Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)

Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)

1. Stop being outraged. It is happening, and it is being sanctioned.

2. Stop being reactive and get proactive. The majority of patents will
appear in the future. We are in the early stages of adoption. The
worst is yet to come. We need to act now.

3. Start laying the groundwork to fight future patent claims. We must
provide a global, public index to document when and by whom something
has already been invented. This is not the same as a code repository.
This is an index of software inventions (concepts, architectures,
designs, algorithms, data structures, ...) with structured references
to existing code which has implemented those software inventions.

4. With a carefully implemented software inventions index, we can
prove IN ADVANCE that an idea for a software invention has already
been created and implemented in an acceptable manner.

5. With a carefully implemented software inventions index, we can
compel those agencies which issue and enforce patents to recognize the
existence of prior software inventions and reject patents on existing
inventions.

6. Turn their weapons into paperweights. We need to outmaneuver future
software patents and render them dead on arrival (DOA).

7. Once we succeed in fighting future software patents, then we can
turn our attention to nullifying existing software patents.

Gerard Marshall Vignes

After takin' a swig o' grog, Gerard Vignes belched out this bit o' wisdom:
[color=blue]
> Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)
>
> 3. Start laying the groundwork to fight future patent claims. We must
> provide a global, public index to document when and by whom something
> has already been invented. This is not the same as a code repository.
> This is an index of software inventions (concepts, architectures,
> designs, algorithms, data structures, ...) with structured references
> to existing code which has implemented those software inventions.
>
> 7. Once we succeed in fighting future software patents, then we can
> turn our attention to nullifying existing software patents.[/color]

What, you want us to recreate the USPO? No way. About the best we can
do is enlist IBM and other entities when a patent comes up for
challenge.

--
Tux rox!

Gerard Vignes wrote:
[color=blue]
> Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)
>
> 1. Stop being outraged. It is happening, and it is being sanctioned.
>[/color]

Is the way of dealing with the wrongs of the world to simply accept them? I
wouldn't agree with that, so don't mind me if I continue to be outraged.
[color=blue]
> 2. Stop being reactive and get proactive. The majority of patents will
> appear in the future. We are in the early stages of adoption. The
> worst is yet to come. We need to act now.
>[/color]

Reaction still has value in the patent arena outside of America.
[color=blue]
> 3. Start laying the groundwork to fight future patent claims. We must
> provide a global, public index to document when and by whom something
> has already been invented. This is not the same as a code repository.
> This is an index of software inventions (concepts, architectures,
> designs, algorithms, data structures, ...) with structured references
> to existing code which has implemented those software inventions.
>[/color]

I wish it were that simple. But who kept records?

All those years ago when software was written by the computer engineers/IT
folk, simply because there wasn't any software to buy, many of us shared
functions, design concepts and one liners. Much of it shared through BBs or
directly through messaging, later in magazines, shows were a major time of
sharing, would the patent courts accept my story if I said 'I first heard
of This concept down the pub at the UNIX show around 1980ish'?

Even entire programs were passed around like that, including the likes of MS
Talk, which started it's life as a simple two/three function assembler app
on UNIX, but was built on over years by many programmers. Even MS didn't
actually claim it as theirs at that time, because their programmers (in DOS
days) also played a part in this code sharing. Talk was just used by them
at first as a tutorial example in one of their compilers (masm if I
remember correctly). But the code proved so usefull that it is still the
basis of chat. Yes I know the socket systems have changed and there's the
tunneling wrapped around it and the gui stuff, but the 'design' concept is
still Talk.

I'm afraid I didn't bother to keep a list of who wrote what. So even when I
first used a textbox, as opposed to a location in video memory where you
just sat the cursor, on UNIX before Windows was around at all, I didn't
make a note of who implemented the idea, every one of us had our own
versions of these things, sometimes you used your own, other times someone
elses.

The listbox, I can't remember a time when UNIX didn't have that idea,
remember that UNIX was already running databases, various forms of listing
had to be developed, many ways to implement listing, but was still a list
box. And so it goes on through all of the visible side of MS and nearly all
of the underneath. Very little of what makes up MS Windows was invented by
MS and most of the concepts that make up the parts were already
implemented.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying, about the list of who did what,
but what I am saying is that even if we come up with a pre-windows list for
everything, i.e. the first that we can point to as being provable. Then the
list is still false, and we may well be simply passing the batton that MS
is claiming as theirs to someone else who doesn't really own it. We can
point to Borland (DOS), Lotus, Wordperfect, NeXt and others. Each may well
have more right to the batton than MS, but that batton still does not
belong to them.

That is to me the reason why we have to continue to fight the patent idea,
I'm not going to accept these patents. There is only one of me so it
doesn't matter at all to the rest of the world what I do, but I will not
support something that I know is not only wrong but is in fact stealing.


We are not alone, other sciences are suffering the same things that we are.
Science shares even more than the programming world shares. Because it
increases the speed to cures and solutions. But some of the concepts shared
are now being closed by American companies who just happened to be first to
the claim office. So this battle is not only a fight about software
patents, it is covering every technology.

Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)

This is not the format I am proposing. This is the concept I am
proposing. I doubt that any software company, no matter how predatory,
is arrogant enough to try and patent "Hello World". Still...

COMMON NAME:
Hello World

CONTEXT:
programming language -> first program -> hello world
programming language -> installation -> test -> hello world

SIGNIFICANCE:
"Hello World" is the generic name for a simple test program whose
purpose is to
(1) check a programmer's ability to code and run a simple program in
that language; and
(2) check the basic installation of a programming language's compiler/
interpreter and runtime environment.

FIRST KNOWN OCCURRANCE:
The C Programming Language, 1st ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall. ISBN 0-13-110163-3.
Kernighan, Brian W.; Dennis M. Ritchie (February 1978).

OFFICIAL WEBSITE:
[url]http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/[/url]

EXAMPLE CODE SNIPPET:

main() {
printf("hello, world");
}

SYNONYMS:
Hello World!
HelloWorld
HelloWorld!

The actual format might look like an XML application of the Gang of
Four's "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented
Software" (ISBN 0-201-63361-2. They prescribe a very elegant way of
describing design patterns. The challenge here is very similar,
although not limited to design patterns.

The purpose of the index I propose it to QUICKLY DOCUMENT AS MANY
SOFTWARE INVENTIONS AS POSSIBLE. Inventions can range from the
conceptual stage all the way to the implemented phase. This
documentation must be of sufficient quality to withstand a legal
challenge to its correctness. The keywords are SPEED, QUANTITY and
QUALITY. This is well within the abilities of the open source
community.

Gerard Marshall Vignes
Seattle, WA 98105