SOFTWARE PATENTS

Ne znam da li sam ja to rekao ali ako sam to rekao evo sada kazem da nisam mislio bas tako. Naravno da ne mogu biti iskljuciv. Ali cinjenica je da bi bilo mnogo manje istrazivanja da kompanije to ne finansiraju i da bi bilo mnogo manje finansiranja od strane kompanija da te kompanije posle nemaju eksluzivno pravo na to. Ivan je dao lepo primer sa finansiranjem farmaceutske kompanije kada neko ulozi 100 miliona i posle investitori nece vise da ulazu. Naravno da nece stati istrazivanje jer ima mali milion organizacija ali se ipak malo sputava ulaganje u istrazivanje.

@Ivan
E, da i jos nesto. Po pitanju Ahead i tvojih inovacija. Uopste me ne razumes.
Kada kazem da mogu da zivim bez tih patenata to znaci da nemam NISTA PROTIV DA TO BUDE PATENTIRANO. Daj boze da ti to patentiras i da zaradis brdo love na tome. U ostalom i ja imam i osnovni patent i cetiri dopunske prijave i priortetno pravo i nagrade i objave u tehnickim glasilima i bla, bla (tj. imao sam dok nije otislo u Ford)
Zasto? Zato sto nije od kljucne vaznosti za razvoj civilizacije i opstanak.
Medjutim u potpunosti sam protiv da bude patentirano ono sto je od prevelike vaznosti. Npr. lek za rak. Po kojoj ceni ce prodavati? Ko moze i da li moze da ima monopol? Ili za neki software isto tako vazan za razvoj informatike, komunikacija.... Sta da je neko kao billg uspeo na neki nacin da otkupi, patentira, sta god hoces internet...primera radi
Cuo sam od drugara iz USA da im tamo ako odes na bolnicko lecenje naplacuju ASPIRIN po valjda 20U$ ii jos i vise, tako nesto...a koliko je kod nas?

Nije problem u mp3, ali OS koji bi bio supernapredan a tako zasticen sa svih strana da niko ne moze ni blizu da mu pridje bi doveo do poprilicno monopolistickog polozaja neke kompanije. Ili nekog kljucnog elementa koji bi bilo tesko zaobici u razvoju pomenutog...

Ehm... sve sto se izbroji u novcima za istrazivanja i tako to se odbija od poreza na dobit korporacija....poprilican stimulans da se nesto sa viskom para uradi da ne bi otislo bas 'onako na porez.... a ima i tu malo evo vama toliko, pa pola nama nazad al' da niko nezna....

Pa da, ali mnogo je zeznuto odluciti sta je vaznije od drugog. Nekome je mozda vaznije da moze da slusa mp3 od hladne fuzije. Utopija je ocekivati da ce drzave hteti da se formira komisija koja ce diskutovati o svakom patentu koliko ce on doprineti covecantsvu. A i pored toga vecini drzava nije bitan napredak covecanstva nego samo njihove drzave.

Ja se slazem sa tobom da neke stvari trebalo da su vlasnistvo citavog ljudskog roda ali nazalost bila bi utopija da to moze da se izvede.

Za sada je to izvedeno tako sto to postanr vlasnistvo svih ljudi posle 20 godina. Mozda treba smanjiti taj broj ali ipak je za sada to najbolji nacin dok neko ne smisli nesto bolje.

Ok, pod #1 ovde si potpuno u pravu. Ser Aleksandar Fleming nije dobio patent za penicilin zato sto je britanska vlada smatrala da je izum od prevelike vaznosti za stanovnistvo.

To su bila lepa vremena, jedan covek je izmislio revolucinarni lek, u svojoj labaratoriji - zaboravivsi budjav hleb u fioci sa bakterijskim eksperimentalnim materijalom.

Danas su druga vremena, vecina epohalnih lekova se izume u farmaceutskim korporacijama (za koje nemam nikakve simpatije - na primer, one ce uraditi sve da prikriju nus-pojave kod nekih lekova, sve i da te nus pojave vode do smrti ukoliko procene da ce im se to isplatiti, i da nece moci da izgube spor, ali opet - u 100 lekova bar 10 su vrlo vazni i korisni) - a farmaceutske kompanije zahtevaju ekskluzivitet jer je proizvodnja lekova proces koji je vrlo jeftin jednom kada se metod sinteze sazna pa nikada ne bi mogli ni da povrate investiciju jer bi "damping" proizvodjaci momentalno prekrili trziste. Patentni sistem je 'najamnje los' nacin da se postigne nekakav ekvilibrijum izmedju industrije i covecanstva.

Na kraju krajeva, u toj USA ces komplikovanu operaciju platiti $200-$500K... da li je to humano? Da neko sa dobrim osiguranjem ili debelim bankovnim racunom moze da dobije tretman koji neko drugi ne moze... ne, nije humano - samo je problem sto humanije ne funkcionise uvek i svuda :(



Ne zelim da komentarisem nista sto ima BillG u sebi, mirise mi na zealotriju i potpuno je nepotrebno. To sto ti pricas se jednostavno ne desava u praksi - teoretski moze u nekom ludilu da se desi, ali tada bi se ostatak sveta postavio tako da kompanija koja to uradi sigurno pretrpi gubitke (postoje i drugi nacini represije, znas)



Koliko je? Bas me zanima.. ja ga u DE placm valjda 4.5 eura, sve da je u Srbiji i 0.5 eura primanje je sigurno vise od 10 puta manje tako da nismo na istom - ja za mesec dana mogu da kupim vise aspirina od nekog iz BGD-a :) U USA postoji poseban problem sa lekovima i naduvanim cenama, ali je od prosle godine FDA dozvolila uvoz ne-FDA odobrenih lekova za licnu upotrebu, cak je i kupovina preko interneta iz inostranstva potpuno OK, pa i dzankoze mogu da kupuju neki lekic protiv bolova za $3 iz Indonezije ili Meksika bez recepta (umesto za $300 i controlled substance recept koji nikad nece dobiti u USA) - pod uslovom da ga ne konfiskuje United States Custom Control :) Sad, salu na stranu - dosta ljudi koji su ozbiljno bolesni i koji ne mogu da priuste skupe medikamente u USA lekove kupuju u Kanadi ili Meksiku, jer su tamo znacajno jeftiniji - medjutim tu se postavlja problem kancerogenosti, cistoce, kvaliteta (bar kad je Meksiko u pitanju) i sl... no opet, off topic..



Takav OS ne moze da postoji, cak i, po MS-u, "supernapredni" Longhorn tesko da ima mnogo novih patenata u odnosu na neki POSIX OS kao sto je MacOS :)

Ako MS patentira svoju "palladium" tehnologiju, bas me briga - necu je koristiti u mojim proizvodima, imam OpenDRM, OpenSSH i sl... nista se nece desiti sa njihovim patentiranjem... tastaturu, mis, mikroprocesor i prozor patentirati ne mogu :)

---

"Metod kodiranja visestrukih frekvencija"

"Metod kodiranja visestrukih frekvencija baziran na perceptualnoj entropiji"

"Metod kodiranja visestrukih frekvencija baziran na perceptualnoj entropiji sume i razlike signala"

"Metod kodiranja visestrukih frekvencija baziran na perceptualnoj entropiji sume i razlike signala (vidi prilozenu semu)"

"Metod kodiranja visestrukih frekvencija baziran na perceptualnoj entropiji sume i razlike signala (vidi prilozenu semu i algoritam)"

"Metod kodiranja visestrukih frekvencija baziran na perceptualnoj entropiji sume i razlike signala (vidi prilozenu semu, algoritam i implementaciju u programskom jeziku)"
Nijanse formulacija.

Recimo ti ne znaš ništa o detaljima patenta pa ti neko kaže oblast rada i ti odmah samostalno shvatiš "mind steps" kako to može da se odradi ukolko se ti umni koraci poklapaju sa formulacijom patenta, a niko se pre toga nije setio, to jeste izum. Treba se setiti. Ali ako ti to odradiš na drugi način koji ima malo dodirnih tačaka sa predloženim (ukoliko da uopšte predlože) i koga se nisu setili ni tvorci tog patenta, a njihova formulacija je suviše široka da obuhvata i tvoju ideju i sve moguće da li je to zloupotreba prava na patent?

http://www.cd-rw.org/news/archive/4525.cfm

---

Gde tačno formulacija neke ideje stiče kvalifikaciju da bude inovacija?

---

Vest je tacna za launch date a za Via Licensing je potpuna dezinformacijai svakako to nije razlog kasnjenja (sto sam i pokusavao da objasnim Lasse-u koji je vlasnik sajta , a razlog kasnjenja je cisto programerske prirode - paket nije bio spreman, zapravo tek sada se potpuno finalizuje) Nero-6 koristi MPEG-4 audio od samog starta (zapravo ja sam i pisao implementaciju). Problem sa Nero Digital Recode paketom je bio sasvim druge prirode i ticao se DSHow interfejsa i linkovanja sa drugim aplikacijama, sto je reseno.



Tvoja osnovna greska je sto gledas naslov patenta i njegov opis. Jedino sto se racuna su tvrdnje i to je sve - to sto se nesto zove "Metod kodiranja visestrukih frekvencija" ne bi nikad moglo tako da se patentira, vec moraju da se navedu tacne tvrdnje cime je unapredjena nauka, sve korake koji se stite, i sta zapravo cini taj pronalazak.

Recimo patent "Kodiranje audio signala" (ovakvih patenata ima koliko hoces, probaj da pretrazis uspto.gov) negde u sredini ima tacno definisane tvrdnje koje ga i te kako suzavaju na, recimo, adaptivnu MDCT transformaciju sa varijabilnom duzinom, metod odabira duzine na osnovu promene amplitude, kvantizacija MDCT koeficijenata putem power-law alokacije bitova kontrolisane pragom maskiranja kroz dvostruku petlju, i pakovanje kvantizovanih koeficijenata, recimo, aritmetickim kodiranjem.

To je pronalazak, a ne "Kodiranje audio signala" - ti ovaj pronalazak mozes zaobici na razno-razne nacine, mada vrlo tesko kada su perceptualni MDCT koderi u pitanju :) No, recimo, promenu duzine zamenis naprednim TNS filterom i menjanjem izgleda prozorske funkcije - ili MDCT zamenis sa KLT ili nekom drugom transformacijom (recimo FFT), alokaciju bitova na osnovu praga zamenis vektorskom kvantizacijom LSP "ostataka" (residues) na osnovu praga maskiranja i eto... ne krsis taj patent (ali krsis jedan drugi ;-)

---

Pa i patent je formulacija ideje - izvini, ne vidim ja nikakav hardver u metodi za sintetisanje nekog ulja, vec samo ideju sa hemijskim formulama i okruzenju koje izvrsava te reakcije? Zasto to "okruzenje" ne moze biti mikroprocesor?

---

Ako je zakon suviše popustljiv advokati ga mogu tumačiti na razne načine nesvojstvene programerima. Ja se samo zalažem da se to pitanje zakonski bolje reguliše kad je u pitanje softver. Kad se već donosi novi zakon koji treba da obuhvati softver ne bi trebao da pati od istih boljki kao kad su u pitanju druge oblasti. Zašto se i uopšte donosi poseban zakon za softver ako ne postoje razlike u odnosu na druge oblasti?

Jedna šala: Microsoft pokušao da patentira niz jedinica i nula kao način predstavljana binarnog signala.
http://soli.inav.net/~catalyst/Humor/patents.htm

---

Zato sto je u Evropi na snazi eksplicitna zabrana inkorporirana u patentni zakon kao sto je navedeno na pocetku.

Slazem se da bi za softver trebalo napraviti dodatna ogranicenja (kao sto verovatno postoje i u farmakoloskim patentima, ili u patentima na genotipe u USA), mozda cak i standardizovati bolji mehanizam analize validnosti patenata.

Na primer, softverski patenti se podele u N kategorija, evropska kancelarija za patente po prijemu svake aplikacije istu u PDF formatu svrsta u bazu podataka, napravi je brzo dostupnom preko nekog interfejsa za laku pretragu i svim strucnjacima u oblasti koju patent pokriva, a koji su prijavljeni na sajt, posalje obavestenje o dostupnosti aplikacije - kako je obicno rok "lezanja" oko 24 meseci, nema teoretske sanse da neko patentira prior-art. U stvari, ovo bi se moglo primeniti i za sve ostale patente.

---

To je ok. Mada ja mislim da uopste nije tacno da softverski patenti nisu dobro regulisani. Pa recimo "one-click order" nije softverski patent. Znaci od te boljke pate i mnogi drugi patenti.

Pa zato da bi se povecala vrednost rada nekoga ko smisli neki dobar algoritam za npr. analizu genetskog materijala i da ima barem isti nivo kao i vrednost rada nekog hemicara koji je smislio nacin proizvodnje nekog leka za mrsavljenje. A i softverski patenti omogucuju tebi da za mnogo manje pare patentiras nesto za sta bi morao da ulazes mnogo vise truda i para.

Svi se ovde slazemo da je glavni cilj sto brzi napredak covecanstva. Patenti u nekim slucajevima sputavaju a u nekim slucajevima ubrzavaju taj proces. Sada zbog razloga kako svetska ekonomija funkcionise mislim da patenti ipak vise doprinose razvoju covecanstva a jedino treba nijanse u patentskim zakonima dobro definisati: kolika je duzina trajanja ekskluzivnog prava, sta se moze patentirati itd...Mada za neke stvari koje su ocigledno veoma vazne za napredak covecanstva mozda treba uvesti u zakon da ne moze da se odobri patent ali da drzava plati troskove istrazivanja i jos neku vrednost preko. Mada tu postoje drugio problemi jer i mnogim drzavama nije cilj napredak covecanstva nego samo bogacenje te drzave.

Pretpostavljam da su mnogi protiv softverskih patenata a mnogo vece boljke postoje u drugim patentima. A i problem je sto USA hoce da vlada trzistem i Evropa mora da se zastiti na isti nacin a ne da Nasa i Amazon mogu da patentiraju i neke ocigledne stvari pa da Evropske, Kineske i Japanske firme moraju da placaju Amerikancima a oni ne mogu to isto da urade njima. Zbog toga ako se pravi peticija onda neka se pravi peticija da se ukine taj zakon u Americi.

Mislim da borci protiv softverskih patenata previse paranoisu. Pa vec na prvoj strani porede to sa patentiranjem simfonije. Pa ne verujem da je nesto nalik tome moguce patentirati kao softverski patent. Neke stvari koje prikazuju za softverske patente mogu da se odnose i na druge patente. Pa onda za neke stvari pricaju da su obvious kao sto je koriscenje xor kursora a nekada to i nije bilo tako ocigledno. Taj patent je odavno istekao ali tada to nije bilo obvious kako oni kazu. A i opred svega oni se ne bore kao ti da se lepse definise sta se moze patentirati nego su za potpuno ukidanje softverskih patenata kao da su svi softverski pronalasci tako ocigledni i jednostavni i skroz srozavaju vrednost rada nekog ko je izmislio neki komplikovan algoritam.

Onda daju citate Linusa kako to steti ekonomiji kao da je on strucnjak za ekonomiju. Pa najvise softvera se proizvodi u Americi gde ti patenti jos odavno postoje. I gde je tu logika? Zar ne bi po njihovom misljenju da zbog toga tamo bude najsporiji razvoj softvera?

Mislim da je ovo koren problema i da pod hitno treba nesto uraditi. Zapravo, mene licno bas briga (u nekom fiktivnom sukobu EU i USA ne navijam ni za jedan ni drugi "blok" jer smatram da su sa neke fundamentalne filozofsko-ideoloske strane vrlo slicni, i neke osnovne paradigme tih drustava se meni cine vrlo sumnjivim tako da se ne bih identifikovao ni sa jednim, no ... ovo je samo moje licno vidjenje) ali svakako mislim da je potrebna uravnotezenost a ne necija unilateralna dominacija (u ovom slucaju USA) zato sto ima povoljniji patentni sistem za industriju.

Kao sto je receno, nedostatak adekvatne patentne podrske u sistemu evropske intelektualne svojine cini USA kompanije povlascenim, i nije moguce primeniti retroaktivno naplacivanje za neki USA softver koji se izvozi u EU - a EU softver koji krsi neki USA sw. patent svakako ne moze da se prodaje u USA bez regulisanja pravnih problema. EU ne moze da "zabrani" pravo USA na te patente tek tako, jer onda ide sankcionisanje kroz WTO i milion drugih cuda (kao sto se desilo sa genetski modifikovanim biljkama) - zapravo, najbolje bi bilo kada bi USA i EU u isto vreme reformisali sisteme i smanjili mogucnost zloupotrebe (u USA) i omogucili softverske patente (u EU) - samo verovatnoca da se ovo desi je najmanja.

USA zakonodavstvo ima velikih mana u mnogim aspektima, koja su mnogo opasnija po drusvo uopste od nekih mana u patentnom zakonu, ali ono sto ostatak sveta moze da ucini je da bar sebi omoguci podjednaku zastitu i eliminaciju mogucnosti superiornosti i nelojalne konkurencije na tom polju.

---

Ma ni ja ne navijam ni za jednu stranu ali navijam protiv dominacije neke strane. Zbog toga kazem da se klin klinom izbija i da je Evropi bolje da uvede takav zakon.

Recimo XTeam je dao primer kako je Minolta morala da plati NASA-i za koriscenje patenta. A zamislimo da su japanci to prvi izmislili ali da nemaju zakon da to patentiraju. Onda bi NASA to mogla besplatno da koristi. E to vec nije fer.

XTeam, mozda neke stvari zaista ne bi trebalo dozvoliti da se patentiraju ali onda treba da se bori za to da se u srcu problema ukine takav patent a ne da Amerikanci mogu da patentiraju to pa da ostatak sveta bude na gubitku.

BTW tema je odlicna i drago mi je sto je pokrenuta jer prvi put da se bez nekakvog flejma i svadje raspravlja o ovome. U stvari i nije se nesto puno diskutovalo o ovome nego je vecina uglavnom vodjena emocijama prihvatala da treba potpisati onu peticiju. I ja sam bio drugacijeg misljenja nego sada. Nije sve crno belo. Sada mislim da to ima i dobrih i losih strana (Sa jedne strane usporavaju razvoj a sa druge strane ubrzavaju). Ali cak i da ima vise losih strana treba se boriti da se taj zakon ukine tamo odakle je potekao pa onda po redu dalje...

offtopic:
U stvari, sto se mene tice ispalo je sjano. Trazio sam nesto deseto, neka redirekcija me je odvela na sve to sa "software patents", o cemu nisam bas ni imao pojma. Rekoh sebi: vidi, vidi, bas interesantno, ali nemam vremena da citam, daj da pitam nekog na ES tamo ima uvek neko ko se u nesto razume. Za 24h sam saznao vise no da sam se sam mlatinjao po net-u i sam "istrazivao" tematiku. Dodjem vam po pivo svima :-)))

Why not?
(http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/issues.article)


Systems at odds

The traditional rationale for patents is that protection of inventions will spur innovation and aid in the dissemination of information about
technical advances. By prohibiting others from copying an invention,patents allow inventors to recoup their investment in development
while at the same time revealing the workings of the new invention to the public.

But there's evidence that the patent system is backfiring in the computer industry; indeed, the system itself seems unsuited to the
nature of software development. Today's computer programs are so complex that they contain literally thousands of algorithms and
techniques, each considered patentable by the Patent Office's standards. Is it reasonable to expect a software company to license
each of those patents, or even to bring such a legally risky product into the marketplace? To make things even more complicated, the Patent
Office has also granted patents on combinations of algorithms and techniques that produce a particular feature. For example, Apple was
sued because its Hypercard program allegedly violates patent number 4,736,308, which covers a specific technique that, in simplified
terms, entails scrolling through a database displaying selected parts of each line of text. Separately, the scrolling and display functions
are ubiquitous fixtures of computer programming, but combining them without a license from the holder of patent 4,736,308 is now
apparently illegal.

Another problem with patenting software is the amount of time it takes to do so. The two to five years required to file for and obtain
a patent are acceptable if a company is patenting, say, the formula for Valium, which hasn't changed in more than 20 years. But in the
software industry, companies that don't continually bring out new versions of their programs go out of business. Success for them
depends on spotting needs and developing solutions as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, conducting a patent search is a slow, deliberative process that, when harnessed to software development, could stop
innovation in its tracks. And because patent applications are confidential, there is simply no way for computer programmers to
ensure that what they write will not violate some patent that is yet to be issued. Thus XyQuest "reinvented" its automatic spelling-error
correction system and brought the product to market between the time that Productivity Software had filed for its application and been
awarded the patent...."

*******Ja, recimo nisam mogao da objavim clanak u "Mobility & Vehicle Mechanics" dok nisam podneo pat. prijavu, urednik je to zahtevao od mene.
Medjutim nekima su se desavale duge stvari, evo primera:*****

"...Such examples are becoming increasingly common. In another case, the journal IEEE Computer in June 1984 published a highly efficient
algorithm for performing data compression; unbeknownst to the journal's editors or readers, the authors of the article had simultaneously
applied for a patent on their invention. In the following year, numerous programs were written and widely distributed for performing the
so-called "LZW data compression." The compression system was even adopted as a national standard and proposed as an international one.
Then, in 1985, the Patent Office awarded patent number 4,558,302 to one of the authors of the article.Now Unisys, the holder of the
patent, is demanding royalties for the use of the algorithm. Although programs incorporating the algorithm are still in the public domain,
using these programs means risking a lawsuit..."

"...Not only is the patent approval process slow, but the search for "prior art"--the criterion the Patent Office uses to determine whether
an invention already exists at the time of a patent application--is all but impossible to conduct in the realm of computer software. After
more than 25 years, the Patent Office has not developed a system for classifying patents on algorithms and techniques, and no such system
may be workable. Just as mathematicians are sometimes unaware that essentially identical mental processes are being used in separate
areas of mathematics under different terminology, different parts of computer science frequently reinvent the same algorithm to serve
different purposes. It is unreasonable to expect that a patent examiner, pressed for time, would recognize all such duplication. For
example, IBM was issued a patent on the same data-compression algorithm that Unisys supposedly owns. The Patent Office was probably
not aware of granting two patents for the same algorithm because the descriptions in the patents themselves are quite different even though
the formulas are mathematically equivalent.

The search for prior art is complicated by the fact that the literature of computer science is unbelievably large. It contains not
only academic journals, but also users' manuals, published source code, and popular accounts in magazines for computer enthusiasts.
Whereas a team of chemists working at a major university might produce 20 or 30 pages of published material per year, a single
programmer might easily produce a hundred times that much. The situation becomes even more complex in the case of patented
combinations of algorithms and techniques. Programmers often publish new algorithms and techniques, but they almost never publish new ways
of combining old ones. Although individual algorithms and techniques have been combined in many different ways in the past, there's no good
way to establish that history...."

The inability to search the literature thoroughly for prior art is crucial, because unless an examiner can find prior art, he or she is
all but obligated to issue the patent. As a result, many patents have been granted--and successfully defended in court--that are not "original,"
even by the Patent Office's definition. It was simply the case that neither the patent examiner nor the defendants in the
lawsuit knew of the prior art's existence.
Some members of the commercial software community are now proposing the creation of a "Software Patent Institute" to identify software's
prior art that existed before 1980. But even if such an institute could catalogue every discovery made by every programmer in the United
States, it makes no sense to arbitrarily declare that only pre-1980 work is in the public domain. Besides, what would be the purpose? To
allow the patenting of nature's mathematical laws?


Bad for business

Even when patents are known in advance software publishers have generally not licensed the algorithms or techniques; instead, they try to
rewrite their programs to avoid using the particular procedure that the patent describes. Sometimes this isn't possible, in which case
companies have often chosen to avoid implementing new features altogether. It seems clear from the evidence of the last few years that
software patents are actually preventing the adoption of new technology,rather than encouraging it.

And they don't seem to be encouraging innovation, either. Software patents pose a special danger to small companies, which often form the
vanguard of software development but can't afford the cost of patent searches or litigation. The programming of a new product can cost a
few hundred thousand dollars; the cost of a patent search for each technique and combination of techniques that the new program uses
could easily equal or even exceed that. And the cost of a single patent suit can be more than a million dollars.

"I'm not familiar with any type of ligation that is any more costly than patent litigation," says R. Duff Thompson, vice president and
general counsel of the WordPerfect Corporation. But Thompson's greatest fear is that software patents will wipe out young,
independent programmers, who until now have been the software industry's source of inspiration. Imagine what happens, says Thompson,
when "some 23-year-old kid who has a terrific idea in a piece of software is hammered by a demand letter from someone holding a
patent."

As for aiding the exchange of information, the expansion of software patents could mean instead the end of software developed at
universities and distributed without charge--software that has been a mainstay of computer users in universities, corporations, and
government for years. Many such programs--the X Window system, the EMACS text editor, the "compress" file-compression utility, and
others--appear to be in violation of existing patents. Patents could also mean an end to public-domain software, which has played an
important part in making computers affordable to public schools. There is obviously no way that an author who distributes a program for free
could arrange to pay for royalties if one of the hundreds of techniques that were combined to create the program happens to be patented.

Few programmers and entrepreneurs believe that patents are necessary for their profession.Instead, the impetus for patents on algorithms
and techniques comes from two outside sources: managers of large companies, who see patents as a means for triumphing over their competitors
without having to develop superior products, and patent attorneys, who see the potential for greatly expanding their business.

Today, most patenting by companies is done to have something to trade or as a defense against other patent-infringement suits.
Attorneys advise that patenting software may strengthen competitive position. Although this approach will work for large companies such as
Microsoft, Apple, and IBM, small and even mid-sized companies can't play in their league. A future startup will be forced to pay whatever
price the giants choose to impose.

Da li su softw. patenti omogucili razvoj softw. industrije...?

Copyright and trade secrecy

The best argument against the wisdom of software patents may be history itself. Lotus, Microsoft, WordPerfect, and Novell all became
world leaders in the software publishing industry on the strength of their products. None of these companies needed patents to secure
funding or maintain their market position. Indeed, all made their fortunes before the current explosion of software patents began.
Clearly patents are not necessary to ensure the development of computer programs. And for those who want more control over what they
see as their property, the computer industry has already adopted two other systems: copyright and trade secrecy.

Today, nearly all programs are copyrighted. Copyright prohibits the users of a software program from making copies of it (for example, to
give to their friends) without the permission of the individual or company that licenses the program. It prevents one company from
appropriating another company's work and selling it as its own. But the existence of a copyright doesn't prevent other programmers from
using algorithms or techniques contained in the program in their own work. A single software technique can be implemented in different ways
to do totally different jobs; copyright only prohibits appropriating the actual code that a particular programmer wrote

The U.S. patent system was created because the framers of the Constitution hoped that patents would discourage trade secrecy. When
techniques are kept secret for commercial advantage, they may never become available for others to use and may even be lost. But although
trade secrecy is a problem for software, as it is for other fields, it is not a problem that patents help to correct.

Pomazu li patenti da se smanji "trade secrets"

The place where trade secrecy is used extensively in software is in the "source code" for programs. In computer programming, trade
secrets are kept by distributing programs in "machine code," the virtually indecipherable translation of programming languages that computers read.
It is extremely difficult for another programmer to glean from a machine-code program the original steps written by the program's author.
But software patents haven't done anything to limit this form of trade secrecy. By withholding the source code, companies keep secret not a
particular technique, but the way that they have combined dozens of techniques to produce a design for a complete system. Patenting the whole
design is impractical and ineffective. Even companies that have software patents still distribute programs in machine code only. Thus, in no
area do software patents significantly reduce trade secrecy.

No more JPEGs - ISO to withdraw image standard
By Andrew Orlowski in London
Posted: 07/23/2002 at 11:38 EST

The ISO standards body will take the unprecedented step of withdrawing the JPEG image format as a formal standard if Forgent Networks, a
small Texan company, continues to demand royalties on a seventeen-year old patent.
The Register has spoken to representatives of both the JPEG committee and Forgent Networks this week.
According to Richard Clark, JPEG committee member and JPEG.org webmaster, Forgent's royalty grab - coming after two decades of royalty-free
use - means that ISO
is obliged to withdraw the specification.

"Under ISO terms, formally you can only have a standard you can implement on free or RAND terms. "Reasonable and non discriminatory (RAND)
terms are typically published, and the same for everyone. It's clear that Forgent's claims are not RAND. $15 million doesn't sound like free

to me, and Forgent is not publishing the terms of their licensing.

(http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25711.html)

*************************************************
(http://www.jpeg.org/newsrel1.html)

Considerable interest has been expressed in the views of the JPEG committee concerning claims made by Forgent Networks Inc on their web site
concerning intellectual property that Forgent have obtained through their acquisition of Compression Labs Inc. They refer specifically to US
Patent 4,698,672, which refers amongst other claims to technology which might be applied in run length coding, found in many technologies
including the implementations of a baseline version of ISO/IEC 10918-1, commonly referred to as JPEG.

The committee has examined these claims briefly, and at present believes that prior art exists in areas in which the patent might claim
application to ISO/IEC 10918-1 in its baseline form. The committee have also become aware that other organisations including Philips, and
Lucent may also be claiming some elements of intellectual property that might be applied to the original JPEG and JBIG (IS 11544 standards).
As a response to this, the JPEG committee will be collecting, through its new web site (to be launched shortly) a substantial repository of
prior art and it invites submissions, particularly where the content may be applied to claims of intellectual property. A note will be
placed on the web site shortly explaining the process for such submissions.

This effort will take some time to organise, but the JPEG committee hope to have it in place prior to its next meeting in Shanghai in
October 2002.

It has always been a strong goal of the JPEG committee that its standards should be implementable in their baseline form without payment of
royalty and license fees, and the committee would like to record their disappointment that some organisations appear to be working in
conflict with this goal. Considerable time has been spent in committee in attempting to either arrange licensing on these terms, or in
avoiding existing intellectual property, and many hundreds of organisations and academic communities have supported us in our work.

The up and coming JPEG 2000 standard has been prepared along these lines, and agreement reached with over 20 large organisations holding
many patents in this area to allow use of their intellectual property in connection with the standard without payment of license fees or
royalties.

Pa malo o tome moze li se "zastiti" OS i da to ima posledica na neki drugi OS...
(ili kako se SCO prepucava sa IBM i jos sa nekima usput...)

SCO sues Big Blue over Unix, Linux
Last modified: March 6, 2003, 5:01 PM PST
By Stephen Shankland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Print story E-mail story

SCO Group, inheritor of the intellectual property for the Unix operating system, has sued IBM for more than $1 billion, alleging Big
Blue misappropriated SCO's Unix technology and built it into Linux.
Learn more about Unix and Linux

The suit, filed Thursday afternoon in the 3rd District Court of Salt Lake County in Utah, alleges misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair
competition, breach of contract and tortious interference with SCO's business, the Lindon, Utah-based company said. SCO also sent a letter
Thursday demanding that if IBM doesn't meet various demands, SCO will revoke IBM's license to ship its version of Unix, called AIX, in 100
days.

"We are alleging they have contaminated their Linux work with inappropriate knowledge from Unix," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president
of operating systems at SCO and head of the company's SCOsource effort to make more money from its intellectual property.

Analysts saw the move as a desperate one for SCO, a company that hasn't been profitable in its current incarnation.

"It's a fairly end-of-life move for the stockholders and managers of that company," said Jonathan Eunice, an Illuminata analyst. "Really
what beat SCO is not any problem with what IBM did; it's what the market decided. This is a way of salvaging value out of the SCO franchise
they can't get by winning in the marketplace."

SCO hasn't sued other companies that have Linux products--for example, Red Hat or SuSE, but Sontag didn't rule out such actions.

Laura Keeton, a spokeswoman for IBM, declined to comment on the matter.

However, Steve Mills, senior vice president of IBM's software group, told CNET News.com in an earlier interview that he didn't see any
intellectual property concerns between Unix and Linux. He also was critical of SCO's efforts.

"What SCO is doing raises a bunch of questions," Mills said. "Instead of building customer value, they're chasing people saying, 'License
technology from us.' To me it's an odd strategy."...

..."Companies that switch from competing in the marketplace to trying to enforce their basic patents and intellectual is a style of
conducting business that isn't very conducive to getting a lot of business partners," Eunice said.

IBM isn't the only company that is wary of SCO's intellectual property plans. Richard Seibt, the new SuSE chief executive, expressed concern


in an earlier interview.

"They have the right to make money off their intellectual property. The problem is, they should have done this six years before," Seibt
said. And SCO Chief Executive Darl McBride, by raising questions about Linux, would "hurt himself more than anybody else," Seibt said.
........
Sun Microsystems, however, saw an advantage in SCO's legal action. "Sun's complete line of Solaris and Linux products...are covered by Sun's


portfolio of Unix licensing agreements," John Loiacono, vice president of operating platforms group at Sun, said in a statement.

SCO is a founding member of UnitedLinux, a four-company consortium that bases a common version of Linux on SuSE's product. "They are

full
members of UnitedLinux. We expect them to stick to the rules. They signed up as an open source (company). They buy into the GPL philosophy,"
Seibt said.........

Ceo clanak na...
(http://news.com.com/2100-1016-991464.html?tag=fd_top)

Cini mi se da problem moze da bude kada se neko posle 6 ili 17 ili koliko god vremena seti da "odjednom" trazi svoja prava.

Takodje se ponovo dotice problema da prilikom pisanja sofware-a programer ne moze znati (zbog tajnosti pat. prijava) da li je neko nesto
zastitio i da ce mozda uskoro patent biti odobren.
Zbog vremena potrebnog da se neka prijava prihvati i reg. kao patent, moze se desiti da
neko bezbrizno pise software, i da najednom prilikom vec komercijalne prodaje istog mora da je obustavi zato sto je jedan njeo deo u
medjuvremenu prihvacen kao patent.
Na taj nacin pat. zastita moze ozbiljno da ugrozi stvaranje novog softwarea, jer prakticno prilikom kreiranja istog,
programer jednostavno ne zna, niti je u mogucnosti da proveri (zbog tajnosti patentnih prijava - pre no sto budu prihvacene (ako) i
proglasene patentom) da li se deo njegovog softwarea "kosi" sa nekim patentom koji to tek treba da postane.
Ne dakle sa onima koji su vec ustanovljeni, nego sa nekima koji su jos u proceduri vec par godina provere i koji mozda budu prihvaceni kao
patenti.

Da li jos nekome ovo deluje kao realna opasnost za razvoj software-a?