Open Source, patents et al.

[Sander]

Here's the definition of Open Source:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Basically, Open Source is a form of creating software where you allow others to view, modify and redistribute your software. The interesting thing about it is that it makes for faster, better and more secure software, because there are so many people contributing fixes and problems to the project. The downside is that it will be less user-friendly, because the people creating the software willl be creating it for themselves, and because they are always coders, they have more knowledge of code and computers, and will therefore need less user-friendliness and will therefore produce less user-friendliness. The Open Source community seems to be working on that, though, specifically with newer distributions of the Linux Operating System.

I suggest you first read The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond, it will give you an insight into how this model works and why it works.

Now, one of the problems facing Open Source is patents: people have been patenting their software, and there has been a lot of movement towards making it possible to patent any form of software (meaning more monopolies, and less innovation, I'll explain in a while why this is so). Now, in my university's magazine, there was an article (in Dutch, too bad) claiming that Watt not only patented his steam engine, but that this patent stood in the way of innovation and progress. An even more interesting claim was that when those patents dissapeared people, especially around Cornwall, started to share their knowledge, and that due to this sharing of knoweldge, the progress of the steam engine went very fast. In other words: due to the sharing of knowledge (in Open Source models this would be code) more people got to work on the same project, they found more mistakes and fixed more mistakes, and this made for a lot of innovation. A link to the researcher's promotion explanation is here: http://www.tue.nl/promoties/uitleg/nuvolari_uitleg.html

Now, the reason why I feel that these patents stand in the way of innovation and progress, specifically in the field of software, is that there are only a limited number of solutions to any problem in software. For instance, if I'm designing a game, I'd probably need to give the computer a way of finding a correct path from point A to poiint B, this is called pathfinding. The methods to implement pathfinding are only limited, a few examples are A* and Dijkstra pathfinding, and if some company would be able to patent these algorithms, pieces of software, they would block anyone else from using these pathfinding methods in their code. As you can see, this can be highly frustrating and can stand in the way of progress. This is even more frustrating because as a programmer, you are bound to use code which has been used by others, and you therefore constantly run the risk of breaking patents without even knowing it.

Added to that is the problem of closed source: if a company does not release its source code, and most companies don't, they obstruct any means of ever finding out exactly what that piece of patented code does, because they patented the entire code base, but didn't make it public. If this were made possible, then there would be more problems, because you couldn't even CHECK whether you were breaking patent laws.

Before you respond to what I just wrote, be absolutely sure to read those links I provided.

 

[Montez]

FYI for anyone responding: This thread will be watched closely, and any spam, flames, off-topic or nonsense posts will be vatted on sight.

 

[Tannhauser]

Sander, I find you are confusing the issue, I rather hope it was unintentional. You start off by speaking of open source software (a model I agree with, though I think some healthy competition strengthens the entire system), which I have little to add on the topic. From there you move swiftly into patents, for obvious reasons. Then, you get travel to a different realm entirely, invention patents. I think such a comparison is intrinsically flawed, because of the differences. To hark back to an old phrase, "apples and oranges."

There is a strong correlation between patent law and the rise of modern society. I have heard more than one technological historian state that if any one element could have started a technological revolution in the classical period, it would have good patent laws. The corner-stone of patent law, which people far too often forget, is that it is for a limited time. In return for both the creation and disclosure of the invention, the inventor recieves a profitable monopoly. After the patent expires, the invention becomes public property.

An inventor no longer has to worry about finding a patron to support his whims (or be independently wealthy), but could actually survive off his inventions. Encouraging other people to follow the same track. Instead of being a hobby, it would turn into a profession. Importantly as well, inventions no longer become a trade secret. How much technological progress has been lost over the ages because it was confined to a single inventor or a guild? Many inventions have died because they were secret.

Now, read carefully, I'm not applying this to software, I freely acknowledge that such a system works by different rules. I do believe though that patent laws were a fundamental part of the technological revolution.

 

[Sander]

(a model I agree with, though I think some healthy competition strengthens the entire system)

Could you provide some arguments for that, or is it a belief you hold? Because I do disagree with it...

There is a strong correlation between patent law and the rise of modern society. I have heard more than one technological historian state that if any one element could have started a technological revolution in the classical period, it would have good patent laws. The corner-stone of patent law, which people far too often forget, is that it is for a limited time. In return for both the creation and disclosure of the invention, the inventor recieves a profitable monopoly. After the patent expires, the invention becomes public property.

Oh, I certainly did not forget that. But, obviously, you didn't fully read what mr. Novulari claimed. He had done research, and shed new light on the industrial revolution's main propellant: the steam engine, and he showed that the patents stood in the way of progress. In other words, if the patent hadn't existed, progress would've gone faster, and possibly better.
Also note that patents are nowhere near a cure-all for scientists. There are plentiful examples of scientists and inventors from the industrial revolution who ended up in the gutter because of those patents (getting sued because you accidentally created something that looked a lot like someone's patent) or because their own patents weren't sharp enough to prevent copying, or because they just couldn't get anyone to buy their patenting rights and people waited for the patent to expire.
The fact that historians have claimed otherwise is no argument in itself, by the way.
Also, note that patenting is in no way required for an inventor to make money, especially not these days, because there are numerous prizes and research funds any researchers can draw from to fund his research and get rewarded by. Furthermore, anyone can take the road of trying to keep their own methods a secret without actually patenting their own inventions, look at Coca-Cola, they never patented the formula for Coca Cola.

An inventor no longer has to worry about finding a patron to support his whims (or be independently wealthy), but could actually survive off his inventions. Encouraging other people to follow the same track. Instead of being a hobby, it would turn into a profession. Importantly as well, inventions no longer become a trade secret. How much technological progress has been lost over the ages because it was confined to a single inventor or a guild? Many inventions have died because they were secret.

Yet this doesn't change with patents. Have you seen Windows' source code, for instance? Have you ever seen Coca Cola's recipe? Do you have any idea why Internet Explorer crashes under vaue circumstances or under some really obscure condition?
The point is that patents do NOT help innovation, they also don't help the inventors themselves, unless the inventors already are shrewd businessmen, in which case they wouldn't need those patents. There are, for instance, several people who failed to make money off of their, quite good, patents, because no-one was interested in them. If you, on the other hand, succeed in creating an invention, you can keep it a trade secret, and you can also sell it to the highest bidder, and you can find a job at some research institute because of the success with your invention. Patents are unnecessary, and they can hinder progress a lot.

Now, read carefully, I'm not applying this to software, I freely acknowledge that such a system works by different rules. I do believe though that patent laws were a fundamental part of the technological revolution.

Oh, I don't doubt that. It's just that my point is that the Open Source model could and should work for general purpose inventions, and the Cornwall example has shown that it can be very effective.
(Note that these people also made money from their inventions)

 

[Claw]

An inventor no longer has to worry about finding a patron to support his whims (or be independently wealthy), but could actually survive off his inventions.

That sounds nice. Unfortunately it also sounds like a fairy tale. I got the impression most inventors work for companies who then own the patents, and if an inventor really wants to keep his inventions he still has to be wealthy or find investors.
The reason for this seems obvious, inventors need the money first. Before they actually invent anything, that is, and even if they have made an invention they can't easily prodcue and market it themselves.

I am not against patents, but alot is wrong in the area.

Oh, and what do you mean by "healthy competition" in the context?