
"Your criticisms are completely wrong": Stallman on software patents - markshepard
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/your-criticisms-are-completely-wrong-stallman-on-software-patents/
======
belorn
Richard stallman has always been eccentric and unwavering in his stand on
politics around software.

Somehow, people find this odd, wrong, and or bad, and I dont understand it. On
basically all political issues, unwavering is a good attribute. Even being an
eccentric is better than not caring for the issue. eccentricness is often a
key aspect before a change reach a critical mass.

Take a random politician opinion about abortion or nuclear power or any other
common political subject. Say his/her opinion is "well, some should be able to
do it, but then again there are problems so maybe not, and the issue is not
one that need to be address today, and the system today do continue to work,
and well, legal greyness is not that big of an issue, only for those in the
courts...".

Clear, direct, and consistent opinion is a good thing. Diplomacy and "meeting
half-way" has it places, but in politics, there is also times when it should
be clearly avoided. In software politics, there are plenty of people working
the diplomatic route. There is no shortage of diplomats, and a few eccentric
and unwavering voices is then much more useful to maintain the goals of where
we want to actually go without moving the goal in favor of diplomacy.

~~~
danso
> _On basically all political issues, unwavering is a good attribute._

Only in the movies. In real life, this trait can be disastrous towards making
any progress for the betterment of society.

~~~
tankbot
> Only in the movies.

You mean the movies made about people who were unwavering in real life?
Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln are a few high-profile figures that spring to mind, but
there are countless throughout history who have made a difference by standing
up for what they believe in.

I understand your point, that romanticized notions rarely have a place in
reality. But I think Stallman, even with all of his eccentricities, is the
perfect figurehead for these ideologies. He is a believer, and that gives
others permission to believe themselves. It's a very powerful thing.

~~~
gnufied
I think we Indians will spend a lifetime correcting "Ghandi" as "Gandhi". :-)

EDIT: To add to the discussion - not many people are aware but MK Gandhi was
indeed very thorough in his use of Non-Violence and other means of protest. On
few occasions when a protest became violent he was the first to call off the
protest. When most of India & Pakistan were celebrating their independence he
was busy caring to people affected by Hindi/Muslim riots. Having unwavering
attitude is not just stuff of movies.

~~~
Ntrails
If you take "Gandhi" I'll take "they're, there, and their"

~~~
StavrosK
I'll take "it's" and "its".

~~~
quorn3000
You have those the wrong way around.

------
grellas
Mr. Stallman's proposed solution is both simple and elegant: take all software
that runs on a general purpose machine and legislate a "safe harbor" from
patent claims for software falling in that category. This essentially would
return the state of the law to what it was through the early 1990s,
recognizing that software patents are fine when tied to specialized hardware
or when they pertain to a special-purpose machine but not otherwise. Such a
proposal is "radical" in dealing with the problem once and for all but is also
remarkably conservative in only singling out for elimination the one category
of patents most vulnerable to the potent objection that its retention does
little or nothing to further the progress of science and hence doesn't warrant
the monopoly protections afforded by the patent laws. The logic here _should_
enable Congress to support it _if_ it chose to reexamine the issues purely
from a social and legal perspective.

Still, the _practical_ issues remain daunting. What becomes of existing
software patents, for example? Purists may say these are not "property" but
massive dollars have been paid for the rights to own them and there will be
_huge_ resistance, not to mention constitutional objections, over any idea
that these suddenly should be rendered worthless by legislative action. If
these stay intact for the next 20+ years, what good does a safe harbor do in
applying only prospectively? More important, those with a stake in the game -
even relatively benign players such as Google - want to hedge and trim on the
issues in order to protect their investments, and this means that inordinate
pressure will be put on Congress _not_ to single out software patents for
elimination, emphasizing instead more limited measures to help fight trolls
and so on.

With so much resistance, and with an apathetic public, how to build sufficient
momentum to push Congress toward a true solution? Developers might lead this
charge but I wonder. Founders are mostly not directly affected by software
patents and neither are employees at bigger companies who are conscripted to
keep churning them out. And those most directly hit in the patent wars resist
reform to protect their own investments.

So Mr. Stallman finds himself alone in his position at this conference: not
because his solution is bad but because of inordinately difficult practical
barriers. At least we see in this conference that persons of influence in this
area are finally willing to begin seeking incremental reform. If the worst of
the abuses can be fixed (e.g., the troll issue), that at least is a start.
And, who knows, maybe radical changes can occur after initial progress is
made. Time will tell.

~~~
Shorel
Stallman doesn't simply talk about a _solution_ to a _problem_.

He talks about what the optimal Software Patents situation is, and why.

We are in dire straits because we ignored him 20 years ago.

It's our problem to either get to the optimal situation, or to try and fail.

~~~
beatgammit
Maybe someone could patent this optimal Software Patents situation? Let's call
it a design patent.

For completeness, let's patent the process of getting to this optimal Software
Patent situation as well just for good measure.

------
silentmars
I read most of the transcripts of the Oracle v Google trial. This was a case
where both sides had highly paid expert legal teams staffed with the best
lawyers in the country that spent an enormous amount of time preparing to
argue a case about patents and copyright in software.

What jumped out at me, and I imagine anyone else on HN who read these
transcripts, was that despite what was a set of the optimum circumstances for
lawyers dealing with software issues, none of them had the slightest idea what
they were talking about. They were way off the mark. "What is an API?" - a
central issue to the case. The lawyers from neither side understood the
answer. "How do people use a programming language?" Again, both sides were
desperately clueless (although Oracle's Boies was obviously more so, sometimes
hilariously.)

So often in reading those transcripts I wanted to grab one of the lawyers and
scream in his face, "you idiot!! What the hell is wrong with you?!? Are you
stupid????"

The situation with software patents is the same - the same clueless legal
people are having the same clueless legal discussion about it. They don't
understand how software works, they don't understand what software patents
really mean, they don't understand the marketplace, and they certainly don't
understand programming. Unlike me, who just sits back and screams in my own
head at the clueless people who are the self-appointed architects of the legal
world in which software developers and entrepreneurs will live and work,
Richard Stallman is standing up and screaming in their faces about it. It must
feel satisfying to do that. Someone needs to.

~~~
BenoitEssiambre
Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't help to try to set legal precedents that
extend todays extreme intellectual property obligations in software to legal
documents.

When you come to think of it. A contract is very similar to a piece of code.
The main difference is that it is to be executed by humans instead of machines
and enforced by a legal system instead of a machine's design.

Contracts have been deemed non patentable and a high bar has been set for
copyrightability compared to other text because of the requirement that
contract language be well defined with particular sentences having an agreed
upon interpretation based on court precedents.

This means lawyers writing contracts don't have to worry, for each sentence
that they write, that it may be infringing on someone else having written a
similar one. They also don't have to worry that a combination of clauses have
been patented and they can't use it in their contract.

Programmers on the other hand worry about it for every new piece of code they
write. The bar is so low for patentability and copyrightability that we pretty
much know someone somewhere has patented a large part of the code we write. We
just hope nobody with the patent is interested in going after us because we
aren't worth the trouble. But there is always that feeling that if ever we
become commercially successful, the trolls and wolves will be waiting to try
to get a slice of our profits. This is quite an annoying disincentive to write
new code or 'innovate' which in this case means just plain doing our job.

~~~
BenoitEssiambre
I was pondering this further and it would actually be conceivable with a bit
of natural language processing and machine learning to build a 'verdict
machine', maybe a Watson type of thing.

You would input legal documents, contracts and laws to 'program' the machine,
It would read these legal documents and compile them into legal tests that
depend on case facts.

Then when you needed to judge a case, you would enter the facts or fact
probabilities about the case in the machine. It would then generate a verdict
and tell you which legal tests passed or failed to arrive at the verdict.

Even it it was just used as support to help courts untangle cases or for law
student as an educational tool, it could be a useful machine.

Here is the kicker: All contracts and laws are actually software code for this
machine.

~~~
jeremyjh
You've certainly got lots of data to train it with. And you can test it by
simply testing its predictive power. But instead of selling it to the court
system I'd sell it as a service to law firms and/or use it in prediction
markets. This would ensure that it would be funded and refined until everyone
simply accepted its outcomes as a foregone conclusion.

------
madhadron
Stallman's position on software patents is clear. It's the response from the
rest of the world which is strange. There is one, simple statement that no one
attempts to make and defend: "Stallman is wrong." I suspect it's because we
all know that Stallman is right, many of us find it socially uncomfortable,
and so there are all kinds of attempts to distance the ideas.

Personally I regard Stallman as one of the few moderate voices in software.
Most discussion today is at an extreme best described as fascism: all
privileges of decision and control reserved to a single person. Stallman is
the moderate voice calling for a individual self-determination. He hasn't
demanded any kind of social protections. Take a few minutes and imagine what
the philosophy underlying the social democracies of Scandanavia would look
like when applied to software.

~~~
georgemcbay
I don't view Stallman as moderate at all and there are a large number of ideas
he has that I disagree with, but I do agree with him on software patents.

------
linuxhansl
As usually RMS is spot on. "Can a person program a new solution to a problem?"
Any answer involving "no" seems a bit like insanity.

Duffy on the other hand misses the point (IMHO): "The question is, will you
get very serious research that is patent-motivated?"

There is no "serious [software] research" that actually costs money. I have
yet to be shown a single software patent that is the result of research and
not just a spark on insight. Sparks of insights are great. The point to note,
though, is that they would have happened anyway, they do not cost anything.
Granting a legal monopoly on them does not benefit society as a whole.

I have no illusion that anything will change. Big companies (with the notable
exception of Google) love software patents to keep the competition (especially
new players) at bay. Patent trolls love patents, which they can exploit with
extortion schemes. Last not least lawyers _love_ software patents; not a
single patent case is won or lost without the involved lawyers being rewarded
handsomely.

~~~
randomdata
_I have yet to be shown a single software patent that is the result of
research and not just a spark on insight._

You could argue that every patent is just a spark of insight. However, how
many sparks could be made if not for all the research that came before them?

Google's driverless car comes to mind as a well-known present-day software
research project. When you boil down their achievements, they are all just
small sparks of insight. But without all that funding and time put into the
overall research, would those sparks have ever materialized? There is little
reason for one of the algorithms they have developed to just pop into
someone's head otherwise.

~~~
linuxhansl
I agree. It is not always clear cut.

I would stand by initial statement, though, that patents on software do not
serve society as a whole.

------
debacle
> Speech recognition, for example, is very patent-intensive.

Speech recognition is patent-encumbered, not patent-intensive. Anyone who has
done any research into the field would know that.

~~~
tankbot
Serious question: What is the difference between patent-intensive and patent-
encumbered?

~~~
ericflo
Encumbered is a pejorative.

~~~
tankbot
Ah, I see what it is now. Thanks :)

------
jrogers65
It's all well and good that we are attempting to address the software patent
system but the myth of beneficial medical patents still prevails. If you are
of the opinion that medical patents are necessary, please read through this
document -
[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm)
\- in particular, chapter 9. Just like software patents, medical patents have
a long and rich history of stifling innovation. Don't buy the lies wholesale -
look at the evidence and make your own decision.

~~~
rhizome
Medical patents are only necessary to preserve inflated pricing models
intended to support the owner's (and/or licensee's) advertising campaigns.

~~~
zanny
Which means they are necessary to preserve status-quo profit margins. And the
people with the microphone who control the hand of law are those who _really_
like their status-quo.

------
jobu
The thing is I would actually favor software patents if it required the patent
applicant to submit all related source code to the public domain. Software is
the only medium of creation that is essentially a double-monopoly with
copyright and patent protection.

~~~
thirdtruck
You've hit on one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to software patents:
by the time you've described the "invention" at a low-enough level to actually
allow replication by future patent readers, the resulting patent would be
nigh-indistinguishable from actual code.

~~~
dllthomas
And/or would be math.

------
Tloewald
So suppose I want to make a novel device, part of its functionality is
software. I can't patent the software only the hardware. It's a mass market
device, so I have an incentive to make the software a trade secret. I don't
want people to conveniently reverse engineer my software so I design a custom
CPU and store the code in encrypted form. That's a whole bunch of overhead
that has been created by abolishing software patents.

Not only will this kind of thing happen, but it will become commonplace and
convenient (e.g. there will be off the shelf CPU designs that support
obfuscation). Imagine the digital world returning to the guild system — and
the beauty of digital technology is that this could happen ridiculously fast.

Now, yes, trivial algorithms would not be worth protecting this way, and
that's a Good Thing. But consider the inefficiencies and stupidity that will
be created by abolishing software patents altogether. Oh and the DMCA will
make any efforts to penetrate obfuscated software illegal in perpetuity.

~~~
bcoates
That's fine. Trade secrets are already how most things work in software and
it's a much better model. I don't want their dumb ideas; I don't want their
bad code; and I don't care about not being able to repurpose subsidized
hardware.

All I care about is removing the veto power the patent system gives random
strangers have over my ability to develop things they have nothing to do with.

~~~
Tloewald
This is a random veto power with a fixed lifespan in exchange ofr which the
design is published. Trade secrets were an ongoing disaster. We're still
trying to figure out how Stradivarius made violins, for example.

Yes, stupid things get patented. Yes, the system is corrupt. But don't assume
some other "simple" system or non system will have no downside.

~~~
dlitz
> We're still trying to figure out how Stradivarius made violins, for example.

We're actually _not_ trying to figure out how to make violins that sound just
as good:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stradivarius&o...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stradivarius&oldid=522654141#Comparisons_in_sound_quality)

Also, Stallman is specifically talking about software, not manufacturing
specialized devices.

~~~
Tloewald
A typical specialized device today is largely driven by software. To
contribute to this debate you need to understand this.

For example: most musical instruments today are electronic. If I build a
guitar amplifier out of vacuum tubes, Stallman will let me patent it, but if I
build a high tech amplifier with digital preprocessing to simulate the
behavior of any one of a large number of old vacuum tube amplifiers etc. then
no patents for me.

------
jrochkind1
> Speech recognition, for example, is very patent-intensive."

The nytimes article with the guy who DID spend lots of time trying to innovate
in speech recognition, recognized as a genius in the field, who was driven out
by someone elses patent.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-
amo...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-
giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

------
fastball
Stallman was the only speaker that day who wasn't streamed.

 _> "Streaming online would require use of [the] Microsoft Silverlight plug-
in, which would pressure people to use proprietary software. Dr. Stallman
considers it wrong to pressure people to do that."_

Why is Silverlight necessary? [http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/12/live-
streaming-webm-with...](http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/12/live-streaming-
webm-with-wowza-server.html)

~~~
silentmars
He was likely talking about the situation in that particular conference, which
was using Silverlight for its streaming.

------
tjic
I'm glad to see that RMS is using his trademark good manners to reach out to
the undecided middle.

~~~
nealabq
If you want reform, be polite. If you want revolution, don't bother.

~~~
danso
Revolutions are won by winning over the masses. So this is not an either-or
dichotomy.

~~~
awakeasleep
This can't be overstated. The primary goal of all revolutionary groups that
I've studied has been gaining the support of 'the common man.' Inside the
revolutionary group itself, things are different and a unified front is
pursued to the point of coercion. However, the goal of this front has usually
been to gain the public's favor, and then once the public is stands with the
group official social change becomes a realistic goal.

------
GotAnyMegadeth
> Pinned to his chest was a large white button: "Pay Cash—Don't Be Tracked."

Looking at the photo, it looks like it actually says "Don't Be Tracked—Pay
Cash."

~~~
josephagoss
How long until its "Don't Be Tracked-Pay Bitcoin." :)

~~~
astrodust
Every single transaction in Bitcoin is tracked and published. Why do people
think this is even remotely close to anonymous?

~~~
josephagoss
I thinks its because the addresses are only able to link to your real self
once you make a link. (buy something and have it shipped to your address,
deposit real money with a exchange that requires your identity, etc..)

however you could always make a new account on mtgox, send the coins to the
exchange and send them out to another address you made, and I think, unless
the exchange gives that transaction (That is internal to their network) to the
authorities, you can begin to remove your-self from being traced.

The way I see it is this, you can determine how traceable you are in Bitcoins,
you can't determine easily how traceable you are with native transactions
(USD, AUD, EURO, etc...) This may help you hide better

~~~
mithaler
Law enforcement agencies routinely unravel money laundering schemes that are
much more sophisticated than this. You really think this'll stop them if they
have a reason to investigate your funds?

~~~
josephagoss
Your right, I heard that sending coins through a several eWallet services,
back and fourth then to a brand new address would require a massive operation
to track you down. Could this easily be circumvented?

~~~
freehunter
You mean a massive operation similar to the scale of the federal government?

------
markshepard
This is definitely an issue to be tackled. After working in a large software
company I can attest to the fact that ridiculous stuff that are patented just
to increase the portfolio.

------
crusso
_Those include creating key components of the free software system that he
calls GNU/Linux (and many others call simply Linux)_

I've always savored the irony of Stallman's fight to have content creators
relinquish control of their creations while steadfastly refusing to let people
just call Linux by the name they choose... while also attempting to steal top
billing.

~~~
thirdtruck
I don't see the irony.

"The right to copy" exists only in so far as external forces limit inherent
behavior. One could copy all day (as our brains do unbidden) without anyone
but the copier being the wiser or needing to care.

The credit for one's labor, on the other hand, is an inherently rivalrous
"good". Terms like "steal" have a place here, as it takes away from the
measurable "social capital" earned by another's labor.

It's the difference between re-printing "Alice in Wonderland" and re-printing
"Alice in Wonderland, Written by <Not Lewis Carroll>".

~~~
crusso
_The credit for one's labor_

I guess if you get to define the value and credit of one's labor, you can
still maintain that there is a difference where one doesn't really exist.

 _The credit for one's labor, on the other hand, is an inherently rivalrous
"good"._

But encouraging content creators with financial incentives for creating things
that consumers desire is not an inherently rivalrous good?

 _It's the difference between re-printing "Alice in Wonderland" and reprinting
"Alice in Wonderland, Written by <Not Lewis Carroll>"._

So you're okay with taking all financial rewards from the creators of content,
but leave them the scraps of naming credit as though your framework is
logical?

Meh... if you're going to steal from people, you might as go all the way.

Stallman is a hypocrite for demanding control of anything he creates while
seeking to "free" everything everyone else creates.

~~~
thirdtruck
_I guess if you get to define the value and credit of one's labor, you can
still maintain that there is a difference where one doesn't really exist._

"Value" distinguishes between "Someone dug a hole where I needed it" and
"Someone dug a hole and filled it back up".

"Credit" distinguishes between "I dug that hole" and "She dug that hole".

If we're having trouble distinguishing between "value" and "credit", even
before addressing principles of valuation, then I can no longer concern myself
with this discussion.

------
yason
What we're missing is a fiscal disincentive, a cost of acquiring bad patents
and suing others for violating them. Currently the equation is unbalanced,
it's too cheap to harass others with patent litigation. The harmful effect of
bad patents isn't factored in into the complete patenting scheme, thus the bad
outcome. It's like spam.

Not that I support (software and any other) patents at all. I deliberately
don't want my name on any patent. I might work on something that my employer
wants to patent for they do pay for my time and creativity but I don't want my
own name involved outside of that. This isn't just a principle; it has
happened in reality. I wish Stallman was heard and patents were banished
completely.

------
maked00
Anyone who doubts the validity of getting rid of software patents need look no
further than the fashion industry. Fashion cannot be patented, and there seems
to be plenty of innovation and a flourishing business in that sector. The only
thing that is appropriate in fashion is trademarks. It is just a bad idea to
allow anyone to tax or monopolize ideas.

------
grannyg00se
"They cover common practices on the Internet, like showing an ad before a
piece of content."

Why do patents like that get granted? And once they are, why aren't they
extremely easy to invalidate after the fact? There is a _non-trivial_ aspect
to a patent that is supposed to be passed. It seems to me that at least
enforcing that would be a nice step.

------
aw3c2
_"Streaming online would require use of [the] Microsoft Silverlight plug-in,
which would pressure people to use proprietary software," explained Andrew
Chin_

just for the record, that statement is absolutely incorrect. you can offer
streams and watch streams just fine with free and open-source software. for
example with ogg theora or webm.

~~~
phaedrix
Guessing they meant the conference only uses Silverlight for streaming.

~~~
aw3c2
I guess so too but phrases like that are going against free
software/content/everything. It gives the reader the impression of requirement
of cost and proprietary technology.

~~~
rhizome
Do you really think he implied that SL is the only possible way to stream? He
was talking about the immediate situation.

~~~
aw3c2
I am sure he was and that it was obvious in the context of the conversation.
In the article however it is not.

------
klrr
Well, sad he act in such a fool'ish way here, raging are often resulting in
that people rather trust the counter-arguments. I would acted just like that
myself though, and I agree that some of the counter arguments was wrong. I
highly wish RMS and the whole FSF community was more respected.

------
maked00
The fashion industry does just fine without patents. Plenty of innovation and
investment and profits going on there. Fashion relies on trademarks, not
patents. Huge difference. We all lose when ideas/knowledge is monopolized or
taxed by the few.

------
Shorel
As much as I dislike his GPL licences and prefer the MIT licenses because I
find the GPL too limiting, I can't help but to be totally in agreement with
him regarding Software Patents.

The best we can do is to abolish them.

------
riazrizvi
Reduce the problem by reducing the software patent's lifespan, say to 7 years?
That would force innovation to be more business-efficient and greatly reduce
the number of patent trolls.

~~~
dlitz
But then when I come up with a good idea that I want to use in FOSS, I still
have to keep it secret for days/weeks until it gets though a "patent-mining
process" at whatever company I happen to be working for at the time.

There are a lot of costs associated with just having software patents at all,
no matter what the duration. Can you demonstrate why we _need_ patents in
software so much that it justifies these costs, despite the fact that in
practice, we did fine without them for 20 years?

------
PrinceGeo
Software idea patents are bad for everyone, except patent lawyers.

------
numeral_two
"YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID": RMS on most things.

<http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30612915.jpg>

------
nicholassmith
" _while Google abhors them, its arch-rival Microsoft is increasingly
enthusiastic about them._ "

Wait, what? Google abhors patents? So all the patents they've been buying up
is because they abhor them so much?

~~~
gridaphobe
Isn't Google one of the few corporations that hasn't started using patents
offensively? Assuming that's the case, I think it would be reasonable to
stockpile patents defensively, even if they abhor patents.

It's just a terrible situation, the only way for google (or any other software
company) to protects themselves from certain death is to build up a defensive
barrier of patents. And I think this is a great argument for abolishing
software patents entirely.

~~~
nicholassmith
I think they've used their patents to go on the offensive at least once (post
Motorola acquisition), and indirectly by transferring patents to HTC. So, that
kind of makes me puzzled by the whole 'they find them abhorrent' aspect. If
they did, they wouldn't be using any of their patents like that.

~~~
vibrunazo
Google's use of patents with motorola was defensive, going after those who are
suing android. Google never used patents offensively in the whole company
history.

------
diminoten
> "Maybe it wouldn't be quite as good, but we would all be okay. None of us
> would be shafted."

So rather than reward the talented and ignore the ungifted, he'd rather punish
the talented and ignore the ungifted?

------
dsego
stallman would be far more convincing if he would stop eating stuff from his
feet (and drinking pepsi).

~~~
clux
You're saying arguments are more convincing if it wasn't for ad hominem x?
Says more about you tbh.

~~~
dsego
it was more tongue-in-cheek, but whatever...

~~~
clux
Sorry, didn't get it.

