Red Hat CEO Decries Software Patents

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Red Hat’s CEO, in an interview given after a speech given at the Open Source Business Conference, said patents “absolutely” retard the pace of innovation.

"In the last 30 years, we've continued to see patents really being a challenge to innovation. The industry moves much faster than a remedy process," Szulik told hundreds of attendees at the Open Source Business Conference here. "There is very little empirical evidence that builds a correlation between patents and innovation."
Click to expand...
 
I'm absolutely positive that Red Hat holds no software patents. :p
 
Without patents, we would have no brand name, no industry, no main source of icon. Nothing that made computers what it is today would exist.
 
Ockie said:
Without patents, we would have no brand name, no industry, no main source of icon. Nothing that made computers what it is today would exist.
Click to expand...

Those are different. Trademarks and copyrights are not the same thing. Right now, especially with software, patents can prevent programmers from doing things. If you held all of the patents for every line of code for every way the mouse could be used to control how the cursor moves on the screen then you could set up licensing fees for anyone wanting to use any of that code or you could sue them for infringement. It's freaking stupid. How many ways can one come up with code to do something on the computer? And, if one must dream up another way, then the coding is going to be even more inefficient than what we already have today.
 
Shotglass01 said:
Those are different. Trademarks and copyrights are not the same thing. Right now, especially with software, patents can prevent programmers from doing things. If you held all of the patents for every line of code for every way the mouse could be used to control how the cursor moves on the screen then you could set up licensing fees for anyone wanting to use any of that code or you could sue them for infringement. It's freaking stupid. How many ways can one come up with code to do something on the computer? And, if one must dream up another way, then the coding is going to be even more inefficient than what we already have today.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am quite aware of the two. My statement still stands.

You won't have a trademark if you don't' have a patent, think about it. Coke, Nike, Microsoft would not exist as iconic brands if they did not have patents to protect their image. If you could have every person replicating a design or ripping off an idea, what would be the point in being a large business, as their entire structure would be continually ripped off.

You would have inferior brands, inferior products, and not to mention cheaper products polluting your product lineup... heck, even your business processes would be ripped off... so literally you are just paying for their R&D.

Invention really comes with trying something new, patents facilitate this behavior. Imagine how hard microsoft would try if anyone could rip off thier product? Do you think XP would have managed to come around?
 
So the open source community is upset they can't steal other companies innovations and use them as thier own? Boo freakin' hoo
 
Software is different from any real world application.. There are only so many ways to efficiently code something. But now when people write code, they have to just hope that it's not designed in the same way as a piece of patented code? It's retarded.

Patenting program code is like patenting how to hold a knife or how to swing a hammer.

Copyright law would already cover people just ripping parts of code out of somebody elses programs already in the case of real theivery.
 
UrielDagda said:
Software is different from any real world application.. There are only so many ways to efficiently code something. But now when people write code, they have to just hope that it's not designed in the same way as a piece of patented code? It's retarded.

Patenting program code is like patenting how to hold a knife or how to swing a hammer.
Click to expand...
agreed.

good thing i'm not a programmer... just an end user ;)
 
No... RETARDED PATENTS retard the progress of mankind. That goes for any patent, not just software.

It's just alot easier to generate a RETARDED patent over software than actual things.

The system was doing just fine for 200 years, even through the 60's and 70's, with plenty of basic software innovation going on, because the patent process was rigorous and weeded out the UNPATENTABLE, the OBVIOUS under the art, and the obvious variations on prior art.

Then came Ronnie Reagan who "fixed" the PTO. It's been "fixed" ever since. It's great that maintainence fee's pay for most of the manpower.... but it required reducing the manpower by 90% to achieve that goal, and has given us a disfunctional agency and process.

That's what republicans do, make the govt disfunctional so they can say "See, I told you big govt is bad." :eek: :p :D
 
How you worked a political slam into this is amazing. If you have nothing to add to a topic without injecting politics into it, do not post in this forum.
 
Ockie said:
Invention really comes with trying something new, patents facilitate this behavior. Imagine how hard microsoft would try if anyone could rip off thier product? Do you think XP would have managed to come around?
Click to expand...

They don't need a patent to protect their code. They already have the EULA saying no reverse engineering, no copying of code, etc, etc. You accept the agreement before using the software so doing any of those things violates the EULA, and they can go after you for that without dragging in patent law.
 
Steve, it goes to the heart of what is wrong with the very subject matter of this topic. A little historical background is always helpful.

The founding fathers setup the patent system, they did a great job and it worked fine for 200+ yrs. In 1981 under the guise of "streamlining" and "pay as you go" the system and PTO were altered. As we can now see 20+ yrs later... NOT for the better.

Now instead of fueling and enhancing commerce and innovation, the system actually works against the very goals it was created to enhance.

On Open Source, always remember one of the FUNDAMENTAL TENETS of the patent system.... YOU, John Q Public can personally make for your own use ANYTHING that has been patented/copyrighted, and do so without paying anyone anything.

If you manufacture something for RESALE then you have to pay royalties to the patent holder.

So individuals can fire up thier compiler and "make" any code for any purpose and not be owing or beholding to ANYONE EVER.

Also remember that most of the fundamentals in software science have been around for decades, most fundamental work was done at ATT, IBM, Xerox in the 50's 60's and 70's. Even if something was patented, the patent is UP and no longer in effect.

MSoft and others have patented (cough) slight modifications on a theme just to try and keep the patent protection alive. They were able to do this AFTER the PTO was gutted in 1981.

Im sorry if the historical facts.... and the ramifications of them now.... have some political lean to them. _I_ am not the one who tossed a monkeywrench into the founding fathers work, 1981 is when it happened and responsibilty rests on only one set of shoulders.

The PTO system can always be FIXED, and I am all for putting back to a point where it actually works. No rubberstamping of industry BS, no more leaving it to the courts to decide between multi-million/billion$ parties and screw the little inventor guy.

Redhat is trying to make money of the open source materials, so they are in a different position than individuals who compile up thier own linux/whatever programs for personal use. For individuals, patent or not has no relevence, compile and use away with absolutely no concern over legalities.... you are AUTHORIZED by law.
 
Baiting people with political "that's what republicans / democrats do.." is what I was refering to and the reason I PM'd you.

THAT does not belong in this forum, take it to GM.
 
bleh. He's a CEO of a business that is geared to make money. I have zero faith in his Jesus like qualities because he is in some way potentially related to protecting the holy grail of open source. If he worked for microsoft, getting paid, he wouldn't hold the opinion.

Its amazing what will happen when you have to put food on the table, and gas in your car. You have to live, and you can't do it with ideology.
 
He's right of course. The software industry is really selling customer support and not the software itself.

For example, I can go to www.sourceforge.net and find software that does the same thing as commercial software and it costs me nothing. What's the difference? The open-source software comes without technical support.

Software companies who innovate won't have to worry about competitors since they understand the technology they engineered better than anybody and would be able to better explain the software to their customers than competitors who'll try to integrate the technology into their products.
 
So let's say I develop a new way to compress video. I spend millions in R&D. I hire an army of DSP kung-fu masters.

Should some wankers on SourceForge be able to just take my R&D and implement their own solution using my algorithms after reverse engineering my bins or reading published academic papers? Their implementation may be different but the base technology is my work. They're just leeching it and screaming "the code want's to be FREE MAN!"

Every argument against patents on software (algorithms really) is always "there's no new way to code stuff" which just makes me laugh, but I'm sure Charles H. Duell would be proud. Don't quit that job at Best Buy, the ITT "Intro to HTML" class hasn't quite paid off yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top