Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index) - Linux

This is a discussion on Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index) - Linux ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)

  1. 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


  2. Re: Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Gerard Vignes belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > 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.


    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!

  3. Re: Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)

    Gerard Vignes wrote:

    > Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)
    >
    > 1. Stop being outraged. It is happening, and it is being sanctioned.
    >


    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.

    > 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.
    >


    Reaction still has value in the patent arena outside of America.

    > 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.
    >


    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.





  4. Re: Fighting Software Patents (Software Inventions Index)

    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:
    http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/

    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


+ Reply to Thread