Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Richard Pieri]

On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang wrote:
> 
> As I said previously, the person knowing the rules plays the game better.

But that's not the same as playing the game well.  The difference is between 
understanding the patent application process and understanding the weaponizing 
of patent law that has happened in the last 20-odd years.  A programmer or 
sysadmin may have no difficulty with the former, but only patent lawyers really 
understand the latter specifically because it is patent lawyers doing all the 
weaponizing.

This is the problem.  Patents were never intended to be used as weapons.  
Patent law is supposed to be a shield, a defense against infringement, not a 
weapon used to extort license fees from innovators.  But this is what patent 
lawyers have done with patent law.  This is what patent trolls do with their 
patent portfolios.  They don't innovate and enrich the world and profit from 
it.  They beat down the real innovators and line their own pockets at the 
world's expense.


> We should thank Disney for the recent change of copyright law for the
> extended protection.  Mickey mouse is about to enter into public domain
> under the old law.  Can you image what would happen when everyone in the
> world can copy mickey mouse without paying Disney a nickel?

We've been doing it with William Shakespeare and Johann Sebastian Bach for 
centuries.  Western Civilization hasn't collapsed from it that I've noticed, so 
I don't see how Walt Disney is entitled to special dispensation.  But you see, 
just like the weaponizing of patent law, this isn't about defense against 
infringement and enriching society.  This is about the executive board members 
lining their pockets at society's expense.

So.  I first blame the greedy MBAs who've lead us into this mess.  I then blame 
the greedy patent and copyright attorneys who helped them do it.  I finally 
blame the less greedy patent and copyright attorneys who did nothing to stop it.

As a capstone to all this: Disney is releasing next year a movie adaptation of 
"A Princess of Mars", a novel that has been in the public domain in the US for 
several decades.  It is such blatant hypocrisy.  Disney can profit from the 
late Edgar Rice Burroughs' work but nobody but Disney can profit from the late 
Walt Disney's work.

--Rich P.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Bill Bogstad]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Bill Bogstad  wrote:
>>
>
> Software developers are smart people.  It would not take too much of your
> time to learn the basics of patent application drafting.  The USPTO's
> website also has many introductory tutorials which may be downloaded for
> free.  I would suggest that anyone interested in this topic should check it
> out.  Or, spend an afternoon in Barnes Noble, and you should have some
> better ideas on patents.

I believe that software developers for the most part have zero
interest in patents except to the extent that they are being told that
if they don't they may suddenly discover that it is illegal for them
to use a program that they wrote entirely themselves without recourse
to other's ideas.  Based on your resume you are also a smart person.
How long did it take you to become familiar with the basics of patent
language, application process, etc.?   How long would it take you to
draft a patent application covering every idea in the largest program
for which you have seen the source code?  (How large was that
program?)

> As I said previously, the person knowing the rules plays the game better.
> Filing a patent application can serve different functions, which include: 1)
> to have the idea published as a preventive measure, and 2) to ultimately
> seek patent protection.  The presumption here is that you are filing a
> patent application for protection purposes.  Examiner's would not even
> bother looking at your applications, if you expressly abandon them AFTER
> publication at the 18th month.

I'm confused.  Are you saying that just filing an application won't be
sufficient to make it prior art as far as the patent office is
concerned?  If so, how much more time/money would typically be
required to push an application to the point where it would be
consulted by patent examiners for prior art.  Or are you just saying
that they would just reject them for bad form, but would still use
them for prior art searches?  (Which would be fine from my
perspective.)


[HYC, depending on how busy you are, you might want to skip the rest
of my response and jump to the very end.]

> To change law is one thing, to abolish an entire body of law is another.
> The patent laws and rules has been changed so many times over the past
> hundred years, but none of the changes has delineated too much away from the
> core value of the patent law.

Sure.  In fact, I don't think that patent and copyright law should be
abolished.   Just tweaked.   But, you still seem to be saying that the
Constitution REQUIRES such laws to exist as opposed to ALLOWS them.
Do you see the difference between those two possible interpretations?
I'm not asking about how politically difficult it would be to pass
such legislation through Congress and get a President to sign it.  I'm
asking under what basis the US Supreme Court would decide that
Congress wasn't allowed to do that.

> Yes, you are right in that the Constitution
> does not recite "patent" nor "copyright."  However, how would you propose to
> the Congress what to do to promote the progress of science and arts by
> granting "exclusive rights" for "limited time" for people's writings and
> discoveries?

Much like the Commerce Clause it can probably mean as much or as
little as Congress wants it to mean.  In the case of software, I've
already suggested that copyright is sufficient and software was
clearly written before patent protection became available so I don't
see how it is unreasonable to suggest returning to that model.

> We should thank Disney for the recent change of copyright law for the
> extended protection.  Mickey mouse is about to enter into public domain
> under the old law.  Can you image what would happen when everyone in the
> world can copy mickey mouse without paying Disney a nickel?

I don't seem to have the same horror of this that you do.   If
somebody wants to make copies of 80 year old black and white films
that nobody but film buffs care about anymore, why should I care.
Frankly, I'm not even sure why Disney cares all that much.  I'm
assuming that Disney was careful to file for copyright for every
subsequent work so even if the original fell out of copyright the more
recent stuff would still be protected.  (If I'm wrong about the way
that copyright and derived works please let me know.)  I guess they
might be concerned about works solely derived from the original
damaging their brand (i.e. XXX rated mouse films), but I really can't
get that worked up about that either.   It's not like Disney didn't
use other peoples ideas as the basis for some of their most most
famous works.  Why should they be perpetually immune to the same
reuse?  In any case, how is this relevant to software patents?

> I know "intellectual property" is somewhat a misnomer, but I don't see any
> problem using the term "intellectual property" to refer to a set of
> intangible assets.

But you u

Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Hsuan-Yeh Chang]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Bill Bogstad  wrote:

> So you are suggesting filing a single application per program and
> throwing every idea that wasn't in your CS textbook into the
> application?  I'm not sure that would make the examiners happy as it
> would be a mess of unrelated ideas, but okay.  I did a quick check of
> US patent fees and it looks like there are extra fees if you have more
> then 3 claims, more then 20 claims, multiple dependent claims, every
> 50 pages over 100 pages, etc.  It looks like it would be easy to go
> over $500 even if one is a 'small entity'.   My actual experience with
> filing patents is (almost) non-existent, so maybe I'm misinterpreting
> the charges that would be involved.
>

Software developers are smart people.  It would not take too much of your
time to learn the basics of patent application drafting.  The USPTO's
website also has many introductory tutorials which may be downloaded for
free.  I would suggest that anyone interested in this topic should check it
out.  Or, spend an afternoon in Barnes Noble, and you should have some
better ideas on patents.


> You also seem to be suggesting that not using correct language/style
> in the application will still be sufficient to get protection.  Does
> this mean I could just print out copies of my manuals, design docs,
> and source code and ship them to the patent office with a check?   My
> impression has been that to get anywhere with the patent office you
> have to very carefully words things in a language that most
> programmers don't know.   Maybe that's not needed if you just want to
> make sure that the patent office has a record of your ideas rather
> then actually having a patent issue.   It would be interesting to see
> how the patent office would react if it started receiving what were
> essentially document dumps where the filer had no intention to ever
> follow through on their application.
>

As I said previously, the person knowing the rules plays the game better.
Filing a patent application can serve different functions, which include: 1)
to have the idea published as a preventive measure, and 2) to ultimately
seek patent protection.  The presumption here is that you are filing a
patent application for protection purposes.  Examiner's would not even
bother looking at your applications, if you expressly abandon them AFTER
publication at the 18th month.  The patent office has already received tens
of thousands patent applications for ridiculous inventions.  I believe that
they wouldn't mind to take hundreds or thousands more from the open source
community.  I believe at least one of the BLU members has an Examiner
friend.  Please feel free to verify this with any patent Examiner.
Nonetheless, if one is serious about seeking patent protections, I would
still recommend using a qualified patent professional.

You persist in calling current patent legislation part of the
> Constitution.  It's no more a part of the Constitution then the
> legislation creating NASA, the FDA, Social Security, or the Interstate
> road system.   The Constitution authorizes but does not require there
> to be patent or copyright law in the USA.  I am not familiar with
> patent law changes in the US, but I know that in the last 100 years
> Congress has changed the law or ratified treaties to change copyright
> law something like seven or eight times.  So it would appear we make
> changes like this all the time.   Look at recent changes to increase
> the length of copyright.  Opponents pointed out that Congress keeps
> moving the bar farther and farther out and suggested that this was a
> violation of the requirement for "limited times".  As I understand it
> the courts decided that as long as Congress gave a specific number
> they could change it to anything they wanted.   If Congress wanted to
> change the length of a patent to 30 seconds, I don't see the
> Constitution standing in their way.  Now clearly your are right in
> that the open source community hasn't managed to get Congress to
> change the law, but please don't make it sound harder then it actually
> is.  Also don't forget that the patent office denied applications for
> years which involved software and it was a series of court case (not a
> change in legislation) which changed this.  It would have been trivial
> at the time for Congress to pass a new law saying, no that's not what
> we want.  (Now, of course, there are entrenched interests with lots of
> lobbyists to oppose this.)
>

To change law is one thing, to abolish an entire body of law is another.
The patent laws and rules has been changed so many times over the past
hundred years, but none of the changes has delineated too much away from the
core value of the patent law.  Yes, you are right in that the Constitution
does not recite "patent" nor "copyright."  However, how would you propose to
the Congress what to do to promote the progress of science and arts by
granting "exclusive rights" for "limited time"

Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Bill Bogstad]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Bill Bogstad  wrote:
>
> (100 patentable ideas) != (100 patent applications).  Often times, one
> patent application includes many patentable ideas, some of them are included
> in the allowed patent claims, while some of them are disclosed but
> unclaimed.  So, a patent application serves two functions: 1. describe the
> invention; 2. tell the public the metes and bounds of the patent right
> sought.  Anything described in a published patent application (19 months
> after filing and before grant) will become prior art against later filed
> patent applications.  So, if one describes his/her inventive concept in
> detail in a patent application, that description will be time stamped by the
> patent office and stands for prior art.  As long as you don't care about the
> scope of your patented rights (as you are not really seeking patent
> protection anyway), I see no reason why you cannot write up a patent
> application yourself (by borrowing a copy of Patent-it-yourself) and get it
> on file with minimum costs.  Ultimately, with a few hundred dollars of
> official fee, you can do a "patent application" including hundreds of pages
> (thus including hundreds of patentable ideas) and get it on file and later
> published by the patent office.  This will make patent examiners very happy,
> because patent publication database is normally the first place they search
> and find prior art to reject a patent claim.

So you are suggesting filing a single application per program and
throwing every idea that wasn't in your CS textbook into the
application?  I'm not sure that would make the examiners happy as it
would be a mess of unrelated ideas, but okay.  I did a quick check of
US patent fees and it looks like there are extra fees if you have more
then 3 claims, more then 20 claims, multiple dependent claims, every
50 pages over 100 pages, etc.  It looks like it would be easy to go
over $500 even if one is a 'small entity'.   My actual experience with
filing patents is (almost) non-existent, so maybe I'm misinterpreting
the charges that would be involved.

You also seem to be suggesting that not using correct language/style
in the application will still be sufficient to get protection.  Does
this mean I could just print out copies of my manuals, design docs,
and source code and ship them to the patent office with a check?   My
impression has been that to get anywhere with the patent office you
have to very carefully words things in a language that most
programmers don't know.   Maybe that's not needed if you just want to
make sure that the patent office has a record of your ideas rather
then actually having a patent issue.   It would be interesting to see
how the patent office would react if it started receiving what were
essentially document dumps where the filer had no intention to ever
follow through on their application.

Still, I would like to hear more about this idea.

> I probably shouldn't compare the importance of liberty and property
> interests with patents and copyrights.  My point is, something is written in
> the constitution for more than 200 years, and it would take an
> overwhelmingly prevailing argument to get it changed.  So far, I don't see
> the open source community has made a case on why Congress should change this
> part of the constitution.

You persist in calling current patent legislation part of the
Constitution.  It's no more a part of the Constitution then the
legislation creating NASA, the FDA, Social Security, or the Interstate
road system.   The Constitution authorizes but does not require there
to be patent or copyright law in the USA.  I am not familiar with
patent law changes in the US, but I know that in the last 100 years
Congress has changed the law or ratified treaties to change copyright
law something like seven or eight times.  So it would appear we make
changes like this all the time.   Look at recent changes to increase
the length of copyright.  Opponents pointed out that Congress keeps
moving the bar farther and farther out and suggested that this was a
violation of the requirement for "limited times".  As I understand it
the courts decided that as long as Congress gave a specific number
they could change it to anything they wanted.   If Congress wanted to
change the length of a patent to 30 seconds, I don't see the
Constitution standing in their way.  Now clearly your are right in
that the open source community hasn't managed to get Congress to
change the law, but please don't make it sound harder then it actually
is.  Also don't forget that the patent office denied applications for
years which involved software and it was a series of court case (not a
change in legislation) which changed this.  It would have been trivial
at the time for Congress to pass a new law saying, no that's not what
we want.  (Now, of course, there are entrenched interests with lots of
lobbyists to oppose th

Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Jerry Feldman]

Thanks Hsuan-Yeh for posting this information. I have very mixed
emotions on software patents. But one /of my pet peaves is the patent
trolls (or companies whose only or primary business is patents).
>From a non-legal standpoint, it is my opinion that only individuals or
companies who developed the product covered by the patent (or who have
purchased the product and IP) should be able to enforce patents. In
addition, there are many cases where companies have knowingly allowed
their patents to be used before enforcing them.

I think that software patents are difficult because software is based on
algorithms. How do you really define a software patent that is unique.
Most software engineers are going to build their software using
algorithms they learned from Knuth or Wirth.  Certainly a software
author wants to protect his/her work. IMHO, there is just too much prior
art and math in most software.

In any case, it is time for me to go home.

-- 
Jerry Feldman 
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90 
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Hsuan-Yeh Chang]

I noticed a typo in my previous message.  It's 18 months, not 19, that a
patent application will be published by the patent office.  Sorry about
that.

HYC
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Hsuan-Yeh Chang]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Bill Bogstad  wrote:

> I look forward to hearing more about how to do this.  In one of your
> previous notes, I believe you mentioned something about filing a
> preliminary application as an inexpensive option to protect oneself.
> I'm not sure if that will be sufficient to deal with RMS' argument
> that any program of consequence might have 100s of patentable ideas,
> but it might be a start.   I also question how much this would help if
> the applications were not written with the (expensive?) help of
> experts in the patent field.   Still I would like to hear more on how
> this could be made to work.
>

(100 patentable ideas) != (100 patent applications).  Often times, one
patent application includes many patentable ideas, some of them are included
in the allowed patent claims, while some of them are disclosed but
unclaimed.  So, a patent application serves two functions: 1. describe the
invention; 2. tell the public the metes and bounds of the patent right
sought.  Anything described in a published patent application (19 months
after filing and before grant) will become prior art against later filed
patent applications.  So, if one describes his/her inventive concept in
detail in a patent application, that description will be time stamped by the
patent office and stands for prior art.  As long as you don't care about the
scope of your patented rights (as you are not really seeking patent
protection anyway), I see no reason why you cannot write up a patent
application yourself (by borrowing a copy of Patent-it-yourself) and get it
on file with minimum costs.  Ultimately, with a few hundred dollars of
official fee, you can do a "patent application" including hundreds of pages
(thus including hundreds of patentable ideas) and get it on file and later
published by the patent office.  This will make patent examiners very happy,
because patent publication database is normally the first place they search
and find prior art to reject a patent claim.


> Actually I did know this.   The single line in question from the US
> Constitution:
>
> "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
> respective Writings and Discoveries;"
>
> mentions neither patents nor copyrights by name.   Nor does it require
> the federal government to create such laws unless they deem them
> useful.  That's not to say that I think these laws are going away, but
> I think you overstate your case by suggesting patents and copyrights
> are in the same category as other rights to liberty and property as
> guaranteed in the US Constitution and it's amendments.   I see no bar
> in the Constitution for Congress to up and decide it's all worthless
> and eliminate them entirely.   I have read some things that imply that
> ratified treaties are considered to be somewhere between legislation
> and the Constitution as far as US law is concerned.  If true, current
> treaties could be an issue for any attempt to eliminate patents.   If
> you could clarify/correct me on that, it would be appreciated.
>
>
I probably shouldn't compare the importance of liberty and property
interests with patents and copyrights.  My point is, something is written in
the constitution for more than 200 years, and it would take an
overwhelmingly prevailing argument to get it changed.  So far, I don't see
the open source community has made a case on why Congress should change this
part of the constitution.

International treatise is another factor.  But don't forget who is the
biggest player behind those treatise?  It's the United States.  Over the
years, the US government has constantly challenging China and many other
countries for "stealing" intellectual property from the US.  If the US
abolishes patent law before anyone else, how would the administration
challenge other countries for not protecting intellectual property?  I don't
believe the US government would slap on its own face...

HYC
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Hsuan-Yeh Chang]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Matt Shields  wrote:

>
> Back to patents.  Everyone keeps bringing up software patents, but I think
> what should be abolished should cover more than just software.  No software
> patents, general business *ideas* and "well duh" ideas should all be thrown
> out.  Case in point the Lodsys patent case.  It would be nice if Apple and
> stopped paying off these guys and saying "we're covered" and beat them into
> submission (and out of business).
>

Let me first point out what "patent" really means.  To many "patent" means
monopoly, which is bad by itself.  But what "patent" really means is the
antonym of "latent."  Accordingly, "patent" means "disclosure" and not
monopoly by itself.  So, what the patent system does is that the government
solicit disclosure of ideas from smart inventors, and award them with some
"exclusive rights" with certain "limited time" if these smart people would
tell the public in detail what the invention is...  Nonetheless, there are
many conditions that the inventive idea should satisfy before the government
can grant such "exclusive" rights.  Essentially, no inventor can be awarded
exclusive right from something that is already in the public domain.  So,
that's why the disclosure must contain "new" and "non-obvious" subject
matter so as to be patentable.

To take away patent protections from all subject matter, inventors would be
less inclined to disclose their invention.  Take blue LED for example, it
took Nakamura 20 years of lab life to find his formula.  If Nakamura keeps
his technology secret, I can't predict how long it would take for another
person to develop the same thing.  Of course, there are some technologies
that do not require 20 years of development.  But the patent law is operated
under the premise that disclosure of ideas would accelerate the advances of
technology.  Can you propose any argument to challenge this presumption?

Currently, only a few countries in the world does not have a patent system,
such as North Korea.  If we take an outcome determinative approach to this
question, I would tend to agree that the patent system contributed to the
development of this country.


Matthew Shields
> Owner
> BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers, Colocation,
> Managed Services
> www.beantownhost.com
> www.sysadminvalley.com
> www.jeeprally.com
> Like us on Facebook 
> Follow us on Twitter 
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Bill Bogstad]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang  wrote:
> Thanks to many kind notes from BLU members.  I believe what I have done
> wrong is that I failed to introduce myself before speaking out.  So, here is
> a little bit of myself.

I'm glad you decided to stay.

> Now, a bit more about software patents.  To be clear, I am not and will not
> advocate whether software patent, or patent as a whole, is good or bad for
> the society.  I also would not conclude whether the patent system is screwed
> up or not.  These are of your personal opinion or belief, and I would
> respect it in any possible way.  What I was trying to do in another thread
> is to tell you folks WHAT patents are, and HOW the patent system currently
> works to the extent possible to protect the open source community.

I look forward to hearing more about how to do this.  In one of your
previous notes, I believe you mentioned something about filing a
preliminary application as an inexpensive option to protect oneself.
I'm not sure if that will be sufficient to deal with RMS' argument
that any program of consequence might have 100s of patentable ideas,
but it might be a start.   I also question how much this would help if
the applications were not written with the (expensive?) help of
experts in the patent field.   Still I would like to hear more on how
this could be made to work.

>...
> In the real world, patents are often used as weapons against competing
> businesses.  Everyone knows weapons are dangerous and may serve good and bad
> purposes.  But it would be really really tough to eliminate weapons when
> "bearing arm" is citizen's right protected by the US constitution.  Many of
> you probably don't know that "patent protection," similar to everyone's
> liberty and property interests, is guaranteed by the US Constitution.  No
> need to explain, you would see how hard it is to persuade the Congress to
> abolish the ENTIRE patent system.

Actually I did know this.   The single line in question from the US
Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;"

mentions neither patents nor copyrights by name.   Nor does it require
the federal government to create such laws unless they deem them
useful.  That's not to say that I think these laws are going away, but
I think you overstate your case by suggesting patents and copyrights
are in the same category as other rights to liberty and property as
guaranteed in the US Constitution and it's amendments.   I see no bar
in the Constitution for Congress to up and decide it's all worthless
and eliminate them entirely.   I have read some things that imply that
ratified treaties are considered to be somewhere between legislation
and the Constitution as far as US law is concerned.  If true, current
treaties could be an issue for any attempt to eliminate patents.   If
you could clarify/correct me on that, it would be appreciated.

> Enough said, I have to acknowledge that I am a human being who makes
> mistakes.  It's my mistake by stating Dr. King as ever being a lawyer.  But
> if that single mistake could lead you to believe that all my other points
> are bogus, then you are not listening.  For those of you who don't believe
> in patent attorneys, I'd like to ask:  would you learn science with an
> artist, learn art with a businessman, and learn business with a scientist?
> I personally would rather learn science with a scientist, learn art with an
> artist, and learn business with a businessman.  My two cents for your
> consideration.

I look forward to hearing more from you and others who can help me to
learn about this and other subjects.  That doesn't mean that I won't
question your assumptions or analysis.  Being human as well, I have a
tendency to accept arguments that confirm my preconceptions with less
thought and perhaps over-analyze those that don't.   In the end
though, I hope that I'm able to accept well-reasoned conclusions even
if I don't like the results.

Bill Bogstad
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Matt Shields]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang  wrote:

> Thanks to many kind notes from BLU members.  I believe what I have done
> wrong is that I failed to introduce myself before speaking out.  So, here
> is
> a little bit of myself.
>
> I have a graduate degree in theoretical physics and done some real
> computations using FORTRAN, C, and other/scripting languages.  As a
> scientist, I unfortunately couldn't find any position to do science and/or
> research.  Like everyone else, I need to eat and, luckily, I found a job in
> the patent field.  That led me to pursue my law degree, which I will get in
> about a year from now.  So, I am still not qualified as a "patent lawyer,"
> but I have passed the patent bar exam and worked in the patent industry for
> quite many years.  It is a pity that I have contributed zero line of code
> in
> the open source repositories.  However, I have worked under the open source
> environment to do various things for almost 20 years.
>
> Now, a bit more about software patents.  To be clear, I am not and will not
> advocate whether software patent, or patent as a whole, is good or bad for
> the society.  I also would not conclude whether the patent system is
> screwed
> up or not.  These are of your personal opinion or belief, and I would
> respect it in any possible way.  What I was trying to do in another thread
> is to tell you folks WHAT patents are, and HOW the patent system currently
> works to the extent possible to protect the open source community.
>
> I understand many of you may have very strong feelings against software
> patents or maybe against the entire patent system.  Honestly, I am not
> surprised.  But what I hope is that if you have a different opinion, please
> focus on the point and not attack me or anyone personally.
>
> I myself have once been convinced by RMS's agenda that the government
> should
> abolish software patents entirely, and that all software patents should be
> invalid.  But after these years as a patent professional, I found that
> RMS's
> agenda has not done anything good for the open source community.  Software
> patents are still there and will still be there for quite many years if not
> decades.  Open source community must do something in parallel and not put
> all eggs in the same basket.  Don't forget, people from the other side are
> still accumulating their patent strength and are always ready to attack
> whenever time matures.
>
> In the real world, patents are often used as weapons against competing
> businesses.  Everyone knows weapons are dangerous and may serve good and
> bad
> purposes.  But it would be really really tough to eliminate weapons when
> "bearing arm" is citizen's right protected by the US constitution.  Many of
> you probably don't know that "patent protection," similar to everyone's
> liberty and property interests, is guaranteed by the US Constitution.  No
> need to explain, you would see how hard it is to persuade the Congress to
> abolish the ENTIRE patent system.
>
> Even if you want to carve out software patents, it would still be very
> difficult.  The very first question is, where do we draw the line?  Namely,
> what should be considered as software and what should not?  We know that if
> you write some codes, it's software.  But if someone uses computer codes to
> control the ABS system for automobiles in a fancifully new way, should that
> be allowed or prohibited from seeking patent protection?  That would lead
> to
> more contention and would make the already complicated patent system even
> more chaotic.  Plus, it would create more jobs for lawyers, which you guys
> probably don't want to see that happen.
>
> Enough said, I have to acknowledge that I am a human being who makes
> mistakes.  It's my mistake by stating Dr. King as ever being a lawyer.  But
> if that single mistake could lead you to believe that all my other points
> are bogus, then you are not listening.  For those of you who don't believe
> in patent attorneys, I'd like to ask:  would you learn science with an
> artist, learn art with a businessman, and learn business with a scientist?
> I personally would rather learn science with a scientist, learn art with an
> artist, and learn business with a businessman.  My two cents for your
> consideration.
>
> Hope to meet with you guys in any of the BLU meetings.
>
> HYC
> http://hsuanyeh.com
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

Welcome, officially, to the BLU list.  If you're looking for a way to
contribute to the OSS community, it doesn't have to be in code.  If you're
on your way to becoming a lawyer, how about looking at using that knowledge
to help OSS?  Contact one of the OSS organizations and see how you can help.
 I'm sure they would love to get some legal assistance, and you can add that
to your resume.

Back to patents.  Everyone keeps bringing up software patents, but I 

[Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[Hsuan-Yeh Chang]

Thanks to many kind notes from BLU members.  I believe what I have done
wrong is that I failed to introduce myself before speaking out.  So, here is
a little bit of myself.

I have a graduate degree in theoretical physics and done some real
computations using FORTRAN, C, and other/scripting languages.  As a
scientist, I unfortunately couldn't find any position to do science and/or
research.  Like everyone else, I need to eat and, luckily, I found a job in
the patent field.  That led me to pursue my law degree, which I will get in
about a year from now.  So, I am still not qualified as a "patent lawyer,"
but I have passed the patent bar exam and worked in the patent industry for
quite many years.  It is a pity that I have contributed zero line of code in
the open source repositories.  However, I have worked under the open source
environment to do various things for almost 20 years.

Now, a bit more about software patents.  To be clear, I am not and will not
advocate whether software patent, or patent as a whole, is good or bad for
the society.  I also would not conclude whether the patent system is screwed
up or not.  These are of your personal opinion or belief, and I would
respect it in any possible way.  What I was trying to do in another thread
is to tell you folks WHAT patents are, and HOW the patent system currently
works to the extent possible to protect the open source community.

I understand many of you may have very strong feelings against software
patents or maybe against the entire patent system.  Honestly, I am not
surprised.  But what I hope is that if you have a different opinion, please
focus on the point and not attack me or anyone personally.

I myself have once been convinced by RMS's agenda that the government should
abolish software patents entirely, and that all software patents should be
invalid.  But after these years as a patent professional, I found that RMS's
agenda has not done anything good for the open source community.  Software
patents are still there and will still be there for quite many years if not
decades.  Open source community must do something in parallel and not put
all eggs in the same basket.  Don't forget, people from the other side are
still accumulating their patent strength and are always ready to attack
whenever time matures.

In the real world, patents are often used as weapons against competing
businesses.  Everyone knows weapons are dangerous and may serve good and bad
purposes.  But it would be really really tough to eliminate weapons when
"bearing arm" is citizen's right protected by the US constitution.  Many of
you probably don't know that "patent protection," similar to everyone's
liberty and property interests, is guaranteed by the US Constitution.  No
need to explain, you would see how hard it is to persuade the Congress to
abolish the ENTIRE patent system.

Even if you want to carve out software patents, it would still be very
difficult.  The very first question is, where do we draw the line?  Namely,
what should be considered as software and what should not?  We know that if
you write some codes, it's software.  But if someone uses computer codes to
control the ABS system for automobiles in a fancifully new way, should that
be allowed or prohibited from seeking patent protection?  That would lead to
more contention and would make the already complicated patent system even
more chaotic.  Plus, it would create more jobs for lawyers, which you guys
probably don't want to see that happen.

Enough said, I have to acknowledge that I am a human being who makes
mistakes.  It's my mistake by stating Dr. King as ever being a lawyer.  But
if that single mistake could lead you to believe that all my other points
are bogus, then you are not listening.  For those of you who don't believe
in patent attorneys, I'd like to ask:  would you learn science with an
artist, learn art with a businessman, and learn business with a scientist?
I personally would rather learn science with a scientist, learn art with an
artist, and learn business with a businessman.  My two cents for your
consideration.

Hope to meet with you guys in any of the BLU meetings.

HYC
http://hsuanyeh.com
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss