8 ms·

This makes no sense. Is Stallman so focused on software that he isn't considering the implications of continuing to apply broken software patents to hardware?

This makes no sense. Is Stallman so focused on software that he isn't considering the implications of continuing to apply broken software patents to hardware? FPGAs? Is an algorithm implemented on a FPGA a software or hardware implementation? Sufficiently popular software algorithms like mpeg4 (including avc) are often implemented in ASICs for speed. Stallman's suggestion does nothing to help in those cases. What if Intel introduces new instructions that assist with some patented algorithm but do not carry out the complete algorithm? Software completes the algorithm using the chip instruction. Is that covered under Stallman's software patent immunity proposal? The dichotomy between software implementations and hardware implementations is unhelpful. If you oppose software patents on principle, whether because you think they're harmful or because you think they're math and are not supposed to be patentable in the first place, why let the camel's nose into the tent by campaigning to allow hardware (ASIC?) implementation patents, but not allowing pure-software implementations? Perhaps this is better framed as an economic argument. If cost were no object, more algorithms would be implemented in ASICs. There's a limit to the total chip area you'd want to fit into a computer, but a lot of algorithms could be implemented in a few custom ASICs. It's likely that some of those algorithms would be covered by patents. Stallman's proposal seems like discrimination against algorithms that are important enough to make faster execution worth a lot of money. If software patents are not valid, and I don't believe they are valid, then allowing them to apply to hardware implementations is just applying a band-aid and punting on the real issue. Stallman's proposal may be pragmatic, in that it reduces risk to most start-ups and other entities worried about violating patents in software, but it sustains the confusion about what software patents are and whether they can be valid. I think there's more at stake than the money at issue in patent lawsuits every year. I think broad appreciation of the value of open culture, and recognition that algorithms should be part of that, is worth more than any extra value companies might be able to extract from hardware implementations of patented algorithms due to artificial monopolies created by patent protection.

pjscott 14y ago
It's not a perfect solution, and (like most things in the patent system) it's an obvious ugly hack, but it would be a lot better than the status quo. Do you have a realistic alternative that's better? (I just realized: you may be in the dubious position of being less pragmatic about something than Richard Stallman. It's not often someone can say that!)
- prostoalex 14y ago
  This "ugly hack" is a hole you can drive a truck through, and one can be pretty sure the patent lawyers will find an aircraft carrier, load it up with trucks, and drive through it collectively. It's silly to assume no change in behavior, any legal counsel from that point on will advise in favor of patenting the hardware implementation, and instead of patented software running on commodity hardware we'll end up with patented "appliances" and "reference hardware implementations" with broad claims extending to other types of hardware implementations.
  - guelo 14y ago
    I don't see the hole being that big. For example Apple's slide-to-unlock patent, no one would be allowed to move that functionality into a dedicated chip but that would never happen anyways.
    - prostoalex 14y ago
      If Stallman's modification of "implementations using special-purpose hardware" was in place and Apple was filing that application today, I could see how they would reduce the slide-to-unlock to "slide-to-unlock on a multitouch surface".
      - guelo 14y ago
        I don't think that's right. The regular meaning of special-purpose computer is an appliance like a TV or an iPod, it can't do anything that it wasn't designed to do. The opposite is a general-purpose computer which is pretty much anything that can be programmed such as a PC or a smartphone. Of course it would depend on the legal definitions to know what the exact loopholes would be.
      - reitzensteinm 14y ago
        There might be holes in Stallman's plan, but this isn't one of them. Apple might be able to patent multi touch if they hypothetically invented it, since that's a hardware thing. But once that touch data makes it to the CPU, what is done with it afterwards would be unpatentable. Even if Apple themselves somehow did slide to unlock in hardware, competitors could still implement a software version.
tubbo 14y ago
You can't get rid of software patents, because of grandfather's clauses. Those who own patents will always own them, our Government has given them a certificate of lifetime ownership over that entity. Realistically the only solution is to just abolish ALL of them or make their effects that hurt people much less severe than they are (or could be, given the right idiot for a judge) today.
mindslight 14y ago
> The dichotomy between software implementations and hardware implementations is unhelpful Actually it's quite helpful. Something implemented in hardware has one fixed royalty per device, no matter what operating system or other customization has been performed. That implementation becomes a capability of the device, a manufacturers selling point. A software implementation is "shipped" over and over again as the software is updated, the user changes software packages, etc. I'm pretty ambivalent on hardware patents, having grown up reading Don Lancaster, etc. But they could be a workable way to fund codec development while not encroaching on software freedom.
timClicks 14y ago
It makes some sense. He's attempting to promote an easily understood measure to mitigate the harm caused by software patents. Putting forward suggestions which are easily understood is very useful in politics.
georgemcbay 14y ago
"What if Intel introduces new instructions that assist with some patented algorithm but do not carry out the complete algorithm? Software completes the algorithm using the chip instruction. Is that covered under Stallman's software patent immunity proposal?" Sure, why wouldn't it be? I'm not suggesting his idea is feasible or not. But as he stated it, in this case if you were able to reverse engineer the software bits required to make the magic happen on the chip and reimplement your own version you wouldn't be on the hook for actionable patent infringement whether you were the developer or a user. OTOH you wouldn't be able to implement the hardware side of that system under these rules.
chj 14y ago
Far from ideal, but at least an actionable, smooth solution that the major players can adopt.
lancefisher 14y ago
It's more like the camel is already in the tent, and RMS is trying to shove its butt out.
- joshhart 14y ago
  RMS is an idealist, not a pragmatist. He must believe this is the ideal solution. Or maybe he's had a change in opinion recently. I have to say, this is the only cogent, practical argument I've heard out of him over the last few years. I really dislike his dogma on the free software issue.
  - JamisonM 14y ago
    You need to provide some evidence for Stallman not being pragmatic. The existence of the LGPL is clear evidence that he is capable of pragmatism. Another example is that he does not get very excited about things like simple calculators being open and free because he does not see that as a practical concern. He has principles that he tries to live by and advocates strongly but I have never viewed him as an idealist nor do I see much evidence for it.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    RMS is certainly ideological, but he's pragmatic about pursuing that ideology.
philwelch 14y ago
Arguably, if you're manufacturing ASICs, you can afford to license the odd patent.
- TallGuyShort 14y ago
  Software companies can also often afford to license the odd patent. I can also afford to pay the occasional fine. But why should any of these parties do so if the law is unfair and ridiculous?
Natsu 14y ago
If you want a loophole, look at the part where 'selling' software wasn't on the list of exemptions. I think that could create more than a few problems, though I think the overall idea is a good one. As for the complaints that this might create more legal absurdities, there are plenty of those already. An imperfect solution is better than none.
belorn 14y ago
Stallmans suggestion is a pragmatic way to go forward and stop the current fighting between companies that is ongoing at the courts, and not through competition of products. A clear and strong reform of patent would be preferable, and has been for long the free software foundations strategy. In the case of Bilski v. Kappos, one can read a brief made by the fsf, which rather clearly presents their view. I also strongly promote the idea to watch/read a talk by eben moglen at https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2009/Moglen_Cardozo/CardozoBilskiSpeechTranscript11-2-09.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2009/Moglen_Cardozo/C...
yason 14y ago
FPGAs? Is an algorithm implemented on a FPGA a software or hardware implementation? FPGA is pretty much general purpose metahardware. It's programmable so you could program it to be any chip, thus not covered by the effects of a patent. Sufficiently popular software algorithms like mpeg4 (including avc) are often implemented in ASICs for speed. Stallman's suggestion does nothing to help in those cases. If you're manufacturing or buying dedicated hardware to do one specific task well I don't see why would patents need not apply? The codec chip is clearly a "hardware machine", not a general purpose processor. It's something I imagine companies are prepared to pay license fees for. Further, nobody will accidentally use a MPEG4 hardware decoder in some device they make which is a different situation from how the accidental problems manifest in software.
- alanctgardner2 14y ago
  You could accidentally create a patented algorithm in hardware just as easily in hardware. The trick is that you wouldn't be designing an 'MPEG4 hardware decoder', but you'd think 'oh, wavelet compression in an ASIC, how novel'. Then you'd be infringing the patent. It's not an issue of accidentally using, it's more an issue of accidentally developing in parallel.

pjscott 14y ago

It's not a perfect solution, and (like most things in the patent system) it's an obvious ugly hack, but it would be a lot better than the status quo. Do you have a realistic alternative that's better? (I just realized: you may be in the dubious position of being less pragmatic about something than Richard Stallman. It's not often someone can say that!)

prostoalex 14y ago
This "ugly hack" is a hole you can drive a truck through, and one can be pretty sure the patent lawyers will find an aircraft carrier, load it up with trucks, and drive through it collectively. It's silly to assume no change in behavior, any legal counsel from that point on will advise in favor of patenting the hardware implementation, and instead of patented software running on commodity hardware we'll end up with patented "appliances" and "reference hardware implementations" with broad claims extending to other types of hardware implementations.
- guelo 14y ago
  I don't see the hole being that big. For example Apple's slide-to-unlock patent, no one would be allowed to move that functionality into a dedicated chip but that would never happen anyways.
  - prostoalex 14y ago
    If Stallman's modification of "implementations using special-purpose hardware" was in place and Apple was filing that application today, I could see how they would reduce the slide-to-unlock to "slide-to-unlock on a multitouch surface".
    - guelo 14y ago
      I don't think that's right. The regular meaning of special-purpose computer is an appliance like a TV or an iPod, it can't do anything that it wasn't designed to do. The opposite is a general-purpose computer which is pretty much anything that can be programmed such as a PC or a smartphone. Of course it would depend on the legal definitions to know what the exact loopholes would be.
    - reitzensteinm 14y ago
      There might be holes in Stallman's plan, but this isn't one of them. Apple might be able to patent multi touch if they hypothetically invented it, since that's a hardware thing. But once that touch data makes it to the CPU, what is done with it afterwards would be unpatentable. Even if Apple themselves somehow did slide to unlock in hardware, competitors could still implement a software version.

tubbo 14y ago

You can't get rid of software patents, because of grandfather's clauses. Those who own patents will always own them, our Government has given them a certificate of lifetime ownership over that entity. Realistically the only solution is to just abolish ALL of them or make their effects that hurt people much less severe than they are (or could be, given the right idiot for a judge) today.

mindslight 14y ago

> The dichotomy between software implementations and hardware implementations is unhelpful Actually it's quite helpful. Something implemented in hardware has one fixed royalty per device, no matter what operating system or other customization has been performed. That implementation becomes a capability of the device, a manufacturers selling point. A software implementation is "shipped" over and over again as the software is updated, the user changes software packages, etc. I'm pretty ambivalent on hardware patents, having grown up reading Don Lancaster, etc. But they could be a workable way to fund codec development while not encroaching on software freedom.

timClicks 14y ago

It makes some sense. He's attempting to promote an easily understood measure to mitigate the harm caused by software patents. Putting forward suggestions which are easily understood is very useful in politics.

georgemcbay 14y ago

"What if Intel introduces new instructions that assist with some patented algorithm but do not carry out the complete algorithm? Software completes the algorithm using the chip instruction. Is that covered under Stallman's software patent immunity proposal?" Sure, why wouldn't it be? I'm not suggesting his idea is feasible or not. But as he stated it, in this case if you were able to reverse engineer the software bits required to make the magic happen on the chip and reimplement your own version you wouldn't be on the hook for actionable patent infringement whether you were the developer or a user. OTOH you wouldn't be able to implement the hardware side of that system under these rules.

chj 14y ago

Far from ideal, but at least an actionable, smooth solution that the major players can adopt.

lancefisher 14y ago

It's more like the camel is already in the tent, and RMS is trying to shove its butt out.

joshhart 14y ago
RMS is an idealist, not a pragmatist. He must believe this is the ideal solution. Or maybe he's had a change in opinion recently. I have to say, this is the only cogent, practical argument I've heard out of him over the last few years. I really dislike his dogma on the free software issue.
- JamisonM 14y ago
  You need to provide some evidence for Stallman not being pragmatic. The existence of the LGPL is clear evidence that he is capable of pragmatism. Another example is that he does not get very excited about things like simple calculators being open and free because he does not see that as a practical concern. He has principles that he tries to live by and advocates strongly but I have never viewed him as an idealist nor do I see much evidence for it.
- philwelch 14y ago
  RMS is certainly ideological, but he's pragmatic about pursuing that ideology.

philwelch 14y ago

Arguably, if you're manufacturing ASICs, you can afford to license the odd patent.

TallGuyShort 14y ago
Software companies can also often afford to license the odd patent. I can also afford to pay the occasional fine. But why should any of these parties do so if the law is unfair and ridiculous?

Natsu 14y ago

If you want a loophole, look at the part where 'selling' software wasn't on the list of exemptions. I think that could create more than a few problems, though I think the overall idea is a good one. As for the complaints that this might create more legal absurdities, there are plenty of those already. An imperfect solution is better than none.

belorn 14y ago

Stallmans suggestion is a pragmatic way to go forward and stop the current fighting between companies that is ongoing at the courts, and not through competition of products. A clear and strong reform of patent would be preferable, and has been for long the free software foundations strategy. In the case of Bilski v. Kappos, one can read a brief made by the fsf, which rather clearly presents their view. I also strongly promote the idea to watch/read a talk by eben moglen at https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2009/Moglen_Cardozo/CardozoBilskiSpeechTranscript11-2-09.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2009/Moglen_Cardozo/C...

yason 14y ago

FPGAs? Is an algorithm implemented on a FPGA a software or hardware implementation? FPGA is pretty much general purpose metahardware. It's programmable so you could program it to be any chip, thus not covered by the effects of a patent. Sufficiently popular software algorithms like mpeg4 (including avc) are often implemented in ASICs for speed. Stallman's suggestion does nothing to help in those cases. If you're manufacturing or buying dedicated hardware to do one specific task well I don't see why would patents need not apply? The codec chip is clearly a "hardware machine", not a general purpose processor. It's something I imagine companies are prepared to pay license fees for. Further, nobody will accidentally use a MPEG4 hardware decoder in some device they make which is a different situation from how the accidental problems manifest in software.

alanctgardner2 14y ago
You could accidentally create a patented algorithm in hardware just as easily in hardware. The trick is that you wouldn't be designing an 'MPEG4 hardware decoder', but you'd think 'oh, wavelet compression in an ASIC, how novel'. Then you'd be infringing the patent. It's not an issue of accidentally using, it's more an issue of accidentally developing in parallel.