[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy software-patents.html
|
From: |
Therese Godefroy |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy software-patents.html |
|
Date: |
Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:59:48 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Therese Godefroy <th_g> 22/12/12 13:59:47
Modified files:
philosophy : software-patents.html
Log message:
Review (www-discuss 2022-12-08).
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/software-patents.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.53&r2=1.54
Patches:
Index: software-patents.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/software-patents.html,v
retrieving revision 1.53
retrieving revision 1.54
diff -u -b -r1.53 -r1.54
--- software-patents.html 12 Nov 2022 20:53:03 -0000 1.53
+++ software-patents.html 12 Dec 2022 18:59:46 -0000 1.54
@@ -1,16 +1,21 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.97 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Software Patents - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!--
+ul.big-list li { margin-top: 1em; }
+ol.compact li { margin-top: .5em; }
+i.aside { color: #505050; }
+--></style>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/software-patents.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
-<h2>Software patents — Obstacles to software development</h2>
+<h2>Software Patents — Obstacles to Software Development</h2>
<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
@@ -18,13 +23,15 @@
<p>This is the transcription of a talk presented by Richard M. Stallman on
March 25, 2002, at the University of Cambridge
<a href="https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/";>Computer Laboratory</a>,
-organized by the <a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20221028103335/https://www.fipr.org/";>
+organized by the
+<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20221028103335/https://www.fipr.org/";>
Foundation for Information Policy Research</a>.</p>
<p>Transcript (<a
href="https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html";>original
version</a>) and <a
-href="/audio-video/philosophy-recordings.html#rms-200203250">audio
-recording</a> by Nicholas Hill. HTML editing and links by Markus Kuhn.</p>
+href="//audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-cambridgeuni-england2002.ogg">audio
+recording</a> by Nicholas Hill. HTML editing and links by Markus Kuhn
+and GNU webmasters.</p>
</div>
<hr class="thin" />
@@ -39,118 +46,157 @@
</p>
<p>
-It is not about patenting software. That is a very bad way, a
-misleading way to describe it, because it is not a matter of patenting
+It's not about patenting software. That's a very bad way, a
+misleading way to describe it, because it's not a matter of patenting
individual programs. If it were, it would make no difference, it
-would be basically harmless. Instead, it is about patenting ideas.
-Every patent covers some
-idea. <a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150329143651/http://progfree.org/Patents/patents.html";>
+would be basically harmless. Instead, it's about patenting ideas.
+Every patent covers some idea.
+<a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150329143651/http://progfree.org/Patents/patents.html";>
Software patents</a> are patents that cover software ideas, ideas
-which you would use in developing software. That is what makes them a
+that you would use in developing software. That's what makes them a
dangerous obstacle to all software development.
</p>
+
+<div class="toc">
+<h3 class="no-display">Table of contents</h3>
+<ul>
+ <li><a href="#copyright-vs-patent">Differences between copyrights and
+ patents</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#patent-system">The patent system</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#dealing-with-patents">How a developer can deal with patents</a>
+ <ul>
+ <li><a href="#patent-avoiding">Avoiding the patent</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#patent-licensing">Licensing the patent</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#patent-overturning">Overturning the patent in
court</a></li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li><a href="#software-specificity">Specificities of the software
field</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#software-patent-policies">Addressing the problem of software
+ patents in public policies</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#footnotes">Footnotes</a></li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+
+
+<h3 id="copyright-vs-patent">Differences between copyrights and patents</h3>
+
<p>
-You may have heard people using a misleading term
-“<a href="https://www.wipo.org/about-ip/en/";>Intellectual
-Property</a>.” This term, as you can see, is biased. It makes
-an assumption that whatever it is you are talking about, the way to
+You may have heard people use a misleading term
+“<a href="https://www.wipo.org/about-ip/en/";>intellectual
+property</a>.” This term, as you can see, is biased, because it
+makes an assumption: whatever it is you are talking about, the way to
treat it is as a kind of property, which is one among many
-alternatives. This term “Intellectual Property”
+alternatives. This term “intellectual property”
pre-judges the most basic question in whatever area you are dealing
-with. This is not conducive to clear and open minded thinking.
+with. That's not conducive to clear and open minded thinking.
</p>
<p>
-There is an additional problem which has nothing to do with promoting
+But there is an additional problem which has nothing to do with promoting
any one opinion. It gets in the way of understanding even the facts.
The term “intellectual property” is a catch-all. It lumps
-together completely disparate areas of law such as copyrights and
-patents, which are completely different. Every detail is different.
-It also lumps together trademarks which are even more different, and
+together various completely disparate areas of law, such as copyrights and
+patents, which are completely different from copyrights (every detail is
+different), and trademarks, which are even more different, and
various other things more or less commonly encountered. None of them
-has anything in common with any of the others. Their origins
-historically are completely separate.
+has anything in common with any of the others. Their origins,
+historically, are completely separate.
<span class="gnun-split"></span>The laws were designed
-independently. They covered different areas of life and activities.
-The public policy issues they raise are completely unrelated. So, if
-you try to think about them by lumping them together, you are
-guaranteed to come to foolish conclusions. There is literally no
-sensible intelligent opinion you can have about “Intellectual
-Property.” If you want to think clearly, don't lump them
-together. Think about copyrights and then think about patents. Learn
-about copyright law and separately learn about patent law.
+independently. They cover different areas of life and activities, and
+the public policy issues they raise are completely unrelated. So, if
+you try to think about them by lumping them together, you are guaranteed to
+come to foolish conclusions. Whatever they might be, there is literally no
+sensible or intelligent opinion you can have about “intellectual
+property.” So, if you want to think clearly, don't lump them
+together. Think about copyrights, and then think about patents. Learn
+about copyright law, and separately, learn about patent law.
</p>
<p>
To give you some of the biggest differences between copyrights and
-patents: Copyrights cover the details of expression of a work.
-Copyrights don't cover any ideas. Patents only cover ideas and the
-use of ideas. Copyrights happen automatically. Patents are issued by
-a patent office in response to an application.
+patents:
</p>
+<ul class="big-list">
+<li>
<p>
-Patents cost a lot of money. They cost even more paying the lawyers
-to write the application than they cost to actually apply. It takes
-typically some years for the application to get considered, even
-though patent offices do an extremely sloppy job of considering.
+Copyrights cover the details of expression of a work; copyrights
+don't cover any ideas. It's a {legal fault} to consider copyrights as
+covering any idea. But patents <em>only</em> cover ideas and the use of ideas.
</p>
-
+</li>
+<li>
<p>
-Copyrights last tremendously long. In some cases they can last as
-long as 150 years, where patents last 20 years, which is long enough
-that you can outlive them but still quite long by a timescale of a
+Copyrights happen automatically. Patents are issued by
+a patent office in response to an application.
+It costs a lot of money. And it costs even more paying the lawyers
+to write the application than it costs to actually apply. It takes
+typically some years for the application to get considered, even though
+patent offices typically do an extremely sloppy job of considering them.
+</p>
+</li>
+
+<li>
+<p>
+Copyrights last tremendously long. Nowadays, in some cases they can last as
+long as 150 years, whereas patents last for 20 years, which is long enough
+that you can outlive them, but still quite long by a timescale of a
field such as software.
</p>
-
<p>
-Think back about 20 years ago when a PC was a new thing. Imagine
+Think back 20 years ago; the PC was a new thing. Imagine
being constrained to develop software using only the ideas that were
known in 1982.
</p>
+</li>
+<li>
<p>
Copyrights cover copying. If you write a novel that turns out to be
-word-for-word the same with <cite>Gone with the Wind</cite> and you
-can prove you never saw <cite>Gone with the Wind</cite>, that would be
+word-for-word the same as <cite>Gone with the Wind</cite>, but you
+can prove you never saw <cite>Gone with the Wind</cite>, and that you
+wrote it on your own, that would be
a defense to any accusation of copyright infringement.
</p>
-
<p>
-A patent is an absolute monopoly on using an idea. Even if you could
-prove you had the idea on your own, it would be entirely irrelevant if
+But a patent is an absolute monopoly on using an idea. Even if you could
+prove that you had the idea on your own, it would be entirely irrelevant if
the idea is patented by somebody else.
</p>
+</ul>
<p>
-I hope you will forget about copyrights for the rest of this talk
+I hope you will basically just forget about copyrights for the rest of this
talk,
because this talk is about patents and you should never lump together
-copyrights and patents. It is about your understanding of these legal
-issues. It is like what would happen in your understanding of
+copyrights and patents. Your understanding of these legal
+issues would be about like what would happen in your understanding of
practical chemistry if you confused water and ethanol.
</p>
+
+<h3 id="patent-system">The patent system</h3>
+
<p>
When you hear people describe the patent system, they usually describe
-it from the point of view of somebody who is hoping to get a patent-
-what it would be like for you to get a patent. What it would be like
-for you to be walking down the street with a patent in your pocket so
+it from the point of view of somebody who is hoping to get a patent:
+what it would be like for you to get a patent; what it would be like
+for you to be walking down the street with a patent in your pocket, so
that every so often you can pull it out and point it out at somebody
and say “Give Me Your Money!” There is a reason for this
bias, which is that most of the people who will tell you about this
-patent system have a stake in it, so they want you like it.
+patent system have a stake in it, so they want you to like it.
</p>
<p>
-There is another reason—the patent system is a lot like a
+There is another reason: the patent system is a lot like a
lottery because only a tiny fraction of patents actually bring any
benefit to those who hold the patents. In fact,
<cite><a href="https://www.economist.com/leaders/2011/08/20/patent-medicine";>
The Economist</a></cite> once compared it to a time consuming lottery.
If you have seen ads for lotteries, they always invite you to think
about winning. They don't invite you to think about losing, even
-though losing is far more likely. It is the same with ads for the
+though losing is far more likely. It's the same with ads for the
patent system. They always invite you to think about being the one
who wins.
</p>
@@ -163,120 +209,130 @@
</p>
<p>
-So, what is the first thing you are going to do after you have had an
+So, what's the first thing you are going to do after you have had an
idea of what kind of program you are going to write? The first thing
you might want to try to do to deal with the patent system is find out
what patents may cover the program you want to write. This is
impossible. The reason is that some of the patent applications that
are pending are secret. After a certain amount of time they may get
-published, like 18 months. But that is plenty of time for you to
-write a program and even release it not knowing that there is going to
+published, like 18 months. But that's plenty of time for you to
+write a program and even release it, not knowing that there is going to
be a patent and you are going to get sued.
<span class="gnun-split"></span>This is not just academic.
-In 1984, the compress program was written, a program for data
-compression. At the time, there was no patent on the LZW compression
+In 1984, the Compress program was written (it was a program for data
+compression.) At the time, there was no patent on the LZW compression
algorithm which it used. Then in 1985, the US issued a <a
href="https://patents.justia.com/patent/4558302";>patent</a> on this
-algorithm and over the next few years, those who distributed the
-compress program started getting threats. There was no way that the
-author of compress could have realized that he was likely to get sued.
-All he did was use an idea that he found in a journal just like
+algorithm, and over the next few years, those who distributed the
+Compress program started getting threats. There was no way that the
+author of Compress could have realized he was likely to get sued.
+All he did was use an idea that he found in a journal, just like
programmers have always done. He hadn't realized that you could no
longer safely use ideas that you found in a journal.
</p>
<p>
-Let's forget about that problem… The issued patents are
-published by the patent office so you can find the whole long list of
+But let's forget about that problem… The issued patents are
+published by the patent office, so you can find the whole long list of
them and see exactly what they say. Of course, you couldn't actually
read that whole list as there are too many of them. In the US, there
-are hundreds of thousands of software patents.
+are hundreds of thousands of software patents, and
+there is no way you could keep track of what they are all about. So you'd
+have to try to search for relevant ones. Some people say that
+should be easy in these modern days of computers. You could search
+for keywords and so on. Well, that will work to a certain extent. You
+will find some patents in the area. You won't necessarily find them
+all, however.
</p>
<p>
-There is no way you can keep track of what they are all about. You
-would have to try to search for relevant ones. Some people say that
-should be easy in these modern days of computers. You could search
-for key words and so-on. That one works to a certain extent. You
-will find some patents in the area. You won't necessarily find them
-all however. For instance, there was a software patent which may have
-expired by now on natural order recalculation in spread sheets.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>This
-means basically that when you make certain cells depend upon other
+For instance, there was a software patent which, I think, may have
+expired by now, on natural order recalculation in spreadsheets.
+This means basically that, when you make certain cells depend on other
cells, it always recalculates everything after the things it depends
-on, so that after one re-calculation, everything is up to date. The
-first spread sheets did their recalculation top-down, so if you made a
-cell depend on a cell lower down, and you had a few such steps, you
+on, so that after one recalculation everything is up to date. The
+first spreadsheets did their recalculation top-down, so if you made a
+cell depend on a cell that was lower down, and you had a few such steps, you
had to recalculate several times to get the new values to propagate
-upwards. You were supposed to have things depend upon cells above
-them.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>Then someone realized why don't I do the
recalculation so that
-everything gets recalculated after the things it depends upon? This
+upwards. You were supposed to have things depend on cells above
+them, you see.<span class="gnun-split"></span>
+Then somebody realized, “Why don't I just do the recalculation.
+Everything gets recalculated after the things it depends on.
+Do it in the right order, and they will all be up to date.” This
algorithm is known as topological sorting. The first reference to it
I could find was in 1963. The patent covered several dozen different
-ways you could implement topological sorting but you wouldn't have
-found this patent by searching for spreadsheet. You couldn't have
-found it by searching for natural order or topological sort. It
+ways you could implement topological sorting, but you wouldn't have
+found this patent by searching for “spreadsheet,” because it
+didn't mention that word. You couldn't have found it to “natural
+order” or “topological sort,” because it
didn't have any of those terms in it. In fact, it was described as a
-method of compiling formulas into object code. When I first saw it, I
-thought it was the wrong patent.
+“method of compiling formulas into object code.” I think
+when I first saw it, I thought it was the wrong patent.
</p>
<p>
-Let's suppose that you got a list of patents. So you want to see know
-what you are not allowed to do. When you try studying these patents,
-you will discover they are very hard to understand as they are written
-in tortuous legal language, whose meaning is very hard to understand.
-The things patent offices say often don't mean what they seem to mean.
+But let's suppose that you got a list of patents. So you want to see now
+what you are not allowed to do. You try studying these patents; well,
+you discover it's very hard to understand them, because they are written in
+tortuous legal language, whose meaning is very hard to understand. In
+fact, things that patent offices say often don't mean what they seem to
+mean.
</p>
<p>
There was an Australian government study of the patent system in the
-1980's. It concluded that aside from international pressure, there
-was no reason to have a patent system. It did no good for the public
-and recommended abolishing it if not for international pressure. One
+1980's. It concluded that, aside from international pressure, there was no
+reason to have a patent system—it did no good for the public—and
+recommended abolishing it, if not for international pressure. One
of the things they cited was that engineers don't try reading patents
-to learn anything, as it is too hard to understand them. They quoted
+to learn anything, because it is too hard to understand them. They quoted
one engineer saying “I can't recognize my own inventions in
-patenteese.”
+patenteese.” <i class="aside">[laughs]</i>
</p>
<p>
This is not just theoretical. Around 1990, a programmer named
<a href="https://www.atarimagazines.com/startv2n3/hypercard.html";>Paul
-Heckel</a> sued Apple claiming that Hypercard infringed a couple of
+Heckel</a> sued Apple, claiming that Hypercard infringed a couple of
his <a href="https://patents.justia.com/patent/4486857";>patents</a>.
When he first saw Hypercard, he didn't think it had anything to do
-with his patent, with his “Inventions.” It didn't look
-similar. When his lawyer told him that you could read the patents as
-covering part of Hypercard, he decided to attack Apple.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>When I had a
-speech about this at Stanford, he was in the audience, he said “That's
+with his “inventions.” It didn't look
+similar. But his lawyer told him that you could read the patents as
+covering part of Hypercard, so he decided to then attack Apple.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>When I gave a
+speech about this at Stanford, he was in the audience and he said “That's
<a
href="https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-prop/heckel-debunking.html";>
not true</a>, I just didn't understand the extent of my
-protection!” I said yes, that's what I said! So, in fact, you
-will have to spend a lot of time talking with lawyers to figure out
-what these patents prohibit you from doing.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>Ultimately they are going
+protection!” <i class="aside">[laughs]</i> And I said, “Yes,
that's what
+I said!” <i class="aside">[laughs]</i>
+</p>
+
+<p>
+So, in fact, you
+are going to spend a lot of time talking with lawyers to figure out
+what these patents prohibit you from doing. And ultimately, they are going
to say something like this: “If you do something in here, you
-are sure to lose, If you do something here, there is a substantial
+are sure to lose; if you do something in here, there is a substantial
chance of losing, and if you really want to be safe, stay out of this
area. And, by the way, there is a sizable element of chance in the
-outcome of any law suit.”
+outcome of any lawsuit.” <i class="aside">[chuckle in the audience]</i>
</p>
+
+<h3 id="dealing-with-patents">How a developer can deal with patents</h3>
+
<p>
-Now, that you have a predictable terrain for doing business(!) what
-are you going to do? Well, there are three approaches that you might
-try. Any of which is applicable in some cases.
+Now that you have a predictable terrain for doing business, <i
class="aside">[chuckle in
+the audience]</i> what are you going to do? Well, there are three approaches
+that you might try, any of which is applicable in some cases.
</p>
-<p>They are</p>
+<p>They are:</p>
-<ol>
-<li>Avoiding the patent</li>
-<li>Licensing the patent</li>
-<li>Overturning the patent in court.</li>
+<ol class="compact">
+ <li>avoiding the patent,</li>
+ <li>licensing the patent, or</li>
+ <li>overturning it in court.</li>
</ol>
<p>
@@ -284,65 +340,69 @@
unworkable.
</p>
-<h3>1) Avoiding the patent</h3>
-
+<dl>
+<dt id="patent-avoiding">1. Avoiding the patent</dt>
+<dd>
<p>
That means don't use the idea that the patent covers. This can be
easy or hard, depending on what that idea is. In some cases, a
feature is patented. Then you avoid the patent by not implementing
that feature. Then it just matters how important is that feature. In
-some cases, you can live without it. A while ago, the users of the
+some cases, you can live without it.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+A while ago, the users of the
word processor XyWrite got a downgrade in the mail. The downgrade
-removed a feature which allowed you to pre-define abbreviations. That
+removed a feature which allowed you to predefine abbreviations:
when you typed an abbreviation followed by a punctuation character, it
-would immediately replace itself with by some expansion.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>So that way
+would immediately replace itself by some expansion. So that way
you could define the abbreviation for some long phrase, type the
-abbreviation then the long phrase will be in your document. They
-wrote to me about this because they knew
+abbreviation, and then the long phrase would be in your document. They
+wrote to me about this because they knew that
the <a href="/software/emacs/">Emacs</a> editor has a similar feature.
In fact, it had it since the 70's. This was interesting because it
-showed me that I had at least one patentable idea in my life. I knew
-it was patentable because somebody else patented it afterward!
-Actually, they had tried these various approaches.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>First they tried
+showed me that I've had at least one patentable idea in my life.
+<i class="aside">[laughs]</i> I knew it was patentable because somebody
else
+patented it afterward! Actually, they had tried these various approaches.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>At first they tried
negotiating with the patent holder, who turned out not to negotiate in
good faith. Then they looked at whether they could have a chance of
overturning the patent. What they decided to do was take out the
feature. You can live without this feature. If the word processor
lacks only this feature, maybe people will still use it. But as
various features start getting hit, eventually you end up with a
-program people think is not very good and they are likely to reject
-it. That is a rather narrow patent on a very specific feature.
+program that people think is not very good, and they are likely to reject
+it.
</p>
<p>
-What do you do with the
-<a href="https://patents.justia.com/patent/4873662";>British
-Telecom patent</a> on traversing hyper links together with dial-up
-access? Traversing hyper links is absolutely essential to a major use
-of computers these days. Dial-up access is also essential. How do
+That's a rather narrow patent on a very specific feature. But what do you
+do with the <a href="https://patents.justia.com/patent/4873662";>British
+Telecom patent</a> on traversing hyperlinks together with dial-up
+access? Traversing hyperlinks is absolutely essential to a major use
+of computers these days. And dial-up access is also essential. How do
you do without this feature, which, by the way, isn't even one
-feature, it is really a combination of two just arbitrarily
-juxtaposed. It is rather like having a patent on a sofa and
-television in the same room.
+feature, it is really just a combination of two, just arbitrarily
+juxtaposed. It is rather like a patent on having a sofa and
+television in the same room. <i class="aside">[laughs]</i>
</p>
<p>
-Sometimes the idea that's patented will be so broad and basic that it
+Sometimes the idea that's patented will be so broad and basic that it's
+very hard, that it
basically rules out an entire field. For instance, the idea of Public
-Key Encryption which was patented in the US. The patent expired in
+Key Encryption, which was patented in the US. The patent expired in
1997. Until then, it largely blocked the use of Public Key Encryption
in the US. A number of programs that people started to develop got
-crushed. They were never really available because the patent holders
+crushed, and were never really available because the patent holders
threatened them.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>Then, one program got away. The
-program <a
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>Then, one program got away: the program <a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170315023711/http://www.pgpi.org/";>
PGP</a>, which initially was
-released as free software. Apparently, the patent holders by the time
+released as free software. Apparently, the patent holders, by the time
they got around to attacking, realized they might get too much bad
-publicity. So they imposed restrictions making it for non-commercial
+publicity. So they imposed restrictions, making it for noncommercial
use only, which meant it couldn't catch on too much. So they greatly
limited the use of Public Key Encryption for a decade or more. There
was no way around that patent. There was nothing else you could do
@@ -354,57 +414,57 @@
a patent on an optimized version of the Fast Fourier Transform. It
runs about twice as fast. You can avoid that by using the ordinary
FFT in your program. That part of your program will take twice as
-long. Maybe that doesn't really matter, maybe that is a small part of
-the program's running time. Maybe if it is twice as slow, you won't
-really notice. Or maybe that means your program won't run at all
-because it will take twice real time to do its job. The effects vary.
+long. Maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe that's a small enough part of
+the program's running time that, if it is twice as slow, you won't
+really notice. Or maybe that means your program won't run at all,
+because it will take twice the real time to do its job. The effects vary.
</p>
<p>
-In some cases, you can find a better algorithm. This may or may not
-do you any good. Because we couldn't use compress, in the GNU project
+In some cases, you can find a better algorithm. That may or may not
+do you any good. Because we couldn't use Compress, in the GNU Project
we started looking for some other algorithm for data compression.
Somebody wrote to us saying he had one. He had written a program and
-he decided to contribute it to us. We were going to release it. Just
-by chance, I happened to see a copy of the New York Times. It
+he decided to contribute it to us. We were going to release it, and just
+by chance I happened to see a copy of the <cite>New York Times</cite> that
happened to have the weekly patent column in it. I didn't see a copy
-of the Times more than once every few months. So I looked at it and
-it said that somebody had got a patent for “Inventing a new
+of the <cite>Times</cite> more than once every few months. So I looked at
+it, and it said that somebody had got a patent for “inventing a new
method of compressing data.”
<span class="gnun-split"></span>I figured I better take a look at
-this patent. I got a copy and it turned out to cover the program that
-we were just a week away from releasing. That program died before it
+this patent. I got a copy, and it turned out to cover the program that
+we were just a week away from releasing. So that program died before it
was born. Later on we did find another algorithm which was
-un-patented. That became the program <a href="/software/gzip/">
-gzip</a>, which is now effectively the de-facto standard for data
+unpatented. That became the program <a href="/software/gzip/">
+Gzip</a>, which is now effectively the de-facto standard for data
compression. As an algorithm to use in a program for data
-compression, it was fine. Anyone who wanted to do data compression
-could use gzip instead of compress. But the same patented LZW
+compression, it was fine. People who wanted to do data compression
+could use Gzip instead of Compress. But the same patented LZW
compression algorithm was also used in image formats such as
-the <a href="/philosophy/gif.html">GIF</a> format.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>But there because
-the job people wanted to do was not to simply compress data but to
-make an image that people could display with their software, it turned
-out extremely hard to switch over to a different algorithm. We have
-not been able to do it in 10 years! Yes, people use the gzip
+<a href="/philosophy/gif.html">GIF</a> format.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>And there, because the job
+that people wanted to do was not simply “Compress my data,” but
+“Make an image that people can display with their software,” it
turned
+out to be very hard to switch over to a different algorithm. In fact, we have
+not been able to do it in 10 years! Yes, people used the new Gzip
algorithm to define <a href="https://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/";>another
-image format</a>, once people started getting threatened with law
-suits for using GIF files. When we started saying to people stop
-using GIF files, switch over to this, people said “We can't
-switch. The browsers don't support the new format yet.” The
+image format</a>, once people started getting threatened with lawsuits
+for using GIF files. But when we started saying to people “Hey, stop
+using GIF files, switch over to this!” people said, “We can't
+switch. The browsers don't support the new format yet.” And the
browser developers said “We're not in a hurry about this. After
-all, nobody is using this file format.”
+all, nobody is using this file format.” <i class="aside">[laughs]</i>
</p>
<p>
-In effect, society had so much inertia in the use of the GIF format,
-we have not been able to get people to switch. Essentially, the
+In effect, society had so much inertia in the use of that particular format
[GIF]
+that we have not been able to get people to switch. Essentially, the
community's use of the GIF format is still pushing sites into using
-GIF format with the result that they are vulnerable to these threats.
+GIF format, with the result that they are vulnerable to these threats.
</p>
<p>
-In fact, the situation is even more bizarre. There are in fact two
+In fact, the situation is even more bizarre, because there are actually two
patents covering the LZW compression algorithm. The patent office
couldn't even tell that they were issuing two patents on the same
thing. They couldn't keep track. There is a reason for this. It
@@ -414,130 +474,132 @@
<p>
If they were patents on some chemical process, it would be much
-easier. You could see what substances were being used, what the
+easier. Because you could see what substances were being used, what the
inputs were, what the outputs were, which physical actions are being
taken. No matter how they are described, you'd see what they were and
then you would see that they are similar.
</p>
<p>
-If something is purely mathematical, there are many ways of describing
-it, which are a lot more different. They are not superficially
+But when something is purely mathematical, you could have various ways to
+describe it, which are a lot more different. They are not superficially
similar. You have to really understand them to see they are talking
-about the same thing. The patent office doesn't have time. The US
-Patent Office as of a few years ago, was spending on average 17 hours
-per patent. This is not long enough to think carefully about them,
-so, of course they make mistakes like that. In fact, I told you about
-the program that died before it was born. That algorithm also had two
+about the same thing. In the patent office, they don't have time. The US
+Patent Office, as of a few years ago, was spending 17 hours on the average
+per patent. This is not long enough to think carefully about them.
+So, of course they make mistakes like that. In fact, I told you about the
+program that died before it was born. Well, that algorithm also has had two
patents issued for it in the US. Apparently, it is not that unusual.
</p>
<p>
-Avoiding the patents may be easy, may be impossible. It may be easy
+So, avoiding the patents may be easy {or it} may be impossible; it may be easy
but it makes your program useless. It varies depending on the
situation.
</p>
<p>
-Here is another point I should mention: Sometimes a company or
-consortium can make a format or protocol the de-facto standard. Then,
-if that format or protocol is patented, that is a real disaster for
+Here is another point I should mention, that sometimes a company or
+consortium can make a format or protocol a de-facto standard. Then,
+if that format or protocol is patented, that's a real disaster for
you. There are even official standards that are restricted by
patents. There was a big political uproar last September when the
<a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice/";>World Wide Web
Consortium</a> was proposing to start adopting standards that were
-covered by patents. The community objected so they reversed
+covered by patents. The community objected, and they reversed
themselves.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>They went back to insisting that any patents
had to be
-freely implementable by anyone and that the standards had to be free
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>They went back to insisting that patents had
to be
+freely implementable by anyone, and that standards had to be free
for anyone to implement. That is an interesting victory. I think
-that was the first time any standards body has made that decision. It
-is normal for standards bodies to be willing to put something in a
-standard which is restricted by patents and people are not allowed to
+it's the first time any standards body has made that decision. It's
+normal for standards bodies to be willing to put something in a
+standard which in fact is restricted by patents, and people are not allowed to
go ahead and implement it freely. We need to go to other standards
bodies and call on them to change their rules.
</p>
+</dd>
-<h3>2) Licensing the patent</h3>
-
+<dt id="patent-licensing">2. Licensing the patent</dt>
+<dd>
<p>
-The second possibility instead of avoiding the patent is to get a
+The second possibility is, instead of avoiding the patent, to get a
license for the patent. This is not necessarily an option. The
-patent holder does not have to offer you a license, it is not
-required. 10 Years ago, the league for programming freedom got a
+patent holder does not have to offer you a license. It's not
+required. Ten years ago, the League for Programming Freedom got a
letter asking for help from somebody whose family business was making
-gambling machinery for casinos and they used computers back then. He
-received a threat from another company that said we have the patents.
-You are not allowed to make these things. Shut down.
+gambling machinery for casinos, and they used computers back then. He
+received a threat from another company that said, “We have the patents.
+You are not allowed to make these things. Shut down.”
</p>
<p>
I looked at that patent. It covered having a number of computers on a
-network for playing games such that each computer supported more than
-one game and allowed you to play more than one game at a time.
+network for playing games, such that each computer supported more than
+one game and allowed you to be playing more than one game at a time.
</p>
<p>
-You will find patent office really think that there is something
-brilliant about doing more than one of anything. They don't realize
-that in computer science, that's the most obvious way to generalize
-anything. You did it once and now you can do it any number of times,
-you can make a subroutine. They think that if you do anything more
-than once, that somehow means you are brilliant and that nobody can
-possibly argue with you and that you have the right to boss them
-around. Anyway, he was not offered a license. He had to shut down.
+You will find the patent offices really think that there is something
+brilliant about doing more than one of anything.
+<i class="aside">[laughs]</i> They don't realize
+that, in computer science, that's the most obvious way to generalize
+anything. You did it once. Now you can do it any number of times,
+make a subroutine. They think that if you do anything twice instead of
+once, you made a new invention. That somehow means you are brilliant and nobody
+can possibly argue with your right to boss them around and
+restrict them. Anyway, he wasn't offered a license, and he had to shut down.
He couldn't even afford really to go to court. I would say that
-particular patent was an obvious idea. It is possible that a judge
-might have agreed, but we will never know because he could not afford
+particular patent was an obvious idea. It's possible that a judge
+might have agreed. We will never know, though, because he could not afford
to go to court.
</p>
<p>
However, a lot of patent holders do offer licenses. They often charge
-a lot of money for that though. The company licensing the natural
+a lot of money for that, though. The company licensing the natural
order recalculation patent was demanding 5% of the gross sales of
every spreadsheet in the US. I am told that was the cheap pre-lawsuit
price. If you actually made them sue you and they won, they'd demand
more. You might be able to afford that 5% for licensing this one
patent, but what if you need to license 20 different patents to make
-the program? Then all the money you take in goes on patents. What if
+the program? Then all the money you take in has to go out to them. What if
you need to license 21 patents?
</p>
<p>
-People in business told me that practically speaking, 2 or 3 of them
+People in business told me that, practically speaking, two or three of them
would make any business unfeasible.
</p>
<p>
-There is a situation where licensing patents is a very good solution.
+But there is a situation where licensing patents is a very good solution.
That is if you are a multinational mega-corporation. Because these
companies own a lot of patents, and they cross-license with each
other. That way, they escape most of the harm that the patent system
does and they only get the good. IBM published an
<a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150329104135/http://progfree.org/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/ibm.think.article";>
-article</a> in Think magazine. I believe it was issue No. 5 of 1990
-on IBM's patent portfolio, which said that IBM got two kinds of
-benefit from its 9000 US patents. I believe the number is larger
-today. These were first, collecting royalties and second, getting
-access to the patents of others. They said that the latter benefit is
-an order of magnitude greater. So the benefit that IBM got from being
+article</a> in Think magazine—I believe it was issue No. 5 of
+1990—on IBM's patent portfolio, which said that IBM got two kinds of
+benefits from its 9000 US patents. I believe the number is larger
+today. These were (1) collecting royalties, and (2) getting
+access to the patents of others. They said that the latter benefit was
+an order of magnitude greater. So, the benefit that IBM got from being
allowed to use the ideas that were patented by others was 10 times the
-direct benefit IBM could get from licensing patents. What does this
-really mean?
+direct benefit IBM could get from licensing patents.
</p>
<p>
+What does this really mean?
What is the benefit that IBM gets from this access to the patents of
-others? It is basically the benefit of being excused from the trouble
+others? It's basically the benefit of being excused from the trouble
that the patent system can cause you. The patent system is like a
lottery. What happens with any given patent could be nothing, could
-be a windfall for some patent holder or a disaster for everyone else.
-But IBM being so big, for them, it averages out. They get to measure
+be a windfall for some patent holder and a disaster for everyone else.
+But IBM being so big, for them it averages out. They get to measure
the average harm and good of the patent system.
<span class="gnun-split"></span>For them, the trouble
-of the patent system would have been 10 times the good. I say would
-have been because IBM through cross-licensing avoids experiencing that
+would have been 10 times the good. I say would
+have been because IBM, through cross-licensing, avoids experiencing that
trouble. That trouble is only potential. It doesn't really happen to
them. But when they measure the benefits of avoiding that trouble,
they estimate it as 10 times the value of the money they collect from
@@ -549,32 +611,32 @@
the starving genius. The myth that patents “protect” the
“small inventor.” Those terms are propaganda terms. You
shouldn't use them. The scenario is like this: Suppose there is a
-brilliant designer of whatever of whatever. Suppose he has spent
-years starving in the attic designing a new wonderful kind of whatever
-and now wants to manufacture it and isn't it a shame the big companies
+brilliant designer of whatever, who has spent years by himself,
+starving in an attic, designing a new wonderful kind of whatever,
+and now wants to manufacture it. Isn't it a shame the big companies
are going to go into competition with him, take away all the business
-and he'll “starve.”
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>I will have to point out that people
-in high tech fields are not generally working on their own and that
-ideas don't come in a vacuum, they are based on ideas of others and
+and he'll “starve”?
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>Well, I have to point out that people
+in high tech fields are not generally working on their own, and that ideas
+don't come in a vacuum—they are based on the work of others—and
that
these people have pretty good chances of getting a job if they need to
-these days. So this scenario, the idea that a brilliant idea came
-from this brilliant person working alone is unrealistic and the idea
-that he is in danger of starving is unrealistic. But it is
-conceivable that somebody could have an idea and this idea along with
-100 or 200 other ideas can be the basis of making some kind of product
+these days. So this scenario, the idea that this brilliant idea came
+from this one person working alone, is unrealistic, and the idea
+that he is in danger of starving is unrealistic. But it is conceivable
+that somebody could have an idea, and this idea, maybe together with
+100 or 200 other ideas, could be the basis of making some kind of product,
and that big companies might want to compete with him.
<span class="gnun-split"></span>So let's see
-what happens if he tries to use a patent to stop them. He says
-“Oh No, IBM. You cannot compete with me. I've got this patent.
-IBM says let's see. Let's look at your product. Hmmm. I've got this
+what happens if he tries to use a patent to stop them. He says,
+“Oh no, IBM. You can't compete with me. I've got this patent.”
+And IBM says, “Let's see. Let's look at your product. Hmmm. I've got
this
patent and this one and this one and this one and this one and this
one, which parts of your product infringe. If you think you can fight
-against all of them in court, I will just go back and find some more.
-So, why don't you cross license with me?” And then this
-brilliant small inventor says “Well, OK, I'll cross
-license.” So he can go back and make these wonderful whatever
-it is, but so can IBM. IBM gets access to his patent and gets the
+against all of them in court, I'll just go back and look for some more.
+So, why don't you cross-license with me?” And then this
+brilliant small <i class="aside">[laughs]</i> inventor says, “Well, OK,
I'll
+cross-license.” And now he can go back and make these wonderful whatever
+it is, and so can IBM. IBM now gets access to his patent, and gets the
right to compete with him, which means that this patent didn't
“protect” him at all. The patent system doesn't really do
that.
@@ -582,20 +644,23 @@
<p>
The mega-corporations avoid, for the most part, the harm of the patent
-system. They see mainly the good side. That is why they want to have
+system. They see mainly the good side. That's why they want to have
software patents. They are the ones who will benefit from it. But if
-you are a small inventor or work for a small company, the small
+you are really a small inventor, or work for a small company, the small
company is not going to be able to do this. They try. The problem is
-that they cannot get enough patents to do this. Any given patent is
-pointing in a certain direction. So if a small company has patents
-pointing there, there and there and somebody over there points a
-patent at them and says give me your money, they are helpless.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>IBM
-can do it because with these 9000 patents, they are pointing
-everywhere, no matter where you are, there is probably an IBM patent
-pointing at you. So IBM can almost always make you cross license.
-Small companies can only occasionally make someone cross-license.
-They will say they want patents for defensive purposes but they won't
+that they cannot get enough patents to do this. You see, any given patent is
+pointing in a certain direction. So, if a small company has patents
+pointing there, there, and there <i class="aside">[showing left side]</i>, and
somebody over
+there <i class="aside">[showing right side]</i> points a patent at them and
says “Give
+me your money,” they are helpless, because they've got patents pointing
+there or near <i class="aside">[showing left side]</i>, but not there
+<i class="aside">[showing right side]</i>.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>
+IBM can do it, because with these 9000 patents, they are pointing
+everywhere. No matter where you are, there is an IBM patent pointing at
+you, probably. So, IBM can always make you cross-license, almost always.
+But the small companies only occasionally can make someone cross-license.
+They will say they want patents for defensive purposes, but they won't
get enough to be able to defend themselves.
</p>
@@ -609,37 +674,41 @@
</p>
<p>
-There are no patents on legal procedures. I guess the lawyers
-understand what a pain it would be to have to deal with the patent
-system themselves. The result is that there is no way to get a patent
-to make that company cross license with you. So they go around
-squeezing everyone. But I guess companies like IBM figure that is
+There are no patents on legal procedures. <i class="aside">[laughs]</i>
+I guess the lawyers
+sort of understand what a pain it would be to have to deal with the patent
+system themselves. The result is that there is no way you can get a patent
+to make that company, <a
+href="https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/14/business/a-white-knight-draws-cries-of-patent-blackmail.html";>
+Refac</a>, cross-license with you. So they go around
+squeezing everyone. But I guess the companies like IBM figure that's
part of the price of doing business so they can live with it.
</p>
<p>
-So that is the possibility of licensing a patent which may or may not
-be possible and you may or may not be able to afford it.
+So that's the possibility of licensing a patent, which may or may not
+be possible. And you may or may not be able to afford it.
</p>
+</dd>
-<h3>3) Overturning a patent in court</h3>
-
+<dt id="patent-overturning">3. Overturning the patent in court</dt>
+<dd>
<p>
Supposedly, in order to be patented, something has to be new, useful
-and unobvious. That is the language used in the US. I think other
+and unobvious. That's the language used in the US. I think other
countries have different language which is pretty much equivalent to
-it. Of course, when the patent office gets into the game, they start
-interpreting new and unobvious. New turns out to mean we don't have
-it in our files and unobvious tends to mean unobvious to someone with
-an IQ of 50.
+it. Of course, when the patent office gets into the game and they start
+interpreting new and unobvious, “new” turns out to mean
+“we don't have it in our files,” and “unobvious”
+tends to mean “unobvious to somebody with an IQ of 50.”
</p>
<p>
-Somebody who studies most of the software patents issued in the US, or
-at least he used to, I don't know if he can still keep up with them,
-said that 90% of them wouldn't pass the crystal city test, which meant
+Somebody who studies most of the software patents issued in the US—or
+at least he used to; I don't know if he can still keep up with them—said
+that 90% of them wouldn't pass the Crystal City test, which meant,
if the people in the patent office went outside to the news stand and
-got some computer magazines, they would see that these ideas are
+got some computer magazines, they would see that these ideas were
already known.
</p>
@@ -647,34 +716,34 @@
The patent office does things that are so obviously foolish, you
wouldn't even have to know the state of the art to see they are
foolish. This is not limited to software. I once saw the famous
-Harvard mouse patent which was obtained after Harvard genetically
+Harvard mouse patent, which was obtained after Harvard genetically
engineered a strain of mouse with a cancer causing gene. The cancer
-causing gene was already known and was inserted using known techniques
+causing gene was already known, and was inserted using known techniques
into an already existing strain of mouse. The patent they got covered
-inserting any cancer causing gene into any kind of mammal using any
+inserting any cancer causing gene into any kind of mammal, using any
method whatsoever. You don't have to know anything about genetic
engineering to realize that is ridiculous.
</p>
<p>
-I am told that this over claiming is normal practice and that the US
+But I am told that this overclaiming is normal practice, and that the US
Patent Office sometimes invited patent applicants to make their claims
-broader. Basically make the claims broader until you think they are
+broader. Basically, make the claims broader until you think they are
running into something else that's unambiguous prior art. See how
much land grab in mental space you can get away with.
</p>
<p>
-When programmers look at a lot of software patents, they say this
+When programmers look at a lot of software patents, they say, “This
is ridiculously <a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20040604051644/http://people.qualcomm.com/karn/patents/patent-comments.html";>
-obvious</a>! Patent bureaucrats have all sorts of excuses to
+obvious</a>!” Patent bureaucrats have all sorts of excuses to
justify ignoring what programmers think. They say “Oh! But you
have to consider it in terms of the way things were 10 or 20 years
ago.” Then they discovered that if they talk something to death
then you can eventually lose your bearings. Anything can look
unobvious if you tear it apart enough, analyze it enough. You simply
-lose all standard of obviousness or at least lose the ability to
+lose all standard of obviousness, or at least lose the ability to
justify any standard of obvious or unobvious. Then, of course, they
describe the patent holders as brilliant inventors, all of them.
Therefore we can't question their entitlement to power over what we
@@ -684,94 +753,102 @@
<p>
If you go to court, the judges are likely to be a little more
stringent about the idea of what is obvious or not. But the problem
-is that it costs millions of dollars to do that. I heard of one
+is it costs millions of dollars to do that. I heard of one
patent case, the defendant I remember was Qualcomm, and I believe the
-ruling was ultimately 13 million dollars of which most went to pay the
+ruling ultimately was 13 million dollars, of which most went to pay the
lawyers on both sides. There were a few million dollars left over for
the plaintiff, because they lost.
</p>
<p>
To a large extent, the question of the validity of a patent will
-depend on historical accidents. Lots of historical accidents such as
-precisely what was published when and which of those things somebody
-manages to find. Which of them didn't get lost, precise dates and
-so-on. Many historical accidents determine whether a patent is valid.
-
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>In fact, it is a weird thing that the
-<a href="https://patents.justia.com/patent/4873662";>
-British Telecom following hyper links together with telephone access
-patent</a>, I think, was applied for in 1975. I think it was in 1974
-that I developed the info package for the first time. The info
-package allows you to traverse hyper links and people did use
+depend on historical accidents. Lots of historical accidents, such as
+precisely what was published when, and which of those things somebody
+manages to find, which of them didn't get lost, the precise dates, and so on.
+So it's many historical accidents that determine whether the patent is valid.
+</p>
+
+<p>In fact, it is a weird thing the <a
+href="https://patents.justia.com/patent/4873662";>
+British Telecom following hyperlinks together with phone access</a>
+patent, was applied for, I think, in 1975. I think it was in 1974
+that I developed the Info package for the first time. The Info
+package allows you to traverse hyperlinks, and people did use
telephones to dial up and access the system. So in fact, I produced a
-piece of prior art for that patent. So that is the second patentable
-idea I have had in my life, but I don't think I have any proof of
+piece of prior art for that patent. That's the second patentable
+idea I've had in my life, but I don't think I have any proof of
that. I didn't think this was interesting enough to publish it.
-After all, the idea of following hyper links I got from the demo of
-Engelbart's editor. He is the one who had an idea which was
+After all, the idea of following hyperlinks, I got that from a demo of
+Engelbart's editor. He is the one who had an idea that was
interesting to publish.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>What I'd done I called “poor man's
hypertext” as I
-had to implement it in the context of TECO. It was not as powerful as
-his hypertext but it was at least useful for browsing documentation,
-which it all it was meant for, and as for there being dial-up access
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>I called it “poor man's
+hypertext,” because I
+had to implement it in the context of TECO. It wasn't as powerful as
+his hypertext, but it was at least useful for browsing documentation,
+which was all it was meant for, and as for there being dial-up access
to the system, well, there was, but it didn't occur to me that the one
-had anything particular to do with the other. I wasn't going to
+had any particular thing to do with the other. I wasn't going to try to
publish a paper saying “Oh! I implemented this poor man's
hypertext, and guess what! There are dial-up lines on the computer
-too!” I suspect there is no way to tell precisely on what dates
+too!” <i class="aside">[laughs]</i> I suspect there is no way to
tell
+precisely on what dates
I implemented this. And was it published in any sense? Well, we
-invited guests to come in across the ARPAnet, and log in on our
-machine, so they could have browsed documentation using info and seen
-the thing. If they had asked us, they would have found we have
+invited guests to come in across the ARPAnet and log in on our
+machine, so they could have browsed documentation using Info, and seen
+the thing. And if they had asked us, they would have found we have
dial-up access. But as you can see, historical accident determines
-whether you have prior art.
+whether you've got prior art.
</p>
<p>
Now of course, there is a publication made by Engelbart about
hypertext, which they are going to show. I don't think it says
-anything about having dial-ups on the computer however, so whether it
-will suffice is not clear. So, this is an option, the possibility of
-going to court to overturn the patent.
+anything about having dial-ups on the computer however. So, whether it
+will suffice is not clear.
</p>
<p>
-Because of the expense, it is often out of the question even if you
+So, this is an option, the possibility of going to court to overturn the
patent.
+But, because of the expense, it is often out of the question even if you
can find solid prior art that ought to be sufficient to overturn the
patent. As a result, an invalid patent, a patent that nominally
shouldn't have existed (but in fact lots and lots of them do) is a
dangerous weapon. If somebody attacks you with an invalid patent,
that can really cause a lot of trouble for you. You might be able to
-bluff them away by showing them the prior art. It depends upon
+bluff them away by showing them the prior art. It depends
whether they can get scared off that way or they might think
-“well, you are just bluffing, we figure you can't really go to
-court, you can't afford it so we'll sue you anyway.”
+“Well, you are just bluffing, we figure you can't really go to
+court. You can't afford it, so we'll sue you anyway.”
</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
<p>
All of these three possibilities are things that sometimes you can
manage to use, but often you can't. So you have to face patent after
patent after patent. Each time you may be able to find one of these
-three possibilities you can use, then there is another patent then
-another and another. It gets like crossing a minefield. Each step
-you take, each design decision, probably won't step on a patent, so
-you can take a few steps and probably there won't be an explosion.
-But the chance you will get all the way through the minefield and get
-to develop the program you want to develop without ever stepping on a
+three possibilities you can use, then there is another patent, then
+another, and another. It gets like crossing a minefield. Each step
+you take, each design decision, probably won't step on a patent. So
+you can take a few steps and, probably, there won't be an explosion.
+But the chance that you will get all the way through the minefield and get
+to develop the program you wanted to develop without ever stepping on a
patent gets less and less as the program gets bigger.
</p>
+
+<h3 id="software-specificity">Specificities of the software field</h3>
+
<p>
Now, people used to say to me, “Well, there are patents in other
-fields, why should software be exempt?.” Note the bizarre
+fields, why should software be exempt?” Note the bizarre
assumption in there that somehow we are all supposed to suffer through
the patent system. It is like saying “Some people get cancer.
-Why should you be exempt?” As I see it, each person who doesn't
-get cancer is good. But there is, behind that, a less biased
-question, which is a good question which is: Is software different
+Why should you be exempt?” <i>Laughs]</i> As I see it, each person
+who doesn't get cancer is good. But there is, behind that, a less biased
+question, which is a good question, which is: Is software different
from other fields? Should patent policy be different in different
-fields? If so, why?
+fields? And if so, why?
</p>
<p>
@@ -781,7 +858,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-On one extreme we have pharmaceuticals where a given chemical formula
+On the one extreme we have pharmaceuticals, where a given chemical formula
would be patented, so that patent covers one and only one product.
Some other product wouldn't be covered by the existing patent. If
there is to be a patent for this new product, the patent holder would
@@ -790,22 +867,23 @@
<p>
That fits in with the naive idea of the patent system that we have,
-that if you are designing a new product, you are going to get
-“The Patent.” The idea that there is one patent per
-product and that it covers the idea of that product. In some fields
-it is closer to being true. In other fields it is further from being
-true. This is because software packages are usually very big. They
-use many different ideas in a new combination. If the program is new
-and not just copied, then it is probably using a different combination
+that, if you are designing a new product, you are going to get
+“The Patent,” the idea that there is one patent per
+product and that it covers <em>the</em> idea of that product. In some fields
+that's closer to being true. In other fields it's farther from being
+true. Software is at the opposite extreme.
+This is because software packages are very big, usually, and they
+use many different ideas in a new combination. If the program is new,
+it's not just copied, then it's probably using a different combination
of ideas combined, of course, with newly written code, because you
can't just magically say the names of these ideas and have them work.
You have to implement them all.
<span class="gnun-split"></span>You have to implement them all in
-that combination. The result is that even when you write a program,
+that combination. The result is that, when you write a program,
you are using lots of different ideas, any one of them might be
-patented by somebody. A pair of them may be patented as a combination
+patented by somebody. A pair of them might be patented as a combination
by somebody. There might be several different ways of describing one
-idea which might be patented by various different people. So there
+idea, which might be patented by various different people. So there
are possibly thousands of things, thousands of points of vulnerability
in your program, which might be patented by somebody else already.
This is why software patents tend to obstruct the progress of
@@ -814,126 +892,127 @@
<p>
If it were one patent-one product, then these patents wouldn't obstruct the
-development of products because if you developed a new product, it
+development of products, because if you developed a new product it
wouldn't be patented by somebody else already. But when one product
-corresponds to many different ideas combined, it becomes very likely
+corresponds to many different ideas combined, it becomes very likely that
your new product is going to be patented by somebody else already. In
fact, there is economic research now showing just how imposing a
-patent system on a field where there is incremental innovation, can
+patent system on a field where there is incremental innovation can
retard progress.
<span class="gnun-split"></span>You see, the advocates of software patents say
-“well yes, there may be problems but more important than any
-problems, the patents must promote innovation and that is so important
-it doesn't matter what problems you cause.” Of course, they
-don't say that out loud because it is ridiculous but implicitly they
-want you to believe that as long as it promotes progress, that
+“Well yes, there may be problems, but more important than any
+problems, the patents must promote innovation, and that is so important
+it doesn't matter what problems they cause.” Of course, they
+don't say that out loud because it is ridiculous, but implicitly they
+want you to believe that, as long as it promotes progress, that
outweighs any possible cost. But actually, there is no reason to
believe it does promote progress. We now have a model showing
-precisely how patents can retard progress. The case where that model
-can fit describes the software field pretty well; Incremental
+precisely how patents <em>can</em> retard progress. The case where that model
+can fit describes the software field pretty well: incremental
innovation.
</p>
<p>
Why is software on that extreme of the spectrum? The reason is that
in software we are developing idealized mathematical objects. You can
-build a complicated castle and have it rest on a thin line and it will
+build a complicated castle and have it rest on a thin line, and it will
stay up because it doesn't weigh anything. In other fields, people
have to cope with the perversity of matter—of physical objects.
-Matter does what it is going to do. You can try to model it and if
-the actual behavior doesn't fit the model then tough on you, because
+Matter does what it is going to do. You can try to model it, and if
+the actual behavior doesn't fit the model, tough on you. Because
the challenge is to make physical objects that really work.
</p>
<p>
-If I wanted to put an <code>if</code> statement in a
+If I wanted to put an <code>if</code> statement inside a
<code>while</code> statement, I don't have to worry about whether the
<code>if</code> statement will oscillate at a certain frequency and
rub against the <code>while</code> statement and eventually they will
-fracture. I don't have to worry whether it will oscillate at a
+fracture. <i class="aside">[laughs]</i> I don't have to worry
+whether it will oscillate at a
certain higher frequency and induce a signal in the value of some
other variable. I don't have to worry about how much current that
-<code>if</code> statement will draw and whether it can dissipate the
+<code>if</code> statement will draw, whether it can dissipate the
heat there inside that <code>while</code> statement. Whether there will be a
voltage drop across the <code>while</code> statement that will make the
<code>if</code> statement not function.
<span class="gnun-split"></span>I don't have to worry that
-if i run this program in a salt water environment that the salt water
-may get in between the <code>if</code> statement and the
+if I run this program in a salt-water environment, that the salt water
+might get in between the <code>if</code> statement and the
<code>while</code> statement and cause corrosion. I don't have to
-worry when I refer to the value of a variable whether I am exceeding
-the fan-out limit by referring to it 20 times. I don't have to worry,
+worry, when I refer to the value of a variable, whether I am exceeding
+the fan-out limit by referring to it too many times. I don't have to worry,
when I refer to the variable, how much capacitance it has and whether
there has been sufficient time to charge up the value. I don't have
-to worry when I write the program, about how I am going to physically
-assemble each copy and whether I can manage to get access to put that
+to worry, when I write the program, about how I'm going to physically
+assemble each copy, and whether I can manage to get access to put that
<code>if</code> statement inside the <code>while</code> statement.
-I don't have to worry about how I am going to gain access in case that
+And I don't have to worry about how I'm going to gain access in case the
<code>if</code> statement breaks, to remove it and replace it with a
-new one.
+new one. <i class="aside">[laughs]</i>
</p>
<p>
So many problems that we don't have to worry about in
-software. That makes it fundamentally easier. It is fundamentally
+software. That makes it fundamentally easier. It's fundamentally
easier to write a program than to design a physical object that's
-going to work. This may seem strange because you have probably heard
-people talking about how hard software is to design and how this is a
+going to work. This might seem strange because you have probably heard
+people talking about how hard software is to design, and how this is a
big problem and how we are going to solve it. They are not really
-talking about the same question as I am. I am comparing physical and
-software systems of the same complexity, the same number of parts. I
-am saying the software system is much easier to design than the
+talking about the same question I am. See, I'm comparing physical and
+software systems of the same complexity, the same number of parts. I'm
+saying the software system is much easier to design than the
physical system. But the intelligence of people in these various
fields is the same, so what do we do when we are confronted with an
-easy field? We just push it further! We push our abilities to the
+easy field? We just push it farther! We push our abilities to the
limit.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>If systems of the same size are easy, let's
make systems which
-are ten times as big, then it will be hard! That's what we do! We
-make software systems which are far bigger in terms of number of parts
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>If systems of the same size are easy,
+let's make systems which are ten times as big, then it will be hard!
+<i class="aside">[laughs]</i> That's what we do! We
+make software systems far bigger in terms of number of parts
than physical systems. A physical system whose design has a million
different pieces in it is a mega project. A computer program whose
-design has a million pieces in it, is maybe 300,000 lines, a few
-people will write that in a couple of years. That is not a
-particularly giant program. GNU Emacs now has several million pieces
-in its design I think. It has a million lines of code. This is a
+design has a million pieces in it, that's maybe 300,000 lines, a few
+people will write that in a couple of years. That's not
+particularly a giant program. GNU Emacs now has several million pieces
+in its design I think, because it has a million lines of code. This was a
project done with essentially no funding whatsoever. Mostly done by
people in their spare time.
</p>
<p>
-There is another big saving. If you have designed a physical product,
+There is another big saving. If you designed a physical product,
the next thing you have to do is design the factory to make it. To
-build this factory may cost millions or tens of millions whereas to
-make copies of the program, you just have to type <kbd>copy</kbd>.
-The same copy command will copy any program. You want copies on CD
-then fine. You burn a master CD and send it off to a CD plant. They
-will use the same equipment which will copy any contents on a CD. You
-don't have to build a factory to make this product. There is
+build this factory may cost millions or tens of millions, whereas to
+make copies of the program, you just have to type <code>copy</code>.
+The same <code>copy</code> command will copy any program. You want copies on
CD,
+fine. You burn a master CD and send it off to a CD plant. They
+will use the same equipment that will copy any contents on a CD. You
+don't have to build a factory to <em>make</em> this product. There is
tremendous simplification and tremendous reduction in costs of
designing things.
-
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>The result is, say for an automobile company,
who
-will spend 50 million dollars to build a factory, to build a new model
-of auto, they can hire some lawyers to cope with patent license
-negotiations. They can even cope with a law suit if they wanted to.
-To design a program of the same complexity may cost 50 thousand or 100
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>The result is, say for an automobile company,
if
+they are going to spend 50 million dollars to build a factory, to build a new
model
+of auto, they can hire some lawyers to cope with some patent license
+negotiations. They could even cope with a lawsuit if they wanted to.
+Designing a program of the same complexity might cost 50 thousand dollars, or
100
thousand dollars. By comparison, the cost of dealing with the patent
-system is crushing. Or actually designing a program with the same
-complexity as the mechanical design of an auto is probably a month's
+system is crushing. Actually designing a program with the same
+complexity as the mechanical design of an auto, that's probably a month
work. How many parts does an auto have… that is if it is an
-auto which doesn't have computers in it.[<a href="#f1">1</a>] There
-are not that many parts. That is not to say designing a good one is
-easy but just that there are not that many different things in it.
+auto that doesn't have computers in it?[<a href="#f1">1</a>] There
+are not that many parts, you see. Which is not to say designing a good one is
+easy, but just that there are not that many different things in it.
</p>
<p>
-The result is software really is different from other fields because
-we are working with mathematical stuff designing something is far, far
-easier and the result is that we regularly make systems which are
-much, much larger and do so with just a few people. The result is
-that the patent system then instead of being close to one product, one
-patent, we are in a system where one product involves many, many ideas
-which could be patented already.
+The result is, software really is different from other fields because
+we are working with mathematical stuff. Designing something is far, far
+easier. And the result is we regularly make systems that are
+much, much larger, and do so with just a few people. The result is
+that the patent system then, instead of being close to “one product, one
+patent,” we are in a system where one product involves many, many ideas
+that could be patented already.
</p>
<p>
@@ -942,30 +1021,29 @@
ideas. Imagine if the governments of Europe in the 1700's had decided
they wanted to promote the progress of symphonic music by establishing
a European Musical Patent Office that would give patents for any kind
-of musical ideas which you could state in words. Then imagine it is
-around 1800 and you are Beethoven and you want to write a symphony.
-You will find that getting your symphony so that it doesn't infringe
-any patents is going to be harder than writing a good symphony.
-
+of musical idea that you could state in words. Then imagine it is
+around 1800 and you are Beethoven and you want to write a symphony. You are
+going to find that getting your symphony to be legal, so that it doesn't
infringe
+any patents, is going to be harder than writing a good symphony.
<span class="gnun-split"></span>When
you complain about this, the patent holders would say “Ah
Beethoven, you are just bitching because you have no ideas of your
own. All you want to do is rip off our inventions.” Beethoven,
-as it happens, had a lot of new musical ideas but he had to use a lot
-of existing musical ideas in order to make recognizable music. In
+as it happens, had a lot of new musical ideas, but he had to use a lot
+of existing musical ideas in order to make recognizable music, in
order to make music that listeners could possibly like, that they
could recognize as music. Nobody is so brilliant that he can
-re-invent music and make something that people would want to listen
+re-invent music and make something that people want to listen
to. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Boulez";>Pierre
-Boulez</a> said he would try to do that, but who listens to Pierre
-Boulez?
+Boulez</a> said he would try to do that, and… who listens to Pierre
+Boulez? <i class="aside">[laughs]</i>
</p>
<p>
-Nobody is so brilliant he can re-invent all of computer
-science, completely new. If he did, he would make something that the
+Nobody is so brilliant he can re-invent all computer
+science, completely new. If he did, he'd make something that the
users would find so strange that they wouldn't want to use it. If you
-look at a word processor today, you would find, I think, hundreds of
+look at a word processor today, you'll find, I think, hundreds of
different features. If you develop a nice new innovative word
processor, that means there are some new ideas in it, but there must
be hundreds of old ideas in it. If you are not allowed to use them,
@@ -976,40 +1054,44 @@
Because the work of software development is so big, the result is that
we don't need any artificial scheme to incentivize new ideas. You
just have people writing software and they will have some new ideas.
-If you want to write a program and you want to make it good, so some
-ideas will come to you and some you will see a way to use. What used
-to happen, because I was in the software field before there were
-software patents, was most of the developers would publish any new
-ideas that they thought were noteworthy, that they thought that they
+If you want to write a program, you want to make it good. Some ideas
+will come to you, and some of them you will see a way to use. What used
+to happen—because I was in the software field before there were
+software patents—was most of the developers would publish any new
+ideas that they thought were noteworthy, that they thought they
might get any credit or respect for.
-
<span class="gnun-split"></span>The ideas that were too small or
not impressive enough, they would not publish because that would be
silly. Now the patent system is supposed to encourage disclosure of
ideas. In fact, in the old days, nobody kept the ideas secret. They
kept the code secret, it's true. The code, after all, represented the
-bulk of the work. They would keep the code secret and publish the
-ideas so that way the employees would get some credit and feel good.
+bulk of the work. They would typically keep the code secret and publish the
+ideas. That way, the employees could get some credit and feel good;
+you know, they were allowed to publish papers.
After software patents, they still kept the code secret and they
-patented the ideas, so in fact, disclosure has not been encouraged in
-any meaningful sense. The same things are kept secret now as what were kept
secret before,
-but the ideas which used to be published so that we could use them are
-now likely to be patented and off-limits for 20 years.
+patented the ideas. So, in fact, disclosure has not been encouraged in
+any meaningful sense. The same things are kept secret now as were kept
+secret before, but the ideas, which used to be published so we could use
+them, now are likely to be patented and off-limits for 20 years.
</p>
+
+<h3 id="software-patent-policies">Addressing the problem of software patents
+in public policies</h3>
+
<p>
What can a
country do to change this? How should we change the policy to solve
this problem? There are two places you can attack it. One is the place where
-patents are being applied for and issued, in the patent office. The
+patents are being applied for and issued, in the patent office. And the
other is when patents are being applied—that is, the question of
what does a patent cover.
</p>
<p>
-Changing the criteria for issuing patents or simply keeping a good
+Changing the criteria for issuing patents, or simply keeping a good
criteria for issuing patents, can work in a country which has not
-authorized software patents before, for instance, for the most part,
+authorized software patents before; for instance, for the most part,
in Europe. Simply to clearly re-enforce the European Patent Office's
rules which say that software is not patentable. This is a good
solution for Europe. Europe is now considering a directive on
@@ -1017,63 +1099,64 @@
but one of its important implications is for software patents. Simply
by modifying this to say software ideas cannot be patented will keep
the problem out of Europe for the most part, except for some countries
-that may have admitted the problem on their own. Unfortunately one of
-them being the UK. Unfortunately for you.
+that may have admitted the problem on their own—unfortunately, one of
+them being the UK, unfortunately for you.
</p>
<p>
That approach won't work in the US. The reason is that the US already
-has large numbers of software patents and any change in the criteria
+has large numbers of software patents, and any change in the criteria
for issuing patents won't get rid of the existing
-ones.[<a href="#f2">2</a>] In fact, these patents are not officially
-labeled as software patents. I say software patents but what do I
-really mean? Patents which might potentially apply to software.
-Patents which might potentially get you sued for writing software.
-
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>The patent office doesn't divide patents into
software patents and
+ones. However in fact, these patents are not officially
+labeled as software patents. I say software patents, but what do I
+really mean? I mean patents that might potentially apply to software,
+that might potentially get you sued for writing software.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>
+The patent office doesn't divide patents into software patents and
other patents. So, in fact, any patent might conceivably get you sued
-for writing software if it could apply to some software. So in the US
-the solution would have to be done through changing the applicability,
-the scope of patents saying that a pure software implementation
+for writing software if it could apply to some software. So, in the US,
+a solution would have to be done through changing the applicability,
+the scope of patents, saying that a pure software implementation,
running on general purpose computer hardware which does not in itself
-infringe the patent, is not covered by any patent and you cannot get
-sued for it. That is the other kind of solution.
+infringe the patent, is not covered by any patent and you can't be
+sued for it. That's the other kind of solution.
</p>
<p>
-The first kind of solution, the solution that operates on what types
+But the first kind of solution, the solution that operates on what kinds
of patents can be valid is a good solution for Europe to use.
</p>
<p>
When the US started having software patents, there was no political
debate. In fact, nobody noticed. The software field, for the most
-part, didn't even notice. There was a supreme court decision in 1981
+part, didn't even notice. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1981
which considered a patent on a process for curing rubber. The ruling
was that the fact that the apparatus included a computer and a program
as part of the process to cure the rubber did not make it
-un-patentable.
-<span class="gnun-split"></span>The appeals court the next year which
considers all
+unpatentable.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>The appeals court the next year, which
considers all
patent cases, reversed the qualifiers. They said the fact that there
is a computer and a program in this makes it patentable. The fact
that there is a computer and program in anything makes it patentable.
-This is why the US started having business procedure patents. This is
-because the business procedures were carried out on a computer and
-that made them patentable. So this ruling was made and I think the
+This is why the US started having business procedure patents.
+Because the business procedures were carried out on a computer and
+that made them patentable. So this ruling was made, and I think the
natural order recalculation patent was one of the first or might have
-been even the first. Throughout the 80's we didn't know about this.
+been even the first.
</p>
<p>
-It was around 1990 that programmers in the US started to become aware
-that they were faced with a danger from software patents. So i saw
-how the field worked before and how the field worked after. I saw no
+But throughout the 80's we mostly didn't know about this. It was around
+1990 that programmers in the US started to become aware
+that they were faced with a danger from software patents. So, I saw
+how the field worked before then and how it worked after. I saw no
particular speed up in progress after 1990. There was no political
debate in the US, but in Europe there has been a big political debate.
Several years ago there was a push to amend the
Munich treaty that established the <a href="https://www.epo.org/";>
-European Patent Office</a>. It has a
-<a
href="https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/1973/e/ar52.html";>
+European Patent Office</a>. It has a <a
+href="https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/1973/e/ar52.html";>
clause saying that software is not patentable</a>. The push was to
amend that to start allowing software patents. But the community took
notice of this. It was actually free software developers and free
@@ -1083,97 +1166,100 @@
<p>
We are not the only ones threatened by software patents. All software
developers are threatened by software patents and even software users
-are threatened by software patents. For instance, Paul Heckel, when
+are threatened. For instance, Paul Heckel, when
Apple wasn't very scared of his threats, he threatened to start suing
-Apple's customers. Apple found that very scary. They figured they
+Apple customers. That, Apple found very scary. They figured they
couldn't afford to have their customers being sued like that, even if
-they would ultimately win. So the users can get sued too, either as a
-way of attacking a developer or just as a way to squeeze money out of
-them on their own or to cause mayhem.
+they would ultimately win. So users can get sued too, either as a
+way of attacking a developer, or just as a way to squeeze money out of
+them on their own or cause mayhem to them on their own.
</p>
<p>
-All software developers and users are vulnerable. But it was the free
+All software developers and users are vulnerable, but it was the free
software community in Europe that took the lead in organizing
opposition. In fact, twice now the countries that govern the European
-Patent Office voted not to amend that treaty. Then the EU took a hand
+Patent Office voted not to amend that treaty. Then the EU took a hand,
and the directorates of the EU were divided on the issue.
</p>
<p> The one whose job is to promote software is against software
-patents it seems. They were not in charge with this issue. It is the
-open market directorate who is in charge and is lead by somebody who
+patents, it seems. But they were not in charge of this issue. It's the
+open market directorate that is in charge, and that's led by somebody who
is in favor of software patents. They basically disregarded public
-opinion which has been expressed to them. They have proposed a
-directive to allow software patents.[<a href="#f3">3</a>] The French
-government has already said they are against it. People who are
+opinion that had been expressed to them, and they proposed a
+directive to allow software patents.[<a href="#f2">2</a>] The French
+government has already said they are against it. People are
working in various other governments in Europe to oppose software
-patents and it is vital to start doing so here. </p>
+patents, and it is vital to start doing so here.
+</p>
<p>
According to Hartmut
Pilch, who is one of the leaders in the European struggle against
software patents, the main impetus comes from the <a
href="https://www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property/patents";>UK
-“Intellectual Property” Office</a>. This office
+Patent Office</a>. The UK Patent Office
is simply biased in favor of software patents. It had a
-public consultation and most of the responses were opposed to software
-patents. They then wrote a report saying that people seem to be
-content with them, completely disregarding the answers. You see, the
-free software community said please send the answers to them and
-please send your answers to us too and we'll publish them. So they
-published these answers which were generally opposed. You'd have
+public consultation, and most of the responses were opposed to software
+patents. They then wrote a report saying that people seem to be content
+with them, <i class="aside">[laughs]</i> completely disregarding the
+answers. You see, the
+free software community said, “Please send the answers to them, and
+please send your answers to us too and we'll publish them.” So they
+published these answers, which were opposed generally. You'd have
never guessed that from the report that the UK Patent Office
published.
</p>
<p>
-They (the UK Patent and Trademark Office) use a term that they call
-technical effect. This is a term which can stretch tremendously. You
+They [the UK Patent and Trademark Office] use a term that they call
+&dlquo;technical effect.&drquo; This is a term which can stretch
tremendously. You
are supposed to think it means a program idea would only be patentable
if it relates closely to specific physical activities. If that is the
interpretation, it would mostly solve the problem. If the only
-software ideas that can be patented were those that really did relate
+software ideas that could be patented were those that really did relate
to a particular technical, specific physical result that you might
have patented if you didn't use a program, that would be OK. The
-problem is that you can stretch that term. You can describe the
+problem is you can stretch that term. You can describe the
result you get by running any program as a physical result. How does
-this physical result different from every other? Well it is as a
+this physical result differ from every other? Well it is as a
result of this computation. The result is that the UK Patent Office
is proposing something that looks like it leads to mostly solving the
-problem and really gives carte blanche for patenting almost anything.
+problem, and really gives <i>carte blanche</i> for patenting almost anything.
</p>
<p>
-The people in the same ministry are also involved in the copyright
+The people in the same ministry are also involved in a copyright
issue which really has nothing to do with software patents except that
-it is being handled by the same people. It is a question of
+it's being handled by the same people. It's a question of
interpreting the recent EU copyright directive, a horrible law like
the <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca";>Digital Millennium Copyright
Act in the US</a>. But there is some latitude for countries to decide
how to implement it. The UK is proposing the most draconian possible
way of implementing this directive. You could greatly reduce the harm
that it does by implementing it properly. The UK wants to maximize
-the tyrannical effect of this directive. It seems there is a certain
-group, the <a
href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20070603164510/http://www.dti.gov.uk/";>Department
of Trade and
-Industry [archived]</a>, who need to be reined in. It is necessary to put a
+the tyrannical effect of this directive. It seems there is a certain group,
the
+<a
href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20070603164510/http://www.dti.gov.uk/";>
+Department of Trade and Industry [archived]</a>, <i class="aside">[laughs]</i>
who need
+to be reined in. <i class="aside">[laughs]</i> It is necessary to put a
check on their activities. Stop their creating new forms of power.
</p>
<p>
Software patents tie up every software developer and every computer
-user in a new in a new form of bureaucrat. If the businesses that use
+user in a new form of bureaucracy. If the businesses that use
computers realized how much trouble this can cause for them, they
-would be up in arms and I am sure they can stop it. Business doesn't
+would be up in arms, and I'm sure they could stop it. Business doesn't
like being tied up in bureaucracy.
</p>
<p>
Sometimes, of course, it serves an important purpose. There are some
-areas where we wish the UK government did a more careful job in tying
+areas where we wish the UK government did a more careful job of tying
certain businesses up in bureaucracy, like when it involves moving
-animals around.[<a href="#f4">4</a>] But in some cases, when it
-doesn't serve any purpose except to create artificial monopolies so
+animals around.[<a href="#f3">3</a>] But in some cases, when it
+doesn't serve any purpose except to create artificial monopolies, so
that somebody can interfere with software development, squeeze money
out of developers and users, then we should reject it.
</p>
@@ -1186,11 +1272,12 @@
</p>
<p>
-The battle is not over. It still can be won.
+The battle is not over. It still can be won. <i class="aside">[applause]</i>
</p>
+
<div class="column-limit"></div>
-<h3 class="footnote">Footnotes</h3>
+<h3 id="footnotes" class="footnote">Footnotes</h3>
<ol>
<li id="f1">There are approximately 300-400 unique parts in an
automatic transmission, and a transmission is generally the most
@@ -1201,15 +1288,7 @@
would probably take a good programmer a day to a week to write, test
and debug.</li>
- <li id="f2">I say “software patents” but what do I
- really mean? The U.S. patent office doesn't officially divide
- patents into software patents and other patents. So, in fact, any
- patent might conceivably get you sued for writing software if it
- could apply to some software. Software patents are patents that
- might potentially apply to software, patents that might potentially
- get you sued for writing software.</li>
-
- <li id="f3">On 6 July 2005, the European Parliament rejected the
+ <li id="f2">On 6 July 2005, the European Parliament rejected the
software patent directive by 648 out of 680 votes. However, we must
not forget the issue of software patents, as those who were pressing
for patenting are trying to revive the recently thrown-out
@@ -1218,12 +1297,12 @@
conceding patents for software included in other kinds of
inventions.</li>
- <li id="f4">To make it harder for foot-and-mouth disease to
+ <li id="f3">To make it harder for foot-and-mouth disease to
spread.</li>
</ol>
<hr class="no-display" />
-<div class="edu-note c"><p id="fsfs">This essay is published in
+<div class="edu-note c"><p id="fsfs">This speech is published in
<a href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/";><cite>Free
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
@@ -1286,7 +1365,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2022/11/12 20:53:03 $
+$Date: 2022/12/12 18:59:46 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/philosophy software-patents.html,
Therese Godefroy <=