[OT] Free software versus software idea patents
harrismh777 at charter.net
Thu Apr 7 18:33:49 CEST 2011
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> In my view, Mono encourages .NET; and that's bad. Idea patents and
>> particularly idea patents covering mathematics
> Do you have an example of a patent covering mathematics that applies
> to .NET?
Therein lies *the* problem. The point that gets missed over and
over is that there CAN BE NO PATENT COVERING MATHEMATICS ... period.
Yes, C# and .NET are covered by hundreds of software patents. Its
an insane mess... which must be eliminated at all costs.
All software can be expressed as lambda calculus. The point being,
all software is mathematics. No software should have been able to be
patented; and this is regardless of prior art, time-frames, wording,
&etc. Mathematics, processes in algorithm, and algorithm specifications
should never have seen the light of day as patentable. Believe it or
not, we're about to win that argument... the most recent Supreme Court
decision regarding process and process algorithms was a serious victory
in the right direction.
>> > ( every known piece of
>> > software ever written can be described by lambda algebra )
> And every piece of hardware can be described by a mathematical function,
> so does this mean you oppose*all* patents?
You have a serious misunderstanding regarding idea patents. An idea
that can be constructed is patentable (like a nand chip, the SN7400N,
for instance) but the mathematical concept of the 'nand gate' cannot be
patented. In other words, if Texas Instruments designs a specif kind of
hardware to implement the concept of 'nand gate' and builds the chip
(the quad nand SN7400N) and that chip design ( TTL ) is patented, that
in no way "patents" the mathematical concept idea for 'nand gate'.
Someone else is perfectly free to develop their own hardware to
implement the math concept 'nand gate' (like Motorola's CMOS 4011 quad
two input positive nand gate) and then patent *thier* hardware chip.
I am not apposed to patents... they are worded into the
Constitution of the United States for which I am honor-bound and patriot
bound to protect, with life if necessary. What I am apposed to is the
illicit use of the U.S. patent office by corporations to patent
mathematical ideas that constrain progress in computer science and usurp
the common liberties of we the people, costing all of us billions of
dollars in litigation expenses (only the damn lawyers win). Software
patents are evil and must be eliminated. Further, every effort must be
brought to the front in apposition to software patents around the globe.
This sin is not just local to the U.S. Every free nation (ones that
value freedom) must take a stand in this fight.
>> are not truly
>> patentable... which is why some of us are vigorously fighting software
>> patents (as well at the corporations who wield them).
> What are you doing to fight software patents?
For one thing, what I'm doing right now; talking to you.
For another, I join and support the organizations who are formally
fighting to eliminate software patents. There are many of these, but the
ones I support are:
Take a stand, if you value freedom, and if you value computer
science. Its your responsibility, as well as mine.
>> Software must be free (as in freedom). Encouraging interoperability with
>> known agendas against freedom is inconsistent with the fundamental
> I would have thought that if you really, truly believed in freedom, you
> would be happy to allow people the freedom to interoperate with non-free
> software. But perhaps you meant that software must be free, provided only
> the right sorts of freedom are supported.
I take no action to prevent you (nor anyone else) from
inter-operating with non-free software nor the evil corporations who
provide it. You are not "free" in doing so, but I will not in any way
constrain you any further than your own choices. Again, you miss the point.
Proprietary software and proprietary interoperability are at work
to destroy my freedoms and the freedoms of computer science. At this
point in time, I am not legally "free" to build *any* non-trivial
software without requiring very expensive cross-licensing (which I
cannot afford) with evil corporate empires because of software idea
patents holding me by the nose whilst kicking my rear-end. This
situation is intolerable, and must be eliminated... the quicker the sooner.
>> C# was an effort to lock-in commercial developers into the
>> .NET framework (and it almost damn-well worked!).
> Got a source for that?
Another poster provided you with the numbers (which are
conservative, by the way). If it had not been for SUN and Java, we would
have been toast with Microsoft and C#. Fortunately .NET and C# turned
out to be a Microsoft fad vision flop, like Visual BASIC. But that also
misses the main point... which was and is--- proprietary software (and
frameworks, gimmics, &etc like that) are evil if their design purpose is
to lock-in 'market share' and usurp freedom of choice and freedom of
> And you can trust it because Forrester said so!
That's the trouble with some argumentation... its often sarcastic.
Sarcasm is usually based in emotions like the secondary emotion of
anger, or directly based in the primary emotion of fear. These points
can be debated without fear or sarcasm. I don't even really fear losing
freedom... but I don't mind fighting for it... and I won't give it up
without a fight either! That's my emotion.
Give me liberty or give me death--- Patric Henry
> As I see it, C# has never had more than an 8% market share. But perhaps
> you have some better data.
There is plenty of data... google it, or check your local B&N
bookseller (or equivalent). For a while C# was the fad taking the world
by storm... fortunately the storm has waned... but the threat is still
there. Of course, Windows failure with Vista and Win7 (not to mention
their lame phone) has helped. The love for Microsoft is gone... the only
thing that remains is the lock-in... like Borg implants... its gonna
take a while to cleanse the infected drones. We'll get there.
>> > At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer
>> > science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of
>> > wasteful litigation and head-ache.
> Do you have an example of this wasteful litigation?
You have to be kidding, right? Check *any* of the sites I listed
above and read about it... software idea patent litigation is a business
now worth billions of dollars per year. The only people who win are the
damn lawyers. The ones that lose are you and I. You want a good
example... google the lawsuit that is firing up between Microsoft and
Barnes & Noble over the nook... a general purpose computer running
android linux and being used to read books. Microsoft (the odious
giant) has brought suit (yes, it will cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars) against little 'ol B&N (the struggling bookseller) over
software idea patent infringement in the B&N nook reader. This makes me
damn mad, and it should anger you also. And you should want to do
something about it.. !
Don't tread on me.
More information about the Python-list