| 7:39 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I believe this is the correct action.
Not due to being a software developer, that is not my point of view in this!
Every law or action that is made to prevent something (knowledge or goods) to reach people. Or to make the strong even stronger, I absolutely disagree.
It is important to protect intelectual property and create laws to protect both creators and maintainers of a business that relies on that very aspect. But not in a way that creates a monopoly and prevents anyone of having a chance to compete with it.
There is enough market for everyone, why shouldn't we share profits? OR do we all want "10" companies to rule business and settle for working "for them"?
| 7:42 pm on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes - logical and welcome news from intelligent people in Europe.
|OR do we all want "10" companies to rule business and settle for working "for them"? |
Many folks in one powerful nation do want that.
| 1:21 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
it really depends on the patent....
i mean if people worked hard on something shouldn't they be able to profit and protect it?
| 3:46 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As a software developer I am glad the European software patent is postponed. I could make a lot of money with it, because I developed some unique algorithms which might be patentable, but I am afraid it will stop creativity. For every small algorithm you develop you have to investigate if someone else wrote such a piece of code before. If so, and they patented it, it might cost you a lot of money.
Did you know that British Telecom owns the patent on the hyperlink [swpat.ffii.org] for example? What a mess would it be if they manage to squeeze money out of this. Can you imagine the internet without hyperlinks, or FireFox suddenly costing $25 for each download only because it is a piece of software that implemented following of hyperlinks?
| 6:15 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One problem with Software Patents is the similarity to Copyright.
Copyright is free and lasts longer than Patents. I would argue that algos can be copyrighted. I see no difference between translating a book from one language to another and translating an algo from Pascal to C++ or whatever.
Also, if the functionality of two pieces of code are identical, I would argue that it's the same as stealing the plot from a book and just changing the character names, etc. (unless, of course, it's coincidence).
I see no reason for Software Patents to exist provided copyright law can be used to protect intellectual property rights.
And then there's trademark law and registered designs (like the shape of a shampoo bottle)....... nightmare.
| 7:49 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Copyright and patents are totally different. Copyright is the protection of someones effort, a patent is the protection of an idea. If two programmers are developing a solution for a specific problem without knowing each other, they both own the copyright of their own work and they both get paid for their own sweat and tears. However, if the first of them was smart enough to get a patent for his work, the second programmer cannot sell his piece of software without first settling an agreement with the other.
In linux world we have seen how this can work out. For some years there are software solutions which make linux a real-time system. The principle is simple, a micro kernel is used that has two tasks. The first task is the linux kernel, the second task is the set of real-time instructions to be performed. The real-time instructions have priority over the linux kernel so with very little programming effort you can transform a linux system in a real time computer for industrial or laboratory use.
Now one of the developers has patented this process and is asking huge amounts of money for this micro kernel. The other groups which made comparable systems either had to stop their development, or reach an agreement with the first. Fortunately there is a license agreement which allows specific use of the micro kernel without costs, but the patent holder has the right to ask whatever money he wants to. Many universities run their laboratory equipment on linux with this type of real-time solution. If the patent holder was a crook, they could have faced huge cost increases just because someone was squeezing money out of a patent.
Copying is different. Phil Katz (the developer of PKzip) already learned 20 years ago that you cannot just copy source code from programs (arc) and sell it as your own. Actually the copyright dispute made him develop the pkzip program, now the best known compression method in the world.
| 8:07 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is important to remember that the decision was just delayed.
We still have to work on this (and on our political representatives) to make sure we get the right legislation in the end.
| 10:14 pm on Feb 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|If two programmers are developing a solution for a specific problem without knowing each other, they both own the copyright of their own work and they both get paid for their own sweat and tears. However, if the first of them was smart enough to get a patent for his work, the second programmer cannot sell his piece of software without first settling an agreement with the other. |
Thus, copyright is the fairest system to protect software rather than patents. HOWEVER, reverse engineering, etc. should be treated as a breach of copyright.
It's very easy to demonstrate whether two similar ideas have been developed independently, you just look at all the old code - assuming people keep old backups, etc.