Ethics of Software Ownership

[CrayZee]

So I come from a computery, mathy-type of background/education/training. I could ask elsewhere but I'd like to hear opinions of others on the ethics of software ownership.

Richard Stallman is an important figure in the software world regardless of how "wacky leftist" he may seem. However, his essay Why Software Should Be Free seems very full of personal bias (i.e., confirmation bias of behavior of individuals around him).

I know that the intellectual property debate is quite a hot topic these days...but since I'm likely headed back into software, I've been thinking about the nature of copyrights and software patents.

Unlike what some people seem to think, computer science is a mathematical discipline. And while just a modicum of mathematical skill and understanding is necessary for computer engineering, software development is inherently a mathematical application. Thus a set of computer algorithms is just a set of mathematical processes doing specific things.

So should a mathematical process be patentable? I'm beginning to lean on the side of "no, it shouldn't." BUT, I believe people should be able to copyright and own the particular instances of the software they produce, if they so choose. In other words, software should be treated more like literary work and that it's perfectly fine for individuals to make boatloads of money from it.

Stallman's perpective is that of a typical, competent programmer. (Yes, I too personally have an irrational hate of the beast from Redmond.) The closed source aspect of proprietary software is annoying at times, but it's really just a local inefficiency sort of thing. I don't believe closed source is unethical.

Isn't the whole purpose of patents to induce innovation? Well, that's what Jefferson thought. Software patents seem so counterproductive to longterm innovation.

[Phil153]

Software isn't math. It's a craft. You get a bunch of features you'd like to implement that solve some real world problem, then use a set of tools to build them. Maybe if you're writing compilers you could call it math-like, but if regular software is math then writing a non-fiction book is math too.

As for IP, I'm a believer that a man deserves the fruits of his labor, and I don't see any way to do that without IP laws. Smart, inventive people should have protection against being preyed upon by opportunists and thieves. One is rare, and the other is extremely common.

Whether or not patents hurt or help knowledge and technology is an interesting question. I don't have an opinion but I'd like to hear the discussion.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
Software isn't math. It's a craft. You get a bunch of features you'd like to implement that solve some real world problem, then use a set of tools to build them. Maybe if you're writing compilers you could call it math-like, but if regular software is math then writing a non-fiction book is math too.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I'm struggling with mostly, I think. It would be good to know that my logic is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]

As for IP, I'm a believer that a man deserves the fruits of his labor, and I don't see any way to do that without IP laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too.

[GoodCallYouWin]

http://watchthis.zakyoung.com/index....&Itemid=13

This lecture, by one of the inventor of GNU technology, explains why software patents are the devil and why coypwrites are good to preserve the fruits of their labour. Patents on software suck.

[kerowo]

I've been a developer for 10 years or so in corporate America and there is very little math involved in any of the software I've written or supported and what math there was was figured out by someone else before the specs got to me. That's not to say there isn't math in any software or that high level comp sci isn't math heavy, just that what most day to day developers are doing isn't very math.

I don't care for the whole "information should be free" camp because most of the people I see shouting for it use it to rationalize pirating songs or expensive software they don't want to buy. If it was easily determined what was under patent and wasn't I would have less problem with a software patents, stealth patents kept just to sue someone later on feel slimey. Also, does anyone know if the patent is on the source code or object code? It seems likely that some patents can be coded around in a different way but would end up getting compiled to the same code, although on second thought that would have to be a pretty minor change for that to happen.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Also, does anyone know if the patent is on the source code or object code? "

Neither, it extends to the technology; so if you patent say a method of say compression, you can prevent anyone from using that that method of invention. It is not neccessary to INVENT this technology, you simply have to patent it; if someone else was using this technology before, too bad so sad.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been a developer for 10 years or so in corporate America and there is very little math involved in any of the software I've written or supported and what math there was was figured out by someone else before the specs got to me. That's not to say there isn't math in any software or that high level comp sci isn't math heavy, just that what most day to day developers are doing isn't very math.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I should have said logical-mathematical instead. If you are writing a physics engine in a video game, that's more math intensive. If you are writing a user interface, then that's more closely related to psychology.

So yeah, you can partition things out. But I guess my point is that most ideas can be reversed engineered and that people should be allowed to do so. Some patents are absolutely absurd (e.g., Amazon's 1-Click "technology").

Even Bill Gates said in the 80's (?) that software patents are dangerous and that "obvious ideas" would be patented. But now you don't hear him saying that because the patent system works to his favor. While expanding the techno-portfolio with things like console game platforms, Microsoft is currently, and largely, in the software protection racket.

Microsoft realizes that it's futile to only protect in the long term because of attempts to open up a little bit w/ things like Silverlight; or they are attempting lock-in for a web platform.

Anyway, like I said, I don't think proprietary closed-source software is inherently wrong, but patents are. I haven't thought about this for too long, but software patents are likely anti-competitive and hurts consumers and small fry, independent dev teams.

My view of the utility of open source is like the "food pyramid." The most generic needs can, and likely will be, met at the bottom by open source. The higher you go up the pyramid, the more niche. This is where service and support come to play to meet particular business needs. So while off-the-shelf software will always be around, much of software is, or will, become more service oriented.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
So should a mathematical process be patentable? I'm beginning to lean on the side of "no, it shouldn't." BUT, I believe people should be able to copyright and own the particular instances of the software they produce, if they so choose. In other words, software should be treated more like literary work and that it's perfectly fine for individuals to make boatloads of money from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Software is an implementation of an idea, so it should be able to be copyrighted, but not patented. It will be a great day for software innovation when all software patents are dissolved, and no more allowed.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the whole purpose of patents to induce innovation? Well, that's what Jefferson thought. Software patents seem so counterproductive to longterm innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'll look around to see if I can find an article I read on patents in general and software patents specifically. The gist is that patents were created to encourage people to share ideas, primarily, and profit from their innovation, secondarily. We are now in the information age where ideas have a very short lifespan. Patent laws haven't kept up, and slow down innovation by thwarting the progress of those ideas, and instead allow people to sit pretty on their new "cash cow".

I'll post the article if/when I find it.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the whole purpose of patents to induce innovation? Well, that's what Jefferson thought. Software patents seem so counterproductive to longterm innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I came across this article:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8445673704.html

Dr. Anthony Picardi, IDC's senior vice president of global software research:

[ QUOTE ]
"The real impact of open source is to sustain innovations in mature software markets, thus extending the useful life of software assets and saving customers money."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not just some off-the-wall-anti-capitalism-leftist-commie speaking, either. You can pay $3,500 for the full report if you want to see all the details. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I think there are several reasons why open source development tends to lend itself to better innovation. We can discuss that if you want? Not sure if that's what you wanted to talk about in your thread or not.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are several reasons why open source development tends to lend itself to better innovation. We can discuss that if you want? Not sure if that's what you wanted to talk about in your thread or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course innovation will be better. You have as much time as you want to work on something, you aren't penalized for thinking outside the box, and you're free to incorporate other open-sourced techniques into your own code.

Proprietary systems are limited in all 3 areas.