Red Hat asks US Supreme Court to bar software patents

I don't like Red Hat much, but the problem of software patents is affecting ever developer in the world. This could be a huge case, a case that defines the 21st century. or it will be bashed down.

In 1985-86, when I developed the first graphical touchscreen point of sale software I chose to not apply for a patent on it. Today all point of sale graphical interfaces throughout the world are derived from the touchscreen gui that I developed and uncountable tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of people working in the hospitality industry benefit from my work and my decision to not patent it.

I set a good example for the people who are developing touchscreen software today but too many of these people do not understand the harm that software patents cause, disregard the innovation that software patents stifle, and delude themselves that they are actually even doing anything new or innovative that qualifies as patentable.

I can’t believe Gene Mosher has commented on this article. He is the ‘God’ of EPoS!
The crazy thing is: I’ve developed an EPoS solution for our customers for the Marine Industry.
I would hazard a guess it’s not as good as what you’ve achieved, Gene, but it works for our customers.
http://www.starplc.com/marina-management-epos.htm
As a developer, I’m constantly looking for code snippets and components on the web to help speed-up the process. What guarantees do I have that any included code does not infringe a patent? None! Because the person whose code I used might have invented their method just before or after the Patent Troll patented their discovery. Now, I might find my ass in the mower if one of these clowns reverse engineers my product with the suspicion I might have nicked their code. But, then again, we ‘ain’t no M$ with billions of dollars in our pockets, so I doubt very much if these idiots would ever hunt us down. Financially it wouldn’t be worth it.
However, for somebody to nick someone else’s software ‘concept’; well, that might be another debate. Should we patent a system/concept and allow that to stand?
It would potentially pee-me-off if someone else copied my software click-for-click (press-for-press)
Over to you guys.
Lots of love, and hugs and kisses,
Dave xxx
As a developer, I’m constantly looking for code snippets and components on the web to help speed-up the process. What guarantees do I have that any included code does not infringe a patent? None, because the person whose code I used might have invented their method just before or after the Patent Troll patented their discovery. Now, I might find myself in ‘deep-shit’ if one of these clowns reverse engineers my product with the suspicion I might have nicked their code. But, then again, we ‘ain’t no M$ with billions of dollars in our pockets so I doubt very much if these idiots would ever hunt us down. Financially it wouldn’t be worth it.
However, for somebody to nick someone else’s software ‘concept’; well, that might be another debate. Should we patent a system/concept and allow that to stand?
It would sure piss me off if someone else copied my software click-for-click....

Over to you guys.

Lots of love hugs and kisses,
Dave xxx

Hey, sorry for the double edit there...

I totally agree, patents slow technologic advancements in mankind and should be disolved!

I'm on the fence. I don't like those patents that cover "obvious" things, or things that really aren't "inventions". At the same time, there are things that should be patentable, like clever new algorithms, and stuff that is clearly unique and inventive.

Perhaps the solution is to simply shorten the patent's duration when it comes to software patents because it is a far faster moving industry than the industries that the original patent system was designed for. Rather than waiting a decade and a half to be able to use a patented software compression algorithm, it should only be applicable for 2-5 years depending on scope. That way the patent-holder will need to exploit the patent quickly, not just sit on it, waiting for someone to bite in order to sue.

While individual and talented developers cannot afford a patent big companies do it routinely.

That is the system which makes the big sharks even bigger. If you don't consider it flawed, then you are most likely one of them.

What counts as obvious? One of the Mythbuster guys invented a robotic arm that's based on the way the human arm works. Even if you don't believe in God, doesn't that technically count as prior art?

There are definately arguements for and against. I think the problem with software is that there are so many common problems that almost all applications have to deal with and these common scenario's are being patented. Also the number of patents is now so large and enforcement so spotty that no one really has any idea if they are infringing on a patent.

I have a bunch of issued software patents. In my experience, the vast majority of software patents are never tested for obviousness, and in general you can get a patent just for being the first engineer to think about a problem. But many problems would be solved in essentially the same way by any good group of engineers tasked to look at it.

The patent office will never be good at screening out obvious patents, and I'd rather lose the ability to patent the occasional stroke of genius in return for the industry not being burdened by the sea of stupid patents out there.

If we look at it this way:

Someone made the programming language. They then defined everything you can do with said language.
Therefore the maker of the language should own all code made with it.

This isn't my opinion, but it's equally "right" as software patents.

I appreciate the nice comments. I also visited the Star Computers web site; You guys seem to have your act together nicely! If you're ever in Oregon, stop in for the hospitality I always extend to visitors...

I'm not sure the supreme court is the body, they test cases against the law of the land and constitution, not being happy with the law is not their department, that's the politicians who need to change things and fix the law and patent system.
Now you could throw it on the 'pursuit of happiness' or 'fair trade' or what have you (can't think on applicable laws right now), but I'm not sure they would be willing to upset the whole balance over this, I fear they won't.
But the current system is indeed untenable and will either be fixed or blow up in a huge mess and then be fixed.

All that software needs is a broad copyright that includes the banning of decompilation without permission. If someone re-implements software/functions that they see without reference to your source code or binaries they should be free to do so. All software patents should be invalidated.

No, sorry but this will epically fail. if it did pass, software devs. would just publish in another country WITH patents to protect their work. No idiot in their right mind will develop in a country that can not protect their work. this is retarded, red hat guys need to stop smoking the stuff and drinking all that free beer.

Absolutely true!

New computer languages are invented everyday to [hardly] circumvent patents.

Like Hip hop's answer to America's version of the spoken English language.

I hate cRap and Hip Hop, it's a cheap lure to a lavish lifestyle attracting all kinds of associative rubbish like violence, drugs guns prostitution.

In the computer you are using right now, the same is true, in the sense of, yeah right, you have allot of security, but allot of BAD security, as in the hip hop party IN your computer hopping if a fight brakes out one group will keep the other busy, or flying bullets will magically and harmlessly hit each other in mid air and drop to the floor.

Actually, I rather think free beer and drugs are passed around regardless and real security suffers.

To all programmers out there, please... don't DRINK and COMPUTE! That is how Hip hop got to molest comprehensive communication mediums right at the mouth.

Disallow software patents, but allow software implementation patents.

I forgot to mention: I patented the SUM() function! If you've ever used it, I'll settle for a couple million Dollars...

Lets see there are 2 options here. one makes lots of money for lawyers and one does not.

Politicians and Lawmakers are mostly lawyers whos first priority above all else is to make more work for their fellow plague on society brethren.

Guess who will win.

Patents should simply not be allowed for software.

If you write an original piece of code that you don't want people to copy & use for free, the copyright laws should be used, not patents.