agency recommends that this informatinon is 'easily accessible' ... but still TomTom charge.

So looking at the facts here I would advise that the Open Source posse would be better advised to pick on a story that better serves their cause!

I have nothing against Open Source ... I have even written years worth of code back in the days when I was a true believer ... just now I believe it has a place ... not the place.

Sabot said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Ok, if you write a bit of code differently from Microsoft and come up with a result that is the same that's not patent infringement, Microsoft have a department to work with companies that are in this situation, they have coughed up millions (if not billions by now) of dollars to companies where they weren't the first to patent.

Some people out there have made allot of money out of Microsoft, I actually do know one guy that has retired because he 'sold his company' to Microsoft so they could have his code (he had to register a company first for Microsoft to buy)

If you want to use a piece of code that Microsoft has already patented but can't afford it, again, they are happy to cut a deal. In one case I read that Microsoft could clearly see the advantage to them of a good interoperability story, they let the fee slide.

However, FAT32, you can't argue that you wrote a bit of code and it came out exactly the same as FAT32. Gee-whizz! How did that happen?!

Then if the owner of that patent finds out and gives the person an opportunity to sort it out and tries to get in contact but gets stone-walled ... and this goes on for a YEAR ... this is clearly taking the mick! What recourse do you have over than to go legal?

TomTom aren't a small company, they clearly sell stuff for profit, they charge £30 for a data-file that tells you where the 'safety-camera's' are, however this file is offered free by almost everyone else, infact the Transport Agency recommends that this informatinon is 'easily accessible' ... but still TomTom charge.

So looking at the facts here I would advise that the Open Source posse would be better advised to pick on a story that better serves their cause!

I have nothing against Open Source ... I have even written years worth of code back in the days when I was a true believer ... just now I believe it has a place ... not the place.

Bass said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

Well whatever, this is the first time I have ever met people who support software patents. I'm sticking with the Bill Gates opinion on the matter.

Sabot said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Bass it is a little disrespectful just giving us the 'whatever' because we don't agree with you.

The Open Source community has been very vocal in recent years, it doesn't mean however they are the majority. Please understand that software developers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, motivations, backgrounds, challenges ... and preferences. This means that one size cannot fit all. 

There is enough room for Open and Closed source communities, we just have to work out a way that we can both get on with each other and benefit from each other to make the whole the development world easier because companies that make money from code aren't going away anytime soon and nor are companies that are happy to give it away but make their money another way ... and companies that do both.

Just like we aim for interoperability between platforms, we should also aim to being interoperable in our communities. As basically, in these financially strap days we shouldn't decry anyone that wishes to make a buck as long as it's legal, decent and honest ... and fair.

k2t0f12d said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

I don't think Bass needs to attach a complete list of egregious hostilities perpetrated through patents to be able to credibly whatever you.  Opposition to software patents is not unique to open source communities.  Patents are not "just another way of doing it."  If that were the case they would be used to cover a single implementation of an idea, like copyright does, without disturbing the guy down the road doing his own thing.

You can't put the "live and let live" spin on sth that itself does not live and let live.

Sabot said:

k2t0f12d said:

*snip*

Yes, who I'm I kidding! It's my Bob Dillon side coming out. (Love Bob by the way ... and Metalica!)
 
Applications using both Open and Closed source are being written together everyday from the simple Open Source media player using the DirectX interface, to the Closed source Lotus Symphony built on Open Source Open Office (yes Lotus is 'free', but you have to pay for a support CAL, starting at 2000 heads meaning you need to have an ESSO agreement first, E meaning Enterprise, meaning lots of money to begin with before the 'free' sweetie, ooh they can see us coming)

These are just two examples out of a million more.
 
The real truth is let’s forget about being nice to each other, or not, frankly I couldn’t care less because it's all academic now because only a few of us actually give a stuff. 

Software Copyrights are an exercise in futility, just like the GPL.

k2t0f12d said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

So are you saying that software patents actually force mixed source projects where unique and separate implementation could have otherwise been created because one developer had been given statutory power to put Damocles' sword over any other person's work?

AndyC said:

k2t0f12d said:

*snip*

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with software patents, per se, the problem lies in the fact that the whole patent system has been abused to a ridiculous level with no signs of improving. Software patents just expose this because they've been granted on even more tenuous grounds than anywhere else (see the IsNot patent for proof).

The patent system, particularly in the US, needs a complete overhaul to cleanse itself of stupid or incredibly vague patents. Only then can it do what it was originally supposed to do, protect genuinely new inventions and encourage innovation in the market.

Sabot said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Bass it is a little disrespectful just giving us the 'whatever' because we don't agree with you.

The Open Source community has been very vocal in recent years, it doesn't mean however they are the majority. Please understand that software developers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, motivations, backgrounds, challenges ... and preferences. This means that one size cannot fit all. 

There is enough room for Open and Closed source communities, we just have to work out a way that we can both get on with each other and benefit from each other to make the whole the development world easier because companies that make money from code aren't going away anytime soon and nor are companies that are happy to give it away but make their money another way ... and companies that do both.

Just like we aim for interoperability between platforms, we should also aim to being interoperable in our communities. As basically, in these financially strap days we shouldn't decry anyone that wishes to make a buck as long as it's legal, decent and honest ... and fair.

Sabot said:

Hello Mr Software

How are you today?

I'm just fine and dandy Mr

So can you tell me whether you are Open, Closed or a mixture of Both?

Doh, well I don't rightly know Mr ! The developer just put me together from bit's he found laying around from the OS to the big ol' Internet. He just wanted to solve his immediate problem anyway he could.

What about legal boundaries?

Well the developer didn't know about any of that the code, component, class, Cloud service, java-script <insert variant here>  was there so was used. It's not like the I'm going to be sold, like most pieces of software I won't see the light of day much out-side of this company.

So are you safe?

Well the testing guys tested me real good using STRIDE models, load testing and white/black box etc and if they found a problem well the developer just custed allot and went and fixed it, then broke somewhere else which the testers may find.

So do you think it would have helped if lot so developers look at your code?

Well yeah sure but it's not what I look like on the inside it's whether I meet requirement and the customers think I work is what it's really all about.

So in the future are there going to be so many people writting code like you?

Most code these days isn't really that much more re-usable and even if it was it has a short life span till the runtime is out of support or versions behind and stuff isn't really forward or backward compatible. This all means little because the industry hasn't got it's head around SOA which is the only real proven practice that will give sustained re-use and business agility, which is what it's all really about.

So until the house is in order, no chance of anyone losing their jobs unless the company gets fed up with waiting for code and loses confidence that developers will actually deliver anything other than moaning and out-source out of frustration, may as well save some costs somewhere if it's going to be the same-old-same-old as well let someone else take the responsibility and get the kicking.

Yggdrasil said:

Bass said:

*snip*

I don't see how software patents differe from other patents here? Sure, they have their own complexity, but the essence - protecting innovators and allowing them to profit from their inventions - is the same. If anything, the ease of reverse-engineering and copying is much greater with software, since a company wanting to steal a product and rerelease it doesn't even need manufacturing facilities like a hardware patent does. This isn't a matter of relying on government intervention instead of making a better product, but a case where the market forces are skewed in favor of the late-comer and the plagiarist.

Not everything is rosey for Microsoft though, their GNU/Linux wooden horse PC/OS has dropped in the distrowatch rankings. Microsofts stock price just keeps faling and falling.  What do Starbucks and Microsoft in common?  They wont be around this time next year.  The Linux community will rise from the ashes like a phoenix and will make Microsoft obsolete.

k2t0f12d said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

You shouldn't drink and drug while watching Jurassic Park

Sabot said:

k2t0f12d said:

*snip*

k2t0f12d - I can do less subtle?

Yggdrasil - I would just like to make two points,

• Essentially Developers aren't really interest if it's not code related, subjects of law and money do not interest them and are uncomfortable when exposed to subjects outside their remit. Why? Because code has it's own natural laws and these are the only ones that are logically relivant.

• The concept of Intellectual Property is somewhat alien to developers, how can you patent an idea? Well you can if you can prove you had it first. The famous line is "the labours of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears". This is actually difficult to apply to code because code it's not tangible and becomes better after review and revision.
  

These two points are the very essense of the Open Source movement and developers are not the only ones that suffer at the hands of the Intellectual Property Patent debate, Mathmeticians have the exact same problem. Can you imagine if Einstein patented E=mc2?

The point I want to make is - most of the software industry is oblivious to patenting software, however this is not true in the commercial sector because code is exposed to a wider more knowledgeable audience.

As most developers are oblivious they actually don't care whether source is 'Open' or 'Closed'.

They only care when something has made their life harder, like raising a justifcation case for a software purchase ... up until then code came from PlanetSourceCode. Suddenly when something is illogical it's a ball-ache and must be stopped.

************************************************

corona_coder  - 

Microsoft's Bill Gates was quoted many time saying the 'right thing' i.e. 'legal' thing, 'keep share-holder happy' thing, 'look I have an opinion' thing, 'Geez I'm a thought leader' thing. When he didn't work out whether it was the 'Smart Thing' to say.

Just like Sir Freddy Goodwin,  Bill became the focus of attention for what is generally a bad situation. He became a focal point to direct the hate at. At last there is an enemy! ... and a good story isn't a good story without a bunch of heros and villans.

The simple fact is that other companies like IBM & Oracle who are arguably just as big realised that Bill had shot himself, and his company, in the foot ... and stoked the fire to get some more market share using the Open Source movement and Linux as patsies. Up until then Oracle and IBM did not have any core products as Open Source ... and you can argue that this is still the case.

Forward-wind to present day and Microsoft is making friends in Open Source and the Linux communities, striking deals and giving money away as well as code. Not repairing the damage but not so much the bad guy after all.

So what I don't get is ... why don't you fire your guns at Oracle or IBM????? ... because their stuff runs on Linux? Oracle's main OS is Oracle Enterprise Linux and Windows, so not bad .... but IBM's main OS is still AIX or zOS !!! Stuff is ported to Linux!

I think that Microsoft is upfront about where it stands. I'm not sure the same can be said elsewhere.

The point I want to make is - life is more complex than heros and villians.

**********************************************

Anyway, here endith the lesson from old man Sabot. This thread has turned into topics best discussed over beer, so when your next in the London, UK, ping me and you can come out with my Open and Closed source loving friends and enjoy the debate over Kingfisher and Curry. So I'm done with this thread.

Bass said:

Sabot said:

*snip*

I don't know why you keep making this to an open source versus close source thing. Bill Gates, the founder of the BIGGEST proprietary software company in the world has spoken out against software patents. Do you really think Bill Gates is an open source fan?

Software patents hurt software. It hurts closed source software. It hurts open source software. It might even hurt closed source software more then open source, if you look at history and by the companies most hurt by software patents. So stop bringing your ideology about open source into it. It has nothing to do with the issue. Software patents make all forms of software riskier to write. And if you make software development a legally challenging practice, less software will get written. Less software means less jobs and our industry will suffer in the end.