I just read an article on Kodak winning the Java patent suit. I totally disagree w/ patenting software, at least how it's currently implemented.

I do think it's okay to copyright software, and maybe even patent the actual code of a program, but I don't think patenting the idea of an app should be allowed. It definitely stifles creativity if you and I have the same idea for a program but you patent it first. I would have to pay you money to license the idea behind the program, if I still wanted to create my own version.

Now, I have yet to write a full-blown app, much less try and sell one, even as shareware. However, I have some ideas about it. I don't know how OSS relates to patents, but I haven't seen anything reported about patent violations regarding OSS programs, so I'm assuming my ideas should work.

1) Write your program, but have two versions of it. One version is licensed for retail consumption and must be paid for, w/ all the normal EULA restricitions. The second version is licensed under GPL or similar OSS license, but can't be used for retail purposes; it can only be used for continuing open-source ideas.

For example, say I created a database program. The first version you have to buy from me but you're free to use it for your company to create profits for you. The other version is GPLed and totally free financially, but you can use it only to for non-financial purposes. You can't make money off my work unless you compesate me first.

2) Make a single open-source version of your product, but sell the source code. It's been a while since I've read the GPL, but I think the only requirement is that you have to provide, or allow access to, the source code of your program. So why not let anyone who wants to use your program have it for free, under GPL, but if they want to make changes to it, they have to pay to get your source code.

I believe you don't violate GPL, because the source code is available, but if someone wants to change your work, they have to pay for the privilige. Even if GPL doesn't allow this, it would be easy to create a modified version that would.

By using my ideas, I suspect you could bypass some of the issues of patents. Here's some of the potential benefits I see:

• Depending on which version you choose, you can still make money on your programs, but you don't stop others from creating similar works.
• You can contribute to the OSS idea but still get $ from your work, if you desired.
• The people who are cheap and want free-as-in-beer software can still get it, but don't get to make changes to it.
• It would let people have a true "try before you buy" experience, but they couldn't use it in a production setting. They could put the OSS version on a test system and get it working correctly, then buy the retail version once they've decided it does the job.
• People can use open-source software as they see fit. They can support OSS both financially and w/ updated software.

Now, I'm not sure how derivative works would come into the plan; maybe some sort of royalty pay-out to code contributors. Kinda like a paid version of the Linux kernel. One person "owns" the code and sells it, other people can pay for their share of the source code and submit changes. Money made on the code are distributed to all code submitters. This could be done w/ either plan; OSS hackers could get the source for free and submit changes to the retail/free version, or they can just pay for the source code up front.

Any thoughts?

__________________
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.

Just a couple of days ago, I came up with this brilliant idea (at least, I think so) and I was thinking about this whole idea of "patents", for the first time in my life!

I felt terribly uneasy pondering about patenting my idea and it's normal that you think it's something absurd too. However, when you think about the recent settlement by Google to continue using the (patented) idea of displaying targeted ads on search results and if you consider the amount of their settlement with Overture, you'd probably wish you had put on your thinking cap a little bit earlier than the guys at Overture. I mean, let's face it; it's not the most complicated idea out there...

__________________
J de Silva
Learning Journal | GIDForums™ | GIDNetwork™ | GIDWebhosts™ | GIDSearch™

Very interesting read. Although I do believe this comment here does violate the GPL. I thought the GPL gives you full access to the source code to do with as you will, but your derivative work must also be available to others under the GPL. (I could be wrong though)

Also, I think that you may be minimizing the amount of work that actually went into the creation of the GPL. And the GPL in continually being challenged (most notably by SCO). I think any modified GPL would need to get some copyright experts involved...

This is a very interesting delimna that you have broached. I am a huge supporter of opensource. I don't think that it is an easy thing to make money with though. There are some positive examples, ie Redhat, but for every Redhat there are probably a million and one busted companies.

Good thoughts though...

__________________
The best damn Sports Blog period.

That's why Europe is still fighting against software patents, I mean WTF how can anything possibly advance without stepping on other peoples toes. Have you ever heard of collective intelligence where people think of the same thing at the same time (just think of clothes designers yet they didn't actually copy each other).

Creative Commons is coming to the UK and I think it is the way forward rather than the hooha that the GPL has managed to bring since there is little financial gain on the licence for anyone working with it.

A friend of a friend patented those inflatable speakers called Ellula and they had to spend thousands and thousands on the patent which caused them to have to use the arm of a venture capitalist. How much money did he see? Not very much I can tell you that. He's famous now so that's a different story.

Rob

I've had several ideas for products (not software) and considered patenting them. Even if you decided to do the process yourself, it can cost an arm and a leg. Plus a few fingers and toes. That's not counting the time you have to invest looking at prior art to make sure it hasn't been done before, plus the filling out of forms.

One way of looking at software patents is like the patenting of plants. The end product is patented, whether it's cross-pollinated or gengineered. The actual method of creating the new plant hasn't been patented. So why not apply it to software? Patent the application created but not the process, or at least not the idea.

One of the first things you learn in school, any school, is that there are many different ways of looking at the same thing. Think Rorsach ink-blots. The same software can be created different ways.

__________________
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.

There are many industries where the patenting practice is just plain wrong IMHO. The Drug industry is rife with it. Certainly drug companies do spend gazillions on researching a new drug to treat cancer, they do deserve some reward, but what about all those people who cannot afford to pay the hideous price and die without it? How good is patenting then? There is nothing stopping these companies charging $100 a day for a pill to treat AIDS. A discovery that could benefit mankind, bastardised into a moneymaking racket.

Also I think patenting art or literature is a bit daft. Consider James Joyce, his Ulysees is considered the pinnacle of postmodernism in literature (my opinion withheld... ) however his family are preventing rendritions of his works in plays, charging HUGE amounts to those playhouses that can afford to put it on. The patent was to run out a few years ago, and a lecturer was planning to release an annotated edition to make it more approachable for the common person (stream of consciousness is seriously tough to read. let alone follow, I can tell ya). But the European Community decided to extend patents for another few years, and this lecturer was dragged to court immediately for attempting to release it! Now how can this behaviour be considered benificial to all?

Music.... well we all know how well copyrights are doing there

The subject I practice, Mathematics (and Physics, and some algorithms too) is good, most discoveries are released into the public domain, for the good of all. How would the world function if (say) Einstein's General Relativity was patented by a company, and every usage of the equations & ideas would demand financial repayment to that company? No research or further discovery could be done on it, except by that company! What good would that be? There's be no GPRS then, NASA would be bankrupt (and lost most of it's astronauts) & no 3rd level student would know about it.

I disagree with being able to patent software code only, because you can code the same idea completely differently, and reap the same moneys that the creator did, maybe do better if you're good at marketing.

Below is a link to a page with some patents that might surprise you:
wiki.ael.be

Patenting small ideas like tabs or progress bars is ridiculous, I think. An entire product idea may be acceptable under certain criteria. And I'd not give it long. As an example, Norton Ghost is great, a simple idea brilliantly executed, they deserve their reward, get their foot in the market. But after a short period of time, say 2 years, competitors should be able to enter the market & take Ghost on. If Norton continue to do a good job, people will still support them, otherwise the competitiors will benefit. And the most important person of all, the joe-soap will benefit.

<end of rant>
GF

Good points. A couple of comments:

What are you saying here? What I see first is "companies spend a gazillion dollars on R&D and should get a reward for their research." Then you say "they shouldn't charge $100 a day to try to recoup that gazillion because (most) people can't afford it." Well, if they don't recoup the money, they can no longer do R&D on the next new drug and more people will die. It can't be both ways.

In fact, when a new drug is released, the company has exclusive rights for it for a set amount of time. After that, anyone that can replicate it is allowed and the price plummets because generic forms can now be marketed. This happened with a very popular drug while I worked at a pharmaceutical company.


I agree with your first sentence. But after that I disagree.

The fact is that competitors to Norton Ghost do exist. Disk Image is one. They aren't patenting the concept, they are patenting their process. Anyone can write a "clone" of a piece of software, as long as the process used is different. The patent protects the code used to write Ghost from being used by someone else, not the concept of imaging a disk.

__________________

Cow: You're a lawyer too?
Mooseblood (mosquito): Ma'am, I was already a bloodsucking parasite. All I needed was a briefcase!

You are correct on the drug companies, I never said they shouldn't recoup their R&D expenses & a profit as a reward, I just found it immoral that they can charge so much & make such huge profits, to the detriment of the consumer.

Also you do mention that the patent expires after a set amount of time and then competitors can move in, and the product becomes cheap & still profitable. But 20 years? That's a long time to recoup development expenses.


That again is true, but I'm trying to decide for myself whether it would be better to have the idea patented, rather than the code. Disk imaging is such a simple idea, but really useful. To write the code, you've first gotta have an idea. And coming up with an idea is certainly the harder part, I think.

This is a difficult topic, and I'm sure that should there be a simple answer then it would be implimented already. But you do have to wonder just how fair the current system is today.

And then how do you define fair... and who will impose this fairness... aah, it's all confusing.

Certainly the Star Trek idealogy of working for human progress instead of monetary gain is tempting.
GF

I didn't say the patent expires. I don't think they do. It's the exclusivity of the market that expires. My guess is even the generic companies have to pay something to the developer -- but I don't really know.


Absolutely not! When you do this, all competition is lost and all advancement is stifled. Look at Windows. Because they are almost the only game in town, they get to decide how we are to deal with computers. And right now, the Windows operating system (the way I understand it) is finally using the power of the Pentium I or II. But because of the bloat, you need the higher processor just to get it loaded. Windows has actually stifled progress in the computer field.

True. And for every good idea, 100 bad ones are thought of.

There's the problem. What is the definition? Who decided it? And what gives him the right to dictate what's fair to me? So I'll decide what's fair. But will what I come up with be fair to you? ad nauseum....

Yes, and look where it got them. A solid 40 years of a lucritive entertainment franchise. Popularity. And they get to explore other planets. The lucky stiffs!

__________________

Cow: You're a lawyer too?
Mooseblood (mosquito): Ma'am, I was already a bloodsucking parasite. All I needed was a briefcase!

With the new changes in law allowing an increased length of the patent (or maybe it was copyrights?), there will come a time when programmers can't even improve on an idea w/o running into many different patents. It's already starting to happen, as can be seen by all the lawsuits companies are filing. Sure, you can license the patent, but does it allow you to make changes? I don't know. And if you do make changes, can you claim them as your own? Perhaps even patent them? It could just become a viscious cycle.

__________________
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.