I used to feel that way. Unfortunately we've reached the point where patents have so damaged and corrupted our industry that none of us can write any software free of patents. If someone wants to annihilate you with a patent suit, theoretically they can. Unless you have a patent portfolio.
They are the ultimate anti-individual-programmer. Which is another way of saying they're a threat to hacker culture.
You can argue that hacker culture had its day in the sun, and that the world should move forward. But it's important to be clear to yourself that the culture that built the internet and so many of the tools we now enjoy for free is being thrown under the bus.
I cannot guarantee LuaJIT to be free of third-party IP however. In
fact nobody can. Writing software has become a minefield and any
moderately complex piece of software is probably (unknowingly to
the author) encumbered by hundreds of dubious patents. This
especially applies to compilers.
Are you sure you want to live in a world where people can't legally write and release LuaJIT for free without its users facing legal ramifications? Same deal with machine learning. What will the LuaJIT of machine learning be?
I am playing devil's advocate here, but Mike's statement doesn't amount to evidence. I understand he's afraid, and he's saying he thinks it's now too onerous to do due diligence. And I agree -- he's right. OTOH, it's not normal to guarantee that a piece of software is free from patent liability. Nobody could even if they wanted to, and even if the patent system was healthy. Company lawyers have told me not to look for patent infringement when I write code, they say just write algorithms that you believe nobody else invented, and "they" (competition) will let us know via the legal system if they see a claim.
> Are you sure you want to live in a world where people can't legally write and release LuaJIT for free without its users facing legal ramifications? Same deal with machine learning. What will the LuaJIT of machine learning be?
I don't want to live in that world. But is there not a flip side from the inventors point of view? If I invented something very useful, and very non-obvious, and say just for purposes of example, that Mike Pall put that idea in LuaJIT, released it for free, and my commercial competition then downloaded LuaJIT and put me out of business, I would probably be some combination of sad, mad, and poor.
I don't want to live in that world. But is there not a flip side from the inventors point of view?
I would 100% agree with you if the resources to litigate were distributed evenly. Unfortunately they're not.
If you were sad, mad, and poor, you wouldn't be able to anything, because "poor" would disqualify you. No one would even represent you pro bono, probably.
The only people that meaningfully benefit from patents are corporations. If you don't buy that argument, let me know, because it's pretty important that I persuade you. :) Of course, that tends to be the least effective way to persuade someone, but still.
In September 1990, users of the popular XyWrite word processing
program got a disturbing letter in the mail from XyQuest, Inc., the
program's publisher:
"In June of 1987, we introduced an automatic correction and
abbreviation expansion feature in XyWrite III Plus. Unbeknownst to us,
a patent application for a related capability had been filed in 1984
and was subsequently granted in 1988. The company holding the patent
contacted us in late 1989 and apprised us of the existence of their
patent.
We have decided to modify XyWrite III Plus so that it cannot be
construed as infringing. The newest version of XyWrite III Plus (3.56)
incorporates two significant changes that address this issue: You will
no longer be able to automatically correct common spelling errors by
pressing the space bar after the misspelled word. In addition, to
expand abbreviations stored in your personal dictionary, you will have
to press control-R or another designated hot key."
That's the kind of world we live in thanks to patents. Is that healthy?
My mind is open too: If that's a good thing by you, I'd love to hear the reasoning.
> That's the kind of world we live in thanks to patents. Is that healthy?
I agree, it's not healthy.
And I agree completely about the resources angle, if I'm alone, I'm SOL. If I'm in a huge company then I can fight. This is definitely the core failing of the patent system that it's biased toward wealth, and being abused by the wealthy.
> My mind is open too: If that's a good thing by you, I'd love to hear the reasoning.
I really appreciate you saying it that way. I don't think it's a good thing, I just appreciate the intent. And I don't think it fails 100% of the time, I think it works sometimes and fails a lot. I think getting rid of software patents has a chance of improving everything, but I'm not 100% certain. There might be unintended consequences. Like, I guess I'd put it this way: it's not very likely that the rich & resourceful will stop winning, no matter what happens, right?
> You can argue that hacker culture had its day in the sun, and that the world should move forward.
I don't want that, I want more hacker/maker culture, not less. I also want to figure out how to fund my own hacker/maker habits, but that's a separate topic. ;)
Patents do seem to be getting more toxic, but I base that on media reporting and stories of patent trolls, and not stats on the economy or number of lawsuits. So I'm curious to know more about the health of the system from a statistical perspective.
Ultimately I don't know what the solution is, and I might change my mind, but right now I don't feel like nuking the patent system is the right answer. But I do wonder if something like disallowing patent sale or transfer would help -- a company can only have a patent if the person who did the inventing worked for them at the time. They can keep it if the inventor quits or dies, but they can't sell it. Maybe something like that would stop the shell companies?
Well, from a game theory point of view, look at it like this: You can't meaningfully execute on patents (enforcement nor acquisition) unless you have resources. Those resources tend to come from companies that programmers work for, not individual programmers working at home.
So if you want more hacker/maker culture, your position would seem to run counter to that goal, no?
I love playing devil's advocate too, but there are situations where it's not quite so easy. If you feel that the hatred for patents is an overblown concern, I suppose it would be best for the people in this thread to post stories about how patents have materially affected their lives and their work. There are plenty.
Even lacking that, though, the core argument is that you need money to be able to do anything patent-related. Most hackers don't have these kinds of resources. And since patents can be used against them, advocating for patents leads directly to the disenfranchisement of hackers.
EDIT: One thing that makes it difficult to see the kinds of statistics you'd like to see: Chilling effects. When patents hang over us like a specter, you'll never see how many ventures are aborted before they're even started due to fears about patents.
They are the ultimate anti-individual-programmer. Which is another way of saying they're a threat to hacker culture.
You can argue that hacker culture had its day in the sun, and that the world should move forward. But it's important to be clear to yourself that the culture that built the internet and so many of the tools we now enjoy for free is being thrown under the bus.
E.g. see Mike Pall's statement on LuaJIT: http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2009-11/msg00089.html
I cannot guarantee LuaJIT to be free of third-party IP however. In fact nobody can. Writing software has become a minefield and any moderately complex piece of software is probably (unknowingly to the author) encumbered by hundreds of dubious patents. This especially applies to compilers.
Are you sure you want to live in a world where people can't legally write and release LuaJIT for free without its users facing legal ramifications? Same deal with machine learning. What will the LuaJIT of machine learning be?