| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Open-source honchos trash software patents | |
|
||
| Time: 08:07 EST/13:07 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Two open-source leaders joined Linux founder Linus Torvalds in disparaging software patents Tuesday, the newest volley in a battle that pits the cooperative programming philosophy against Microsoft. "Are software patents useful? That's pretty clearly not the case. Software patents are clearly a problem," Torvalds said at the OSDL Linux Summit here. Torvalds wasn't alone in his opinion. He was joined in a panel discussion by Brian Behlendorf, a co-founder of the Apache Web server software, and Mitch Kapor, chairman of the Mozilla foundation and the Open Source Applications Foundation. Behlendorf said the way to rebut the argument that software patents provide an incentive for innovation and research investment is to imagine the world without them. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:22:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 2/2/2005 10:41:11 AM |
| Little known fact: Most burglars believe home alarms should be made illegal. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/2/2005 11:54:02 AM |
|
I wonder if these guys realize that IBM is using them. Ask them to give up their hardware patents, too... see how far that goes.
How much innovation would disappear? How much investment in that innovation would disappear? I don't think any would disappear. Then show us the innovation that OSS has contributed already. So far, it's mostly just copying existing ideas. I also don't know if some of the theoretical advantages of OSS hold up in reality. The many-eyes advantage has been widely discussed as more of an ideal than real, since it's the least glamorous work. But I also wonder about the concept that you can draw on a larger base of programming talent--from what I've seen, most of these projects only have a handful of dedicated programmers. And I don't doubt that you don't need trained and certified project managers to keep things on task and well-organized, but I also wonder how well some of these projects are run. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 2/2/2005 1:09:08 PM |
|
Man, I'm glad I come here every day for my dose of humour.
#2: technical innovation is probably the LAST way that MS would beat anybody in anything. MS is usually late to the party and likes to lift its ideas from other companies. When they get caught, out comes the chequebook. #3: big difference between patenting an actual invention, and patenting a vague idea (ie software patents). #4: every day you top yourself. "Encumbered by the GPL"??? Yes, it's a heavy burden to have more rights with the GPL than any other software license on the planet. But I expect no less from you. If the OSDL came out with a statement saying "Noses are good.". you'd cut yours off out of spite, I'm sure. |
| #4 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/2/2005 2:17:28 PM |
|
Latch do us all a favor and ignore the obvious troll otherwise he won't go away. Even if he doesent acknowledge that OpenBSD 3.x has about 1.5 years headstart on Windows Server 2003 nor that the number of issues isn't an accurate way to measure how secure an OS is. This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 at 14:24. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 2/2/2005 3:08:37 PM |
|
#8: I'd love to meet LinuxIsTheft in person just to see if he's really Laura DiDio, Rob Enderle, Darl McBride and Bill Gates all rolled up into one. I wouldn't put it past MS to hire a whole crew of fanboys to go to all these MS/IT News sites spouting this hilarious, unbelievable nonsense. I get a huge laugh out of this site, as well as Paul Thurrot's WinInformant (starring written, directed & produced by Paul Thurrot for Paul Thurrot Productions, a division of Paul Thurrot Enterprises.. etc etc Paul Thurrot Paul Thurrot). They have the same kind of deluded fanboys there too. The same old, same old:
1. Microsoft is wonderful 2. Microsoft should be allowed to do whatever it wants 3. Microsoft never makes any mistakes 4. Anyone who criticizes Microsft is a communist |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/2/2005 3:28:00 PM |
|
BSD TCP/IP stack? If you're arguing that as OSS innovation, that will be a fun argument. It was essentially purchased at taxpayer expense... an evolution of a DARPA project--an implementation of a specification, which itself was an evolution of networking protocols. It's not as if an OSS group spearheaded and saw this need and saw it through to implementation. Helpful? Of course. But it's also true that the internet could have been built upon other--and arguably better--protocols.
Jails? Another kind of virtualization, which IBM has been doing for ages. We probably should differentiate between invention and innovation. And, I never said that OSS would produce ZERO innovation. But pretty much any way you slice it, OSS simply has not produced innovation like the world of commercial software has. Picking the examples of TCP/IP and jails to show that OSS is more successful at innovating actually makes a better case for the opposite. #6, you cannot patent an idea. You can only patent an implementation. If a patent needs to be thrown out, we have a court system. But throwing them out wholesale is a big mistake. |
| #7 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 2/2/2005 4:36:04 PM |
|
What's news about a group of avowed socialists calling for the end of property rights? - boring.
Move along now, nothing to see here folks. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 2/2/2005 5:04:55 PM |
|
#11: Wow, only 1% for 4 straight years? Then all those press reports all over the fricken place about Linux growth must all be totally inaccurate. Oh wait, they must be all lies since MS or SCO didn't write them.
#12: that doesn't seem to be the case. Most of the software patents I've looked at are bogus stuff like "Method of moving data from hither to yon", and there isn't any backing code to show you the implementation being patented, just the vague idea. NOw, IANAL, but it doesn't seem to be as you say. |
| #9 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/2/2005 5:06:03 PM |
|
"Picking the examples of TCP/IP and jails to show that OSS is more successful at innovating..."
Did he pick it as an example to show that OSS is more successful at innovating, or did he pick it as a defense against someone who basically claimed that Open Source has not contributed any innovation. Whether or not taxpayers paid for the innovation that implemented a specification really makes no difference either. It doesn't make it any less open source. |
| #10 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/2/2005 5:08:37 PM |
|
" What's news about a group of avowed socialists calling for the end of property rights? - boring."
I dont see anyone calling for the end of property rights. I only see some of you people blurt nonsense. None of you who are FOR software patents have ever owned a small software shop. Proprietary or not. Otherwise you'd probably understand whey they can be bad. But thats the whole idea with you guys.. blurting around nonsense that you really dont understand in the first place with generalizations and quotes from some wannabe journalists/analysts. |
| #11 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/2/2005 5:42:49 PM |
|
#14, if the patent needs to be overturned, we have courts (and the patent office itself) for that. The premise stands--not an idea, but an implementation. For example, Microsoft patented the "double-click" for its PocketPC software and got a lot of grief. Now, whether or not that patent should be allowed is a totally valid question. Nonetheless, the idea--different ways of holding down a hardware button to launch programs and other functions on "a limited resource computing device"--is not what was patented, but the actual implementation, which is the "double-click." For example, you could have a button that responded differently based on the pressure exerted and patent that implementation. But you can't patent the idea itself.
#15, re: "someone who basically claimed that Open Source has not contributed any innovation." No, I never claimed the never contributed anything. But the disparity between the innovation created through commercial software and OSS is vast and readily apparent. As for the taxpayer argument, yes, you're right that it doesn't matter in and of itself that taxes paid for it. But DARPA supported the BSD project and created the specification for TCP/IP. It's not as if the BSD folks came up with the idea of networking the world on their own. Essentially, if TCP/IP is a perfect example of OSS innovation, then in an "OSS ideal world," we would wait for the government (defense department, etc.) to direct software innovation. No thanks! |
| #12 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 2/2/2005 11:37:52 PM |
|
bluvg - But it's also true that the internet could have been built upon other--and arguably better--protocols.
Yes, you could certainly argue that. But if this were true then we wouldn't be able to read your argument, because had the nation relied upon the Private industry to create the Internet, we'd still be a few decades away from realizing it's potential. i.e. this web site wouldn't exist for you to express yourself on. You're falling into a trap. The problem is not Open-Source. The problem is the GPL. The problem that the Open Source proponents have is that all the good examples of open source innovation are licensed under the BSD model. Why? Because that license has the greatest freedom and allows for further innovation and experimentation both in the private and commercial sectors. Which is why it works, and the GPL does not. This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 at 23:45. |
| #13 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 2/2/2005 11:44:47 PM |
|
csmac3144 - The jury is still out, but OSS has a distinct odor of stealth-socialism which I for one do not like.
Similarly for you. OSS does not have an odor of communism... The GPL does. If the people who brought us North Korea and Cuba think this is a great idea well... And state support of corporations is what brought us the Nazi Reich. That does not mean all government action in support of corporations is bad, and neither does it mean all government action intended to reduce the negative impact of capitalism is bad. Regardless, none of these arguments address the issue of software patents. Yes, fundamentally the GPL proponents have a problem in that they are unable to use patents, but they have this problem because of choices that they made. It is like Amish complaining about automobiles because they refuse to drive anything without a horse at the front. However, stepping back... there is a real question of what value patents offer in the world of software. Do they really encourage progress, or do they hamper it? You don't address that. Frankly I'm troubled by patents going to relatively simple concepts, or even to physical concepts reproduced in a software world like online auctions. Why are such obvious concepts given protection? This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 at 23:46. |
| #14 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 2/2/2005 11:55:21 PM |
|
Halcyon - The Linux "everything is a file" method allows innovations such as the chaining of applications together to provide the desired functionality, such as K3B, or MythTV.
Umm... you're talking about stuff that's 30-40 years old. It was innovative in it's day. But why do you think it hasn't been surpassed by "everything is an object"? |
| #15 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 2/2/2005 11:56:17 PM |
| i can't believe i agree with almost everything sodablue just said |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/3/2005 12:23:27 PM |
|
Halcyon - Including the freedom to extend + close it
close what? The only thing the BSD allows you to do is close off your modifications. The base source that you started with is still freely available for life. But it's this particular feature that makes the BSD license appealing. Say you have written an application that does video rendering, and you want the ability to write it out to a DVD. Someone has written the DVD encoding routine under the BSD license... You can include that in your program without rereleasing the whole thing as source and giving away your rendering secrets. Of course, you could do this with the GPL as well. You take the DVD encoding routine and keep it as a seperate application, or an self-contained object. Then you simply expose it into your rendering app by way of an interface. The functionality is comingled, but the code is not. I don't see why you are so resistant to the BSD license. What purpose does your stubborness serve? |
| #17 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 2/3/2005 2:14:56 PM |
|
"But it's this particular feature that makes the BSD license appealing."
If this license is so appealing, why don't more people use it to license their code under? |
| #18 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/3/2005 3:28:44 PM |
|
tgnb - Umm, most successful open source projects are released under a BSD style license... i.e. one which isn't viral.
Halcyon - "What makes the GPL appealing is that the OSS component will remain so for life" The same is true of the BSD license. The only thing the GPL does is impose a demand on future generations that their work must also be given away for free. I don't understand why you so despise the idea of open source. |
| #19 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/4/2005 11:36:03 AM |
|
(sorry about the delay on posting this... too busy!)
sodablue--you make some excellent arguments, and I largely agree with them. I should have been more careful in my arguments. However, I think what I was getting at with the BSD TCP/IP example specifically was not so much the license but that it was essentially a government project, and that skews the interpretation a bit of what we mean by "innovation" and what is driving it. There are definitely innovations that are probably best done in this realm, and TCP/IP is a good example. It's sort of the classic argument of government utilities--things that the government does because private industry is not well-suited to or not interested in the task. At the same time, I can't say that it necessarily follows that private industry would not have arrived at a similar conclusion left to themselves. After all, even while TCP/IP was around, we had IPX/SPX, Netbeui, AppleTalk, etc., and it's conceivable that as networking needs and purposes grew, we could have standardized on something else (as with several other standards that were privately contributed). Obviously at some point, though, it would have required someone to have given their protocol to the industry for this purpose, royalty-free. Since it would be advantageous for them to do so, hopefully they would arrive at that conclusion... but there's the rub, I suppose. But how much software is really like that? Along with the fundamental question of IP rights, I think another fundamental question--perhaps the crux of this entire discussion--is what drives people to write software. Commercial software has a tremendous incentive to improve and innovate, and we all benefit from that... and some software concepts really are much more appropriate to this realm. Doing away with software patents wholesale removes that incentive, which removes those companies, which removes that innovation... which, essentially, removes that software. |
| #20 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/4/2005 7:15:28 PM |
|
Actually the presence of open standards is what drives the industry
Open standards aren't really the question here, though. the PC industry exploded when the PC became cheap enough to be afforded by everyone There's a bit of reasoning that doesn't quite work here. It's a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg scenario--the PC manufacturers had to be able to OFFER those PCs at those price levels BEFORE anyone could buy them. Now, what incentive is there for those manufacturers to offer them? Because they could make money doing it. When there is an explosion of manufacturers on something that is an open standard of sorts, how do you separate yourself from the rest? Other than by price, they do it by offering something at least a little different than your competition. In other words, innovation. What incentive is there to innovate when your competitor can quickly adopt the very same technology that you (if you were the manufacturer) spent a great deal of resources on to introduce? None... none without IP protection (patents), that is. Yes, this may in some ways temporarily hamper progress... but if the progress wouldn't even START in the first place without it, then it's a necessity. You have to show the innovator FIRST that there are protections in place for them so that they will see some benefit from their innovation--which, particularly these days, often requires a great deal of investment--or else they just aren't going to do it. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:22:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
