text:
Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Recent Features
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
LCA: Addressing the failure of open source
Posted Jan 18, 2012 0:16 UTC (Wed) by rusty (✭ supporter ✭, #26) [Link]
Posted Jan 18, 2012 0:25 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]
Posted Jan 18, 2012 1:05 UTC (Wed) by gfa (subscriber, #53331) [Link]
i don't think open hardware as a future "so bright" as free software had (have?) i hope I'm wrong
Posted Jan 27, 2012 16:23 UTC (Fri) by whitemice (guest, #3748) [Link]
And, IMO, "less and less" seems to be an understatement. We are rapidly approaching "just disinterested". "open" is fine, we don't need "Open". I wonder if a lot of the push for "Open" wasn't just because that was cool and the time and now "Cloud" [a synonym, in practice, for "proprietary"] is now the cool thing. For a lot of people I believe it was just about the cool thing.
> i don't think open hardware as a future
Agree, Open Hardware is a nowhere going nowhere. Building physical things cannot be equated to developing software; it will always be a self-interested corporation building and distributing hardware.
Posted Jan 18, 2012 5:25 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Yes, he is boring and he is full of himself. But that apart, I think the whole open-source crowd -- Bruce, ESR and the rest -- as well as the free software crowd has identified the wrong problem (perhaps it was not obvious at that time).
The problem is not open source, but open standards and open access. On the one hand, there is no use in my program being open source if its document format is so opaque and poorly documented that nobody else can read it (and "read the source" is not a solution). On the other hand, I should have the freedom to install what software I like on the computer that I paid for -- whether it is open source or not.
Stallman's original problem was a closed source printer driver, but he could have written his own driver if he had the specs. Adobe's software is closed source, but the PDF format is sufficiently documented that lots of other programs can read it.
Interoperability, and the ability to use the tool of one's choice, is what we should be aiming for. It is nice that Microsoft is today extending assistance to the Samba team. These things should be encouraged. Open source fundamentalism does not help. I don't have a problem with someone sending me a Microsoft Office document anymore, because libreoffice can read it perfectly well most of the time. It would be better if the document format were an open standard, but I don't really care whether Microsoft's suite is open source or not -- in fact I don't think it would help anyone in the least if MS decided to open-source all their software today.
On the open hardware side of things, again the issue is simply that we should be allowed to do what we want with them -- not necessarily that we have the right to copy the design under an "open source"-type licence. I am opposed to software patents, on the grounds that software algorithms are just mathematical ideas, but abolishing hardware patents is an unrealistically extreme idea. Saying no to locked-down hardware, under names like DRM, "trusted computing" and the like, is not unrealistic. The manufacturers always have the weapon of voiding our warranty -- those of us who are willing to take that risk should not be prevented from doing so.
Posted Jan 18, 2012 7:27 UTC (Wed) by pkern (subscriber, #32883) [Link]
Adobe's software is closed source, but the PDF format is sufficiently documented that lots of other programs can read it.
I don't have a problem with someone sending me a Microsoft Office document anymore, because libreoffice can read it perfectly well most of the time.
It's not so simple...
Posted Jan 18, 2012 12:52 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Given the PDF format's insanity it's actually quite hard to do it right and there are still documents that are only readable (or printable) with Adobe's software.
This happens in other direction, too - I've seen plenty of documents which were only viewable in poppler-based browser, but not in Adobe's reader. IMNSHO it just means that standard is too complex and baroque thus all implementation have bugs. It does not mean it's closed on inaccessible.
Posted Jan 18, 2012 13:12 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Another example is HTML -- once upon a time, there was only one dominant browser, Netscape; then only another dominant browser, IE. There was an open standard and a standards body but the de facto standard was whatever the big guy did. That has changed thanks to competing browsers, especially on mobile platforms. The fact that two of the engines (webkit and gecko) are open source seems, to me, irrelevant, except maybe to the extent that open source developers are more mindful of standards -- but many would argue that Opera is more standards-compliant than Gecko, while webkit, though open-source, has been driven primarily by one company with a very closed-source mindset. The important thing is that there is competition and therefore interoperability is needed. It's the same thing that ensures plug points, screw pitches, pedal layout on cars, etc, are reasonably standardised.
Posted Jan 18, 2012 15:12 UTC (Wed) by jwakely (subscriber, #60262) [Link]
So you don't think that Safari and Chrome would use two separate engines if they hadn't started from a common, open source code base?
And the fact that you say "gecko" not "firefox" is nothing to do with the code being open source? Would you be able to choose from dozens of free browsers (midoria, galeon, epiphany etc.) and know they're render the page well because they use one of the same two engines? Would all those projects be able to rely on well-tested, standard-compliant engines if those engines weren't open source? Wouldn't they all have their own, buggy engines with slightly different behaviour, or just not exist at all?
If the browser market was split into lots of different engines no single one would ever have competed with IE's dominance, and web designers would have continued to write for IE only. The fact that gecko and webkit have a significant share, and MS were forced to make IE more standards compliant, is partly due their use in multiple different browsers, which is possible because they are open source.
Posted Jan 18, 2012 15:28 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Your Webkit history is wrong
Posted Jan 18, 2012 16:11 UTC (Wed) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link]
Apple, Google and many others collaborate on Webkit now. It's a fantastic example of why open source matters.
Posted Jan 18, 2012 16:56 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Posted Jan 18, 2012 10:56 UTC (Wed) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
We get open standards by building open software that implements proposed standards. We get open access by building hardware that can be accessed openly.
Governments and businesses will only join the open-bandwagon once we have demonstrated that it works - and works better.
So open source and open hardware are a vital prerequisite to getting open standards and open access.
Posted Jan 18, 2012 14:31 UTC (Wed) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
And I think you misinterpreted "open access" -- it usually means access to any scientific research, not open access to your hardware.
Posted Jan 18, 2012 15:22 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Posted Jan 19, 2012 0:53 UTC (Thu) by wdaniels (guest, #80192) [Link]
My problem is that it becomes very difficult to "say no" if you have no viable alternative, and without open _source_ there never would have been.
I agree that the FOSS fundamentalists reach a point with mere applications that they end up uselessly fixated on the wrong problem, but I don't think it has been the wrong problem either from the start or across the board.
Posted Jan 27, 2012 16:25 UTC (Fri) by whitemice (guest, #3748) [Link]
Nail, Hammer, Hit it.
Posted Jan 19, 2012 13:09 UTC (Thu) by ctg (subscriber, #3459) [Link]
yes and no. I am old enough to have been around in the 80s. And towards the the end of that period "Open Standards" were all the range.
But then I lived through the UNIX wars.
Open Standards aren't enough. You also need a reference implementation. And that needs to be Open. And complete. And usable. Then it can be properly compared with the functions of other implementations.
To my mind, I think of Open Source as being Open Standards+Implementation. I think the two are inseparable.
Posted Jan 19, 2012 19:46 UTC (Thu) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432) [Link]
Why? Hardware is just software by another name. Or vice-versa, depending on which you learned first.
Software is The Glass Bead Game
Posted Jan 19, 2012 21:31 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Software exist in entirely predictable world. If you can imagine and code something - it'll work exactly like manuals describe.
Hardware exist in real world. No matter what you'll invent you'll need to eventually build the thing and test it.
The more testing you need the more patents make sense. Pharmacy, in particular requires enormous and extremely expensive testing, but UI patents don't need any testing at all: just draw few diagrams and off you go to the patent office (if you'll need to design something sellable it's diferent story: you need to carefully select sizes, effects speed, etc - but this is not what typical UI patents cover at all).
Posted Jan 19, 2012 21:49 UTC (Thu) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432) [Link]
Posted Jan 19, 2012 22:32 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
Now, if you were to design a novel hardware *component* for use in actual, physical circuits, that would be be an entirely different matter. In that case you've invented a novel way to use the physical properties of the universe toward a specific goal. If anything justifies a patent[1], that would. To get to this point you have to reduce your abstract ideas to practice, i.e. actually build something, or at least show that in principle the component could be constructed from real materials.
The problem with software patents in particular is that once you remove the part you didn't actually invent (the general-purpose computer), you're left with something which doesn't qualify for a patent (the software algorithm), which is pure math, which--for reasons which should be obvious--is an explicitly excluded subject.
If you were to invent a device specifically for the purpose of evaluating the algorithm you're trying to patent, you could probably get a patent on that specific device. However, that would be equivalent--putting aside the fact that the hard work was done long ago by someone else--to patenting a specific type of general-purpose computer running *specific code*. Just as you can accomplish the same goal (e.g. evaluating a given algorithm) in a *different way* without violating a normal, non-computer-related patent, even minor changes to the architecture of the computer or the low-level binary code should get around the computer+software patent. Real software patents, however, are far broader than their non-software equivalents, covering all possible ways to evaluate the patented algorithm on a general-purpose computer, not just a specific reduction of the algorithm to practice.
[1] However, nothing can justify artificial, aggression-based monopolies, so there is no real difference so far as natural law and just property rights are concerned.
Posted Jan 20, 2012 1:14 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
Drugs were mentioned above as patent-worthy because they are hardware. They're software. The part where you express a drug as a pill and put it in someone's mouth is a fairly small part of the invention process; if we could download a drug into a test subject through the retina, the drug wouldn't be much less costly to invent.
There are two fundamental functions of patents: 1) provide a way for an inventor to recover the costs of invention; and 2) provide an incentive for an inventor to disclose his invention. I don't see that hardware vs software or algorithm vs machine has any bearing on those purposes.
There already exists an obviousness test for patentability which ought to cover most of the objectionable software patents. It just doesn't seem to be implemented very well.
Posted Jan 20, 2012 2:52 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
Hardware and software are quite easily distinguishable. Hardware is specific physical matter arranged into a pattern to accomplish some goal. Software is an abstract concept, which can be embodied as a pattern in matter but is not tied to any specific matter or form of representation. To use an example any child can comprehend, wooden blocks with the letters "A", "B", and "C" carved into them are hardware. The letters "A", "B", and "C" themselves are software.
> I think maybe a lot of people don't understand what "hardware" engineering is like. You don't tinker with matter; you work at a keyboard. For the purposes of testing your invention, you use an existing, not very interesting, process to convert your software to something physical.
Indeed, and any hardware produced by that method should be, in my opinion, no more patentable than software. This sort of work, while undoubtedly useful, does not advance the state of the "useful arts" patents are meant to encourage. The result is merely a new device, not a new technique.
> Drugs were mentioned above as patent-worthy because they are hardware. They're software. The part where you express a drug as a pill and put it in someone's mouth is a fairly small part of the invention process; if we could download a drug into a test subject through the retina, the drug wouldn't be much less costly to invent.
As an outsider, it seems to me that one usually doesn't patent the drug itself, but rather the process of manufacturing or administering it, or perhaps of testing for conditions where the drug is applicable. As a rule, you're not supposed to be able to patent the actual chemical structure, for much the same reasons that you're not supposed to be able to patent abstract math. Of course, alongside software, pharmaceuticals are another politically-charged area where the normal patent rules have been bent and twisted almost beyond recognition, so there may be some exceptions.
> There are two fundamental functions of patents: 1) provide a way for an inventor to recover the costs of invention; and 2) provide an incentive for an inventor to disclose his invention. I don't see that hardware vs software or algorithm vs machine has any bearing on those purposes.
I don't doubt that patents achieve those purposes (*any* reward system would, whether expressed as an outright grant or prize, or a monopoly as with patents). However, patents also have a cost. Their purpose, first and foremost, is to benefit society. If the costs of patents outweigh the benefits, it doesn't matter whether the purposes you list are achieved. It is doubtful whether most patents are actually cost-effective; studies have repeatedly shown that they tend to *inhibit* innovation rather than encourage it. However, when a patent is issued over the abstract solution which either has no need to be reduced to practice, or which anyone could reduce to practice using existing well-known methods, the benefits of disclosure are less, and the costs to society in penalizing independent discovery and incremental improvements are far greater.
> There already exists an obviousness test for patentability which ought to cover most of the objectionable software patents.
You would think so, but if the existing rules were followed we wouldn't *have* software patents. The problem (at least so far as software patents are concerned) isn't the rules, it's the application of those rules within the patent office.
Posted Jan 20, 2012 4:10 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
I find that most of what people call hardware and software is for the purposes of that discussion indistinguishable. Hardware and software are quite easily distinguishable. ...
I find that most of what people call hardware and software is for the purposes of that discussion indistinguishable.
Yes, and what "for the purpose of that discussion" above means is that that distinction is irrelevant to the purpose of these many discussions that refer to hardware and software.
Where the distinction between hardware and software becomes relevant is in the fact that to move or copy hardware you have to move matter, but to move or copy software, you have only to move energy (and comparatively small amounts of it). That the latter is far, far less costly is responsible for most of the practical difference. So for example, I'd rather deliver a software update to my customer than a hardware update. The hardware update could be a new ROM chip containing the same bits that the software alternative would; it's still hardware. It could be a CD-ROM too.
I hear that at some level matter and energy are the same thing, so maybe if we look at it abstractly enough, even that distinction goes away.
Posted Jan 21, 2012 2:26 UTC (Sat) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
For instance, if one-click is valid as you say, what is it that's being patented. It's a *certain* set of processing , set in motion be triggering the javascript on the web page, which results in a *certain* state of he world- the user is (say) identified, the user's information is retrieved (say), and an order is made with no more input from the user. This is what this patent covers.
The "one clickness" only refers to the fact that only a unitary act of intentionality is needed from the user in order to trigger the javascript in the button.
OK so the patent is really about a single unitary act of intentionality triggering this javascript which then performs a series of steps. Just to be clear about this now because it's important.
So I should be able to patent across all domains of human endeavor the combination of a single expression of intentionality triggering off any process which achieves a useful end.
For instance, there should be (SNARK AHEAD!-> I mean should have been, we just didn't realize it before the IP maximalist graced the world with their penetrating vision) ... there should be a patent not just for a particular light switch but the CONCEPT of a light switch (to which all light switch inventors would pay royalties) because a light switch- as opposed to a crank say, is just exactly a useful process triggered off by a single act of intentionality which completes without the end user needing to do anything else (crank the crank a few more times for instance).
In fact, the world is littered with devices which permit a single action to achieve an ends without further user input, and we have missed a great many opportunities to impose state sanctioned monopolies and collect rents which stymie innovation, er.. wait I meant to say encourage inventors to innovate and reward inventors for their inventions.
But not to despair. Now that we live in the Age of IP Enlightenment courtesy of IP Lawyers and their associated fee structures, we can move forward into the new world and design into every single new, individual useful process a single act of intentionality to trigger it off and thus secure an unending stream of new intellectual property from which we can derive great wealth and societal benefit, almost as if we had stumbled. across a previously unknown deposit of precious metal, just waiting to be mined and entered into the market.
This is silly and it's meant to be, but it's because it's not where the simplest extrapolation of the IP Maximalist position, as embodied by the one-click patent- leads directly to.
IP lawyers politely but quite arbitrarily stop their quest to redefine everything as patentable subject matter not where the logic of the arguments they use to justify their bid for expansive re-definition bid them to by its own internal logic, but rather just outside the gates of widespread moral outrage, a point they know quite well.
For now, only software developers understand what it is they're doing and are rightfully morally outraged. As long as ordinary people can't understand the issue, then the issue can continue to be grossly misrepresented by IP maximalists to legislators and courts in ways I'm sure everyone here is well familiar with.
After software developers have accepted their new role as serfs who live on the land and at the pleasure of what wealthy princes there may be with their patent armies and lawsuits , then they'll move on to other, greener pastures in other areas of human endeavor. It's a classic divide and conquer because if the logic behind the one-click patent were actually applied in a consistent way across all domains simultaneously, the whole edifice of IP would crumble before its own absurdity.
But please, tell me I misunderstood what was being patented. Feel free, because you have no where to start from which ends you in any better position. I assure you I dealt you the strongest, least ridiculous hand available to you in my definition of what it is exactly that's being patented in one-click.
But I'm waiting...
applicable to all types of "clicks" and "results" which increase "convenience" no matter how absurd the resulting patent appears.
For instance, consider the "click" of a mouse. This isn't *really* about clicks and the number of them, it's about the triggering of the javascript code on the web page which does X with no further input from the end user.
. the device any gesture that the computer can recognize, say a hand movement has to be included. IN fact it's not any particular device or interaction, the mouse click was just one embodiment of the user's intention. That's what's really crucial, and everything thing else is just one manifestation of that intention.
Ok so now we have a one-intention
In fact, any intentionality is just one yype f "gesturte (ignoring just for right now the fact of its painful obviousness even at the time it was "invented") , then it's fair to also make patentable
Posted Jan 21, 2012 2:29 UTC (Sat) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
This is silly and it's meant to be, but it's NOT because it's not where the simplest extrapolation of the IP Maximalist position, as embodied by the one-click patent- leads directly to.
Posted Jan 21, 2012 2:34 UTC (Sat) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
Posted Jan 21, 2012 2:46 UTC (Sat) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
For instance, if one-click is valid as you say, what is it that's being patented?
It's a *certain* series of events, a certain process, which was set in motion by triggering the javascript on the web page. This process results in a *certain* state of the world- for instance, the user is identified, the user's information is retrieved, and an order is made with no more input from the user. These are this process's useful effects.
This is what this patent covers.
The "one clickness" only refers to the fact that only a unitary act of intentionality is needed from the user in order to trigger the javascript process embedded in the button.
OK so the patent is really about a single unitary act of intentionality triggering this specific series of steps.
Just to be clear about this now because it's important.
For instance, there should be (SNARK AHEAD!-> I mean should have been, we just didn't realize it before the IP maximalist graced the world with their penetrating vision) ... there should be a patent not just for a particular light switch but also and more importantly the CONCEPT of a light switch (to which all light switch inventors would pay royalties) because a light switch- as opposed to a crank say- is just exactly a useful process triggered off by a single act of intentionality which completes without the end user needing to do anything else (crank the crank a few more times for the required level of brightness , for instance).
But not to despair. Now that we live in the Age of IP Enlightenment courtesy of IP Lawyers and their associated fee structures, we can move forward into the new world and design into every single new, individual, useful process a single act of intentionality used to trigger it off and thus secure an unending stream of new intellectual property from which we can derive great wealth and societal benefit, almost as if we had stumbled across a previously unknown deposit of precious metal, just waiting to be mined and entered into the market.
This is silly and it's meant to be, but it's not because it's not where the simplest extrapolation of the IP Maximalist position- as embodied by the one-click patent- leads directly to. Because this is where that position leads to quite directly.
IP lawyers politely, but quite arbitrarily, stop their quest to redefine everything as patentable subject matter not where the logic of the arguments they use to justify their expansive re-definition bid them to stop by those argument's own internal logic, but in rather another place which is quite unrelated to applicability of their aruments. They coyly stop just outside the gates of widespread moral outrage, a location they know quite well.
Because for now, it's only software developers who understand what it IP lawyers are doing and who are rightfully morally outraged.
As long as ordinary people can't understand the issue, then the issue can continue to be grossly misrepresented by IP maximalists to the legislators and the courts in ways I'm sure everyone here is well familiar with.
After software developers have accepted their new role as serfs who live on the land, and at the pleasure of, wealthy princes and their patent armies. l;awyers and lawsuits, then the IP lawyers will move on to other, greener pastures in other areas of human endeavor.
It's a classic divide and conquer.
If the logic behind the one-click patent were actually applied in a consistent way across all domains simultaneously, the whole edifice of IP would crumble before its own absurdity.
But please, tell me I misunderstood what was being patented in the one-click patent.
Feel free, because you have no where to start from which ends you in any better position.
I assure you I dealt you the strongest, least ridiculous hand available to you in my definition of what it is exactly that's being patented in one-click.
Posted Jan 21, 2012 19:29 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
I feel like you're gerrymandering the boundary between patentable non-patentable in an unprincipled way, where you find it convenient to do so .
I wonder what convenience you have in mind. You must believe there is some related thing I'm trying to prove.
if one-click is valid as you say,
I didn't say that.
Incidentally, I would have liked to use a different example of a software patent. I'm not even sure 1-click is included in what people call software patents. I would have liked to use a patent that is practiced in software you acquire and run on your own computer, such as the Linux kernel, but I couldn't think of one.
Posted Jan 23, 2012 0:56 UTC (Mon) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
Regarding whether one-click is a sw patent, we have lately another one click type patent- the apple "slide to unlock" fiasco against Samsung. This is being covered as a sw patent, I think.
Posted Jan 23, 2012 16:23 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
I am addressing you as a general proponent of sw patents. Am I wrong?
I am not a general proponent of software patents. In fact, I don't even think the term has a clear meaning, so it would be hard to advocate for them. I'm not against them either, though. I'm saying whether an invention involves software or not should not be a factor in patent worthiness.
Thanks for the slide-to-unlock patent example; I think it's a much cleaner one.
This is an idiotic patent. It's idiotic because the public gets no benefit from it, which is because
These factors would apply even if slide-to-unlock were implemented in logic gates, analog electronics, or clockwork, which I believe it would not be called a "software" patent.
(Incidentally, when I say idiotic, I mean from a public policy perspective. I'm not saying it is idiotic for Apple to apply for the patent, the patent office to grant it, or a court to enforce it. The law is what it is).
Posted Jan 23, 2012 17:56 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
That's something that should make policy makers think, and perhaps we should be voicing it harder.
Posted Jan 24, 2012 15:24 UTC (Tue) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
Smirk. Yeah this is the argument used by people who are the strongest proponents for software patents; it seeks to beg the entire issue off as a non-issue and in so doing, close off the subject once and for all.
"Hey, there is no such thing as software patents. So how can there be talk about *banning* them?"
Let me help you out.
Even if you don't *believe* in them as you say, you are still quite well aware of what other people mean when they ask you if you're for them or against them.
So if anyone asks you for your position, just say you're 100% for them. That way we all understand each other.
I am amused looking over your lists of reason why you say you're against Apple's version of Amazon's "one-click-patent", "slide-to-unlock". All your objections amount to this particular patent failing to live up to the purported raison d'etre of any patent- to promote the useful arts and sciences.
But in making this argument against this patent, you silently assume- without proof- that ALL software patents don't also fail this test.
Its not for nothing that the vast, vast majority of software developers believe they do fail this crucial test, that they in fact impede progress instead of encourage it.
That ought to fairly settle the case as to whether they should be permitted or not- the people who are purported to be *encouraged* by them experience them to be a demotivating, depressing waste of time, energy and resources and want them taken out into the woods and shot in the back of the head.
Yet for some rea$on, the proponents of $oftware patent$ think the aggregate opinion of the experts and practitioners in the field which is effected by these court decisions should be ignored.
And whose opinion should be substituted for the actual practitioner's?
The class of people who are in favor of software patents are executives of corporations, a few ideologically motivated think tanks, IP lawyers and of course trolls, like our dear friend Myron:
If I ever wanted to throw a party for a group people who have more than earned their reputations as entities antagonistic to the long term good and general welfare of society, I'd be sure all of the above's names were on the invite list.
Study after study has found that software patents neither promote technological progress in the field nor generate economic benefit except as instruments of monopolies for specific companies, and then that benefit is only to that company, and not to the consumer or even the economy as a whole.
On a personal note, I have to say I especially enjoy seeing software patents vigorously defended in *certain* IP lawyers' blogs. Aside from the brain dead arguments presented with a 5th grader's vocabulary, and their presentation of "studies" from "reputable" sources like, oh, The Chamber of Commerce, the pictures these lawyers have up of themselves - bloated, jaws agape, vacuous looks on their faces, lead me to quite expect I'll be seeing them featured in a near-future episode of 48 Hours, identified as the person of interest in this week's Cocaine/Stripper Murder Mystery.
But maybe that's just my impression.
Well then, getting back on point... software patents are a net drain on the economy and the entities who benefit from them nothing but economic parasites as demonstrated by virtually any serious academic who takes up the issue:
Posted Jan 24, 2012 16:58 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
No, I am not aware of what they mean, and I don't think it is clear in their own head what they mean. Every time they try to define the term, they end up with a definition that either doesn't cover the particular patents they call software patents or covers many patents they don't. Or doesn't use the term "software" in anything like the way it's normally used.
I'll give you this: as long as a patent that doesn't promote the useful arts and doesn't involve software in any way is legal, then I think a similar patent that does involve software should also be legal. Maybe that's what you mean by being a general proponent of software patents.
Posted Jan 27, 2012 21:39 UTC (Fri) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
So the situation you expect is - everyone must acknowledge GiraffeData's position by accepting that he/she does NOT know what a software patent is and talking to him/her so as to respect his/her position, while GiraffeData will not acknowledge anyone else's position and concede he/she knows perfectly well what people *mean* when they talk about software patent.
Expecting other people to extend to you a courtesy you yourself will not extend to them has the following properties:
It is rude.
It is egocentric (only my position is deserving of respect !)
It represents an attempt to smuggle in an apriori conclusion into any discussion through forcing others to continually tacitly acknowledge your POV, while you slight theirs. So the debate will always take place using terms of discussion which favor you unfairly and in fact assume you are right and they are wrong.
Now when I said I understand what you meant and acknowledge it, notice I didn't say I agree with what you meant.
All I was suggesting in my previous post is you stop playing coy with other people when this discussion comes out. You're not standing on principle; you're slyly trying to win the debate, being egocentric and just plain rude.
Let me give you a taste of what it's like to receive what you dish out to other people in this regard.
I can suppose you don't think of a company as a machine. The "well oiled machine" metaphor is just that- a metaphor. But if someone wanted to challenge you on that , how would it go? Would you say people obviously aren't parts of a machine? They would reply with the prejudicial nature of your definition of "parts of a machine". Then wax on and on about how, just as when a part in a machine is broken and needs to be replaces, so also do companies fire people and hire new one for the exact same position. And so on and so forth in many creative but ultimately weird and obtuse ways.
In deed, a determined opponent could really give you quite a headache for quite a long time and in the end, you won't have decisively won the battle because once you start denying what's obvious to most other people, there's really nowhere you can't go with it. Whose to say what's REALLY the definition of "machine" Well, the winners of course! And who's going to win the argument? The person who is outlasts, out talks, out spends, out lobbies, and out litigates the other one ! Once you permit the parties to wander away from the obvious, largely agreed upon meanings of terms like "company" and "software" and "hardware" then there's no where you can't go.
And all the while you were arguing with this hypothetical clown, you'd be thinking -"is this person just a headcase claiming not to be able to tell the difference between machines and companies? "
Then it comes out that the person you're having this bizarre argument with has very strong financial motives for wanting to blur this otherwise clear distinction. If he can blur it, if he can get you to swallow and accept his gerrymandered definition of "company", he has a non-stop stream of extremely lucrative income he can access at will.
When programmers tell you that software is one thing and hardware another, they're having the same experience as you would be in the above, and you're doing to them what the antagonistic arguer would be doing to you.
The EU seems to have gotten down the difference between hardware and software into their laws in a consistent manner and only people on M$'s payroll are "confused" by it.
It's bullshit. We all call bullshit and we're not going to let you carry the day. Software is adequately and appropriately protected by the IP device of copyright. Plot devices in plays don't become patentable because they are "realized" by actors in a play and software isn't patentable because it's run on a machine . The specific expression of both are protected by copyright and that has served us well for a long long time in both fields.
Your "confusion" is nothing but an exercise in denying the obvious.
Posted Jan 28, 2012 1:24 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
You are amazingly certain you know what I'm thinking. It's amazing because you have so little information about me based on this tiny discussion and because you're sure enough that you can write off my direct statements as lies because they're inconsistent with what you know is going on in my head.
You really ought to follow my example and assume you don't know what other people are thinking rather than assume something that makes them jerks.
So there's no way I can carry on an argument with you about what I'm thinking, and it's off-topic anyway, but for the record, I am going to make these statements:
I am not engaging in rhetorical tricks and have no reason to because I am not trying to win a debate. I am only trying to expose readers of LWN to perspectives or analyses some of them may not be aware of.
At least that's what I was doing before you diverted the conversation into a discussion about me and about the conversation itself.
Posted Jan 28, 2012 7:11 UTC (Sat) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
Actually, you DID say those things and actually, they ARE the arguments used for software patent apologists. So in exposing these ideas- which you admit you hold- as fundamentally disingenuous, manipulative and really extremist, which they are, I am not laying claim to special knowledge about what's in your head beyond what you've revealed and neither am I taking this conversation about software patents off-topic.
What is the Newt Gingrich approach to debate- attack the other side when your actions are exposed and claim that calling you out on things you actually said is some form of "dirty trick"? So somehow by calling your own ideas to the floor and criticizing them I'm trying to "make it personal" ?
I am comfortable with that anyone reading this thread will agree that I kept it very much on topic and quoted you honestly while replying with ideas, facts and arguments which themselves have a great deal of merit.
Posted Jan 28, 2012 17:38 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
No actually if you read the thread through you directly said you believe software is patentable subject matter and then you directly said that in fact there is no material difference between software patents and hardware patents.
Those are fair paraphrasings of my words and statements of my beliefs for suitable definitions of "subject matter" and "software patents" and "hardware patents" (terms which I did not use myself). And I can imagine reasonable, though not necessarily useful, definitions of those that are suitable.
Where you claim to know differently than what I say about what is in my head is when I twice said in very direct language I don't know what people mean by "software patents" and each time you said that I do.
Posted Jan 28, 2012 18:52 UTC (Sat) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
What you mean to say is not that you don't know what those crazy things are about or what people mean when they start talking about them, because obviously you KNOW what we mean.
What you mean to say (and here I am telling you what you mean, which is sure to piss you off I am aware) is something more like "I don't think there *ought* to be a distinction between software and hardware when it comes to 101ness i.e. fundamental patent eligibility."
For the record, a software patent is a patent on some software which is run on a computer. This is irrespective of whether that computer has a screen, an actuator arm or other device attached to it which changes some state of matter either internal to the computer or in the external world. No software, no matter how it intersects with the world outside or inside any machine ought to be patentable, not to say copyrightable, which almost all programmer believe is a fair application of IP, with a few notable personalities excepted.
Posted Jan 30, 2012 17:02 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
... a software patent is a patent on some software which is run on a computer.
By that definition, I am not in favor of software patents. Patenting some software is like patenting a sculpture (or a mold for a sculpture). Only inventions should be patentable, and a piece of software is not an invention.
However, I don't think that's what is controversial, because I don't think patents get issued for some software. I'm really not a patent expert, but I don't think patent claims for the patents in question include program listings or even abstract descriptions of program listings. I assume the claims of click-to-unlock (which I assume people include in the "software patent" category) talk about features of an iPhone (a piece of hardware) more than about computation steps. I doubt a code rewrite would avoid infringing it.
I believe the definition people usually use for "software patent" is something more like "a patent on an invention that is typically implemented with software." But much less vague, since there are so many kinds of software and so many ways to implement something using it.
Posted Jan 30, 2012 17:52 UTC (Mon) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
That's "slide to unlock", and it's not a feature of the iPhone hardware, but rather a feature of iOS (software). The hardware used is completely incidental to the subject of the patent. Actually, it's more of a user-interface patent than a software patent--as you say, it's not really about the computational steps involved--but if anything, UI patents are even harder to justify than patents on algorithms. A trademark would be much more appropriate (and more limited in scope).
Posted Jan 31, 2012 1:25 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
it's not a feature of the iPhone hardware, but rather a feature of iOS (software).
I meant that the iPhone itself is a tangible item. There is a valid perspective where it the implementation is irrelevant and all you see (and buy and sell and use) is a physical box that does stuff when you touch it in various ways. It might not be relevant for patent purposes, in some views, how the builder got the machine to behave the way it does, just that the machine does.
Posted Jan 31, 2012 1:42 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
'slide to unlock' can be implemented on any touchscreen or touchpad device. Such devices have been out for a LONG time.
so what is it that makes the apple patent on slide to unlock anything other than a software patent?
Posted Jan 31, 2012 2:25 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
I'm certainly not saying that slide-to-unlock is not a software patent. In fact, we've been using it as an example of one all along.
And I am only guessing as to what the claims of that patent are. I'd like to know, actually (not enough to read it, though).
But I'm willing to bet, still, that they don't include program listings or identify a particular piece of software, so if one's definition of software patent is a patent on some software, it isn't one of those.
Posted Jan 31, 2012 2:39 UTC (Tue) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link]
Is it, in your view, a software patent?
Posted Jan 31, 2012 3:03 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
I don't know. Remember, I'm the guy who says he doesn't know what the term "software patent" means.
Incidentally, though I have only a passing familiarity with patents, ISTR there is stuff in an application besides claims, like stuff that demonstrates the invention is actually complete and useful, so drawings and code listings might be in there without being part of the claims.
Posted Jan 31, 2012 5:32 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
Posted Jan 31, 2012 16:08 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
nothing in a patent is required to be 'useful'
Posted Feb 1, 2012 12:53 UTC (Wed) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
Posted Feb 1, 2012 19:22 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
in practice, the person applying for a patent doesn't even have to prove that the idea works (no working models required)
Posted Jan 31, 2012 3:33 UTC (Tue) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
See, this right here is the real problem. Before the advent of general-purpose computer and software--and software patents--a patent did only cover a specific implementation: how the machine or process works, not the end product. You don't get a patent for steel; you get a patent for a particular process which produces steel. You don't get a patent for "devices which do X", you get a patent for "a specific, non-obvious design for a device which does X". Accomplishing the same end by sufficiently different means does not infringe the patent.
How a machine works may not be relevant from a *consumer's* point-of-view, but when it comes to patents the machine's inner workings are the entire point of the exercise. There is simply no *point* in granting a patent which monopolizes the end result without revealing anything non-obvious about how that result was achieved; such patents are 100% public cost with no public benefit.
Posted Jan 31, 2012 4:39 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
A slide-to-unlock switch on a pocket touch-screen device is not qualitatively different.
I don't see any point to struggling with the semantics of end result and implementation here, because the real point is the obviousness. Whether you view the obvious thing as an end result or an implementation doesn't matter; the public loses either way if someone gets the exclusive right to it.
Maybe what general purpose computers did was just make it really easy to invent really big things and messed up the balance.
Posted Jan 31, 2012 5:31 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
software patents generally do not include code listings, at most they include pseudocode (and even then, usually as an example "this patent could be implemented like this")
It's frequently hard for the original inventor to match up the patent legalese with the description of the idea that they submitted to the legal department.
if you have never read any software patents, you really don't have any idea how bad they are.
Posted Jan 31, 2012 5:38 UTC (Tue) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
Either way, the real "end result" is an unclosed, baited mouse trap. You can't patent that. What you can patent is device which makes achieving that state a bit easier, provided it meets the other criteria, such as non-obviousness.
> A slide-to-unlock switch on a pocket touch-screen device is not qualitatively different.
First, there is no "switch" involved. The hardware (touch screen) is not the subject of the patent. Second, this isn't a software patent; it covers a virtual user-interface pattern, not an algorithm. This isn't so much a case of patenting what a mouse-trap does (which would be bad enough) as patenting what a mouse-trap *looks like*, which is even further outside the domain patents were intended to cover. As I said before, a trademark would be much more appropriate here.
Regarding actual software patents, however, such as a patent on a compression algorithm or a form of encryption, the qualitative difference is obvious: You build a mouse-trap, but you *evaluate* an algorithm. An algorithm is just as complete in your head, or worked out with pencil and paper, as it is running on a computer. The computer is just a tool to speed up the process, just as the pencil and paper serve to supplement your memory. The mouse-trap, on the other hand, is of no direct use to anyone until it's given physical form.
Not that any of this really matters, of course, as regular patents are just as devoid of legitimacy as software patent. They're not the same thing, but that doesn't make them any more just.
Posted Feb 1, 2012 13:43 UTC (Wed) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
But what is internal and what is end result is a matter of perspective too.
What you're saying is true. It's a problem with examiners, judges and the courts that they are not equal to seeing through the distorting perspective presented to them by patent attorneys and their clients who seek to impose a distorted notion of what should be patentable subject matter for the purpose of restricting competition in the second case and siphoning off vast sums of capital for non-value producing activities in the first case.
GiraffeData said:
It's not a bad way of expressing it. Actually, what computers did was advance society in astronomical ways.
Later, much later, what IP lawyers did was conceive of a scheme to inject themselves, like a virus, into that value stream and create a diseased condition whose symptoms are, the creation of value is slowed to the point of extinction relative to what it had been prior; the IP attoneys extract obscene amounts of money from the creators of that value; insurmountable barriers to entry upon would-be creators of value is introduced; huge amounts of time and energy are spent warring over patents which have a net negative value to everyone but IP attorneys; would-be creators of value are discouraged from the field.
There is no reason that equally abstract things are not patented except the current regime of IP everything didn't arrive on the scene prior to their existence.
The examples are endless and everywhere.
For instance, novel plot twists clearly should be patentable - they fit the criteria: useful? - the novelist generates economic activity just because she's clever; non obvious? - by definition; advance the art? - other novelists can use variants on the new plot twist, after paying the original novelist.
Surely such a scheme must increase economic activity and increase a nation's wealth if IP Maximalist's arguments are to be believed.
So why are novel plot twists not patentable?
Patent #0239489023234: A Plot Twist Involving Gender Deception
An entity, in one realization a man who is in love with another entity , in one realization a woman, whereby the first entity deceives the second entity through the device of disguising their gender, using for instance a wig and makeup, for the purpose of obtaining a more intimate proximity to the second entity.
Blah blah blah,
fuckin' blah blah blah,
fuckin' blah,
fuckin' blah blah blah....
Application Number 28734897239723 Filing Date: MAR 2010 Patent Number 98247892374923784 Issue Date 6222646 Feb 1 2012
The ONLY reason society is not now jammed to the gills and floating lifeless on top of a dead stream of innovation is because there was no computer on which to realize novels and no IP attorneys looking over that computer thinking... "hmmm....it's a machine, isn't it?"
Posted Feb 1, 2012 13:03 UTC (Wed) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
Actually, it's more of a user-interface patent than a software patent--as you say,
nybble41 a user interface patent is almost always a software patent. I am not aware of any patents being placed on user interfaces which are not software based. If there such a thing out there, then it's an abomination also.
Either you're patenting the software code itself, in which case it's called a "copyright" and not a patent, or you're patenting what the thing does and and a series of steps involving abstract things, irrespective of the code that underlies it. This later case is what a software patent is.
Therefore user interface patents ARE software patents- they patent an end result , from the POV of programmers, regardless of how it's realized in code.
They are defined on things which are purely abstract in nature and can be "realized" in many different ways. So not only is slide to unlock covering the Apple interface, it's covering ALL interfaces.
Posted Feb 1, 2012 17:42 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
I agree that user interface patents are almost always about interfaces implemented in software. However, when I use the term "software patent", I am specifically referring to a patent on an algorithm, not the vague and likely over-broad "patent on an invention that is typically implemented with software" which was expressed elsewhere.
Something like "slide-to-unlock" can be said to contain a very simple algorithm ("if a slide gesture is recognized, unlock the device"), but the patent is really about a distinctive style (sliding vs. entering a code, or tapping a button, or any of the other means of unlocking touch-screen devices used before), not the algorithm, which ought to be rather too trivial and obvious to qualify for a patent on its own merits, even assuming patents on algorithms were generally acceptable.
> If there such a thing out there, then it's an abomination also.
Agreed, 100%.
> Either you're patenting the software code itself, in which case it's called a "copyright" and not a patent, ...
You don't "patent the software code". As you said, code is covered by copyrights, not patents. A software patent--a patent on an abstract algorithm--would cover *all possible implementations* of that algorithm in software code, including independent clean-room code written without knowledge of any other implementation or the patent itself, which is much broader than the copyright on specific code implementing the algorithm.
> ... or you're patenting what the thing does and and a series of steps involving abstract things, irrespective of the code that underlies it. This later case is what a software patent is.
I agree that this is what a software patent is, but user interface patents are something else entirely. The slide-to-unlock patent, for example, doesn't seek to monopolize the "algorithm" of sliding your finger along the screen to unlock the device (which, as an action performed directly by a human, would be rather dubious as the subject of a patent), but rather the "look and feel" of the interface presented by the device, the graphics drawn on the screen combined with the device's response to a particular input gesture, without reference to the algorithms for producing those graphics, recognizing that gesture, or actually unlocking the device.
Posted Feb 1, 2012 12:51 UTC (Wed) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
However, I don't think that's what is controversial, because I don't think patents get issued for some software.
A "patent on software CODE" which is the idea you're trying to express in the above is called "copyright". Copyright is indeed issued on all code the second it's been written with no special trip to the USPTO or like needed on the part of the developer.
Most by far, although not all, software developers think copyright is OK.
the claims of click-to-unlock (which I assume people include in the "software patent" category) talk about features of an iPhone (a piece of hardware) more than about computation steps.
Wrong. They talk about the user doing this to the interface and then that occurring as a result. They talk about the steps of the interaction and the result of the interaction and "one realization" of the patent which is what the thing actually looks like and does but is just ONE realization while the patent covers an infinitude of realizations, so it's not pinned down to any particular "realization" .
I doubt a code rewrite would avoid infringing it.
Oh, and how right you would be. It's a patent on an abstract set of "aspects of a thing" (but one realization is provided so the examiner "knows what they mean" ) interacting on an abstract "device" in certain ways.
This is correct.
Posted Feb 1, 2012 18:14 UTC (Wed) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
the claims of [slide-to-unlock] (which I assume people include in the "software patent" category) talk about features of an iPhone (a piece of hardware) more than about computation steps. Wrong. They talk about the user doing this to the interface ...
the claims of [slide-to-unlock] (which I assume people include in the "software patent" category) talk about features of an iPhone (a piece of hardware) more than about computation steps.
Ask any user what the touch screen is for communicating with, and he'll say the iPhone. Not iOS. He'll say "I'm going to drive into town to pick up an iPhone today because it has a slide-to-unlock feature." An Apple attorney pulls an Acme Smartphone out of his briefcase and sets it on the bar and says, "this thing practices our slide-to-unlock patent."
That's how one can see the patent claims as related to hardware at least as much as to software.
There is some level in every implementation of anything where you have to say, "variations at this level aren't part of the invention." I'm just saying there is no bright line telling you how high that line can be before the invention is not patent-worthy, so maybe whether or not the thing is implemented with software is below it.
I'm also saying it's a waste of time to try to identify kinds of inventions that are above or below the line when you can just go case-by-case by first principles (e.g. is the invention is obvious?).
Posted Feb 1, 2012 20:05 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
Whether or not the thing is implemented with software is irrelevant. The problem with software patents and the like is the nature of the thing itself: an algorithm or user-interface element, as opposed to a device or manufacturing process.
To put it simply, the proper domain of patents is *technology*: how one can take advantage of the laws of physics in a novel and non-obvious way to accomplish some useful end. They shouldn't cover something you could, in principle, do in your head (e.g. algorithms), even if in practice you make use of existing technology to speed up the process or supplement your memory. A patent on the look of a device or an abstract interaction concept is even further afield.
Posted Feb 2, 2012 3:19 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
They shouldn't cover something you could, in principle, do in your head (e.g. algorithms)
Why is that? If it requires a significant investment to arrive at an algorithm you can do in your head, one which would others would want to use, isn't it in our best interest to offer a monopoly on use of the algorithm to the inventor? That would give him a way to recover that investment from the people who benefit from the algorithm, and thus an incentive to make the investment.
Posted Feb 2, 2012 3:21 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
Posted Feb 2, 2012 11:53 UTC (Thu) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
See here's the thing with the IP Maximalist arguments of which this is a classic, absolutely sterling example (and BTW I am terribly glad you made it here because if I had presented what you said and merely claimed it was what was motivating you underneath it all, no one would have believed me..) OK here's the thing-
They represent a complete reworking of the way civilization and its members would conduct themselves down to the smallest, most invasive detail.
And they want to impose this without feeling the even the smallest duty to conduct a shred of what civilization calls "scientific inquiry" into the possible effects the imposition of their proposed program would have.
And why is this? Because they know... ladies and gentlemen they KNOWWWW... what's good for everyone else, and through the courts and legislators they've found the leverage they need to impose their vision on society.
What's the problem with arguing with a fanatic? Only this- their ideas are so fucking crazy that no one is actually prepared to address their specific claims.
Usually society is inoculated from this shit just because, without anyone having to go to the bother of working out exactly why, their ideas just get rejected by most other people.
Without the assistance of other members of society, they're going nowhere.
Maybe they become a writer with a cult following or maybe they start their own religion but they aren't getting at the levers of power in society.
Enter the IP Maximalists. If a little IP is good, then more MUST be better. This is the sum total of the proof they offer for the radical reworking of society they seek.
The gulf that exists between what they're thinking - when they reveal it- and what the average person thinks is worth remarking on.
At least they're confused about the basic nature of society. People are revolted at the idea of patenting a thought process but the IP Maximalist cheerily offers it up as a smacking good idea.
What does this say? That the IP Maximalist has no intuitive understanding about the basic nature of social interactions and what purpose those interactions serve in society.
Let's just hang a cash register and some barbed wire around everything. Nothing inherently repulsive in that! We'll hash out the *right* level of abstraction in the courts.... and that itself a fine use of societal attention, money and intelligence.
It says that IP Maximalists have a strong and narrow scope of comprehension and are good at focusing in on one aspect of reality, the value of IP, but utterly blind to the larger picture of society their ideas have to exist in.
The fact that people are offended by their ideas baffles them; the IP Maximalist looks around uncomprehending at their distress. What's wrong? What did I say? I didn't intend to offend anyone ...
OK Giraffdata, suppose we permit the patenting of algorithms that you can do in your head. What sort of regime would have to be imposed between people in order to facilitate the prosecution of violations, never mind find them?
OK GiraffeData, what effect over time would the existence of such a regime have on human intercourse and our perception of each other and attitudes towards each other?
I just got done reading a review of a study by a psychologist, you know a scientist, someone who lives under the constraint of having to PROVE her ideas are true. Of course compared to your program, each of their ideas is VASTLY more modest in scope and effect than what you're proposing for society, so perhaps this won't interest you, but nevertheless maybe other readers will see my point.
In this study she was able to show that the mere MENTION of money casually, in passing, had the effect of making the study's volunteers LESS altruistic towards strangers.
Now I can imagine all kinds of arguments being made that the idea of money makes people more altruistic because they have to cooperate to get it so the more we inject the concept of money into everything, the more altruistic people will become!
The difference is, one is just an idea, a philosophy, a hypothesis about how people will behave in hypothetical circumstances and the other is what a scientific study shows to be true about humans.
This is one study. It doesn't prove anything definitively and forever, even about people's behaviour in the rarefied and contrived circumstances which were realized in the study .
How many studies have the IP Maximalists done? Zero. Their ideas are purely exercises in inductive and, god help us, deductive reasoning using at best tangentially related statistical studies produced by academic economic departments and ideologically motivated "think tanks".
People are revulsed by the IP Maximalist program for reasons that have nothing to do with the internal logical cohesion of the myopic set of ideas they propose. They're revulsed because a few million years of evolution have left them with brains which naturally reject this kind of thing as BAD for society, even before any psychologist performs any experiment. This intuitive sense goes by different names. History or tradition or common sense or culture.
If a few million years of evolution left you with another kind of brain, then at least know that just as everyone else can understand the difference between a software patent and a hardware patent, so also everyone else finds the idea of patenting thought algorithms, play plot devices, business methods, incentive schemes, arrangements of data, arrangements of ideas, arrangements of human activity, the mere presentation or interaction order of just anything- useful and novel or otherwise, and finally, yes software, as inherently revolting and highly destructive to the fabric of society.
Posted Feb 2, 2012 17:01 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
As various studies have shown, it's not in our best interest to offer monopolies at all, even for things which *are* within the domain of patents.
However, to consider granting monopolies over certain patterns of thought... I'm having a hard time believing that you're serious. Among other things, it would be a very literal form of thoughtcrime, which implies not only an incredible infringement of the rights of the individual, but also that it would be impossible to enforce fairly.
Moreover, historically, algorithms have been researched because they were needed for a specific task, not because of the promise of a patent, and once used they are basically impossible to maintain as a trade secret. Consequently, no further incentives are required to encourage either the discovery of algorithms or their public disclosure. A monopoly in this case does not merely cost the public more than it benefits them, as with normal patents; it is a pure public cost which brings *no* public benefit.
Posted Feb 2, 2012 18:04 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
However, to consider granting monopolies over certain patterns of thought
Right, I was not contemplating granting a monopoly over the thinking, but rather other applications of the invention such as selling of a machine that uses the algorithm. The criterion you gave for something not worthy of a patent was that it be theoretically possible to do it in your head, not that that was the only way to profit from it. I framed the question from that definition.
If you're right that monopolies are always bad, then it follows that the algorithm invention shouldn't be patentable, but it doesn't explain why there should be a patentability distinction between algorithm and not algorithm, which I think you said there should be.
But if you're right that historically inventors of algorithms have got enough value out of the first application of the invention to repay the investment and the algorithm could not be kept secret, and your implication that that is not true of other kinds of inventions, then that's a good reason for the distinction.
I'm not sure it would be easier for a judge to determine whether an invention is an algorithm or not than it would be to simply determine whether the invention meets those two underlying criteria. I thought you were alluding to some more fundamental property of algorithms. It reminds me of an argument that preference for scholarships should be given to black students because statistics show black families have less money, and the counterargument that you could do even better by just giving preference to students whose families have less money.
Posted Feb 3, 2012 1:39 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
First, though I realize this is generally overlooked, software is merely a passive description of an algorithm, qualitatively no different from the description in the patent application. A machine storing such software is qualitatively no different than the paper the patent application was written on--a medium containing a stored description of the algorithm. It is only when the machine is actually used that you could say that the algorithm is being used--by the owner or operator of the machine, not whoever manufactured or sold it.
However, we then run into the second issue: in attempting to avoid monopolizing people's thoughts, we've codified an excessively limited interpretation of the term "thinking". Increasingly, people are integrating computers into their day-to-day lives and routinely using them to aid their own thought processes. I would hate to formalize a legal distinction at this point between "thinking" which goes on entirely in one's brain and "thinking" which incorporates technology to a greater or lesser degree.
Without that distinction, however, any time a person evaluates an algorithm on a general-purpose computer they are "thinking". Ergo, if you exclude "thinking" from actions which can infringe on the patent, you are left with very little in the way of actual monopolies.
Finally, to approach the issue from a different direction, all the novelty is in the algorithm, not the machine, which is merely a general-purpose computer. In my opinion, at least, if you're not patenting the algorithm in its own right, any novelty in the algorithm shouldn't count toward fulfilling the overall requirements. That would be rather like inventing a novel kind of transistor, using it in a textbook-standard amplifier circuit, and then being granted a patent on that standard amplifier design incorporating the new transistors. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I certainly *hope* you couldn't a patent like that...)
> ... it doesn't explain why there should be a patentability distinction between algorithm and not algorithm ...
The novelty criteria isn't limited to software patents, of course, but software patents suffer from the systemic issue that only the unpatentable abstract algorithm is actually novel--given the algorithm, a device which implements it via a general-purpose computer is nothing new or surprising. All software patents have this problem, which is why they're singled out.
> I'm not sure it would be easier for a judge to determine whether an invention is an algorithm or not than it would be to simply determine whether the invention meets those two underlying criteria.
I think you're making it sound harder to classify something as a software patent than it really is. One simple question would do: is the invention present before you load the software? If no, it's a software patent. Still, you might be right about the cost/benefit analysis being easier in some cases. Now if only patent examiners were permitted to reject applications simply because they feel the patent fails to provide sufficient public benefit... sweet, sweet chaos. I can't imagine the examiners or the applicants tolerating that degree of subjectivity. This, of course, is part of the reason inventions are classified into patentable and unpatentable subject matter.
Algorithms, as such, are already an unpatentable subject matter (math). The real question in this debate is how to interpret "novelty" and "obviousness" when patentable and unpatentable subjects are mixed together, particularly when it's just the non-patentable part which is novel or non-obvious.
Posted Feb 1, 2012 23:25 UTC (Wed) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
What's the POINT of patents again? Oh yeah, to serve a societal good. How does locking up things as this high a level of abstraction serve a societal good? The EU thinks UI and computer ONLY "inventions" are bad for progress. Maybe that's because those things were being invented a mile a minute- and by for profit companies too- before software patents were invented.
You know there are hypotheticals and there are things which can be proven. Of the types of proofs in the world, the strongest type is "the existence proof", which is, the thing stands before you, therefore, this proves it exists.
Progress in software and the associated user interfaces and purposes to which software is put went through a period of time when it was not patented. That would be when almost everything of interest was created including WIMP word processors spread sheets drawing programs etc etc etc.
This should be enough to PROVE that software innovation doesn't need patenting.
If you need still more proof, then the plethora of studies I've cited in this thread should be enough to prove that patenting software has deleterious effect on innovation and economic participation.
The thing stands before you, so let's not hear any arguments about "if we took patents away, no one would innovate anything!"
As far as the "proper" level of abstraction argument goes, if we're going patent slide to unlock then let's all go for it and start patenting every arrangement of all things universally. This is what IP maximalist actually want. We can patent everything to do with writing.. I know for a fact that directors have a set of tricks they use to make certain impressions on audiences.. they deliberately and specifically set about to build sympathy for a leading characters using a certain set of techniques which can be quantified within a time-duration range and specified as clearly as any software patent.
There's a way to type at your keyboard, a way to organize people to get them to behave in certain ways, the universities are perpetually inventing new ways in which people things and animals can be arranged, coaxed, altered, influenced, and otherwise directed to some good end each of which is novel useful and advances the state of some art.
The reason we don't permit this is because if it's driven to its logical conclusion, everyone would see how ridiculous it all is. There is zero difference between a slide to unlock patent and an employee incentive scheme, a strategy to attack your competitors product line , a technique in the courtroom, a way of coordinating employee's activities.. why are we making software and computers the sole target of this "what level of abstraction" type arguments when there's an entire world of thing and activities that had formerly been free of IP constraints which are just waiting to be constrained?
You accuse us of arbitrarily setting the level of abstraction in some arbitrary place. With all due respect sir, look who's talking.
Posted Jan 20, 2012 10:01 UTC (Fri) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link]
So a company selling operating system CDs is a hardware vendor, I suppose.
Posted Jan 20, 2012 15:50 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
Not unless they're selling them for about twenty cents each (the cost of a blank CD, plus handling). The CD is indeed hardware, but the value in this case isn't the hardware, it's the copy of the software embedded in it. The hardware is incidental to their business, and could be trivially replaced with any other convenient storage medium, or even no hardware at all (e.g. direct download).
Actually real price was something like $3-$5 at the time...
Posted Jan 20, 2012 16:02 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Not unless they're selling them for about twenty cents each (the cost of a blank CD, plus handling).
It's not feasible to sell them for $0.2. You'll not cover even S&H costs. $3-$5 is realistic, and yes, it was done when that made sense.
Posted Jan 20, 2012 16:22 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
Posted Jan 20, 2012 16:52 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
I wasn't counting shipping in the price, just the blank CD and whatever it costs to burn data onto it. Feel free to substitute a more realistic base cost; it's been a while since I priced blank CDs, and the overhead was no more than a guess. Including S&H, $3-$5 is well within the margin of error.
In the case you cited, as giraffedata pointed out, they really were a hardware & service vendor--they were paid for the CDs and the service of filling them with third-party software (plus S&H). No one would pay them for the software itself knowing that said software is available for free.
In short, if you're making a standard retail markup over the cost of manufacturing the discs, you're a hardware/service vendor. If you're making significantly more than that, then you're being paid for the data on the disc, not the disc itself, which makes you a software vendor.
This is just crazy...
Posted Jan 20, 2012 6:04 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
For the purposes of testing your invention, you use an existing, not very interesting, process to convert your software to something physical.
If this is indeed existing, not very interesting, process then the patent is not needed.
Drugs were mentioned above as patent-worthy because they are hardware. They're software.
How come?
The part where you express a drug as a pill and put it in someone's mouth is a fairly small part of the invention process; if we could download a drug into a test subject through the retina, the drug wouldn't be much less costly to invent.
The part where you express drug as a pill has nothing whatsoever to do with sane drug patents. The part which explains how drug affect the patient is what is patented (I assume there are patents which explain how you can create round, square and triangle pill - these are netirely worthless). You can not express this as math because you can not express patient as math. You can design some models, etc, but ultimately you must test your model on real patients - and this is where bulk of costs comes from.
Hardware vs software
Posted Jan 20, 2012 16:46 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
For the purposes of testing your invention, you use an existing, not very interesting, process to convert your software to something physical. If this is indeed existing, not very interesting, process then the patent is not needed.
Right, the inventor does not apply for a patent on that process. Mainly because the machines that fabricate the drug are already patented (they were interesting when they were new). The patent claims cover the informational inputs to that process.
Drugs were mentioned above as patent-worthy because they are hardware. They're software. How come?
That's what the sentences after "They're software" were intended to explain.
The part which explains how drug affect the patient is what is patented You can not express this as math because you can not express patient as math. You can design some models, etc, but ultimately you must test your model on real patients - and this is where bulk of costs comes from.
And all of that applies equally (except in degree) to one-click web ordering and to ibuprofen. Which is why I say there isn't a distinction, for the purposes of this discussion, between hardware and software.
Right. Drama and prose are the same. Law and Science are the same.
Posted Jan 20, 2012 17:42 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
And all of that applies equally (except in degree) to one-click web ordering and to ibuprofen.
You may as well decree that all texts are the same. Law and science, prose and verses, patents and computer programs - they all use the same 26 letters and occasional punctuation and few foreign words. There are no difference between them (except in degree)!
Which is why I say there isn't a distinction, for the purposes of this discussion, between hardware and software.
If there are no difference then why US5960411 talks mostly about client system, server system, HTML documents and other things which have no relation to the physiology of humans at all while US5288507 talks about advatages of analgetic/antacid combination over the combination of racematic ibuprofen with an analgesic? If the patent indeed is all about how human which should react on 1-click web design then surely observations of human reactions should fill the bulk of patent? And surely "novelity" and "non-obviousness" should be related to this aspect? In particular you should concentrate on the idea that less clicks will lead to larger sales and this observation (tested in real world) should be checked for novelity and non-obviousness and computer-side architecture can be confined to non-protected examples?
Posted Jan 21, 2012 19:10 UTC (Sat) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
"You may as well decree that all texts are the same. Law and science, prose and verses, patents and computer programs - they all use the same 26 letters and occasional punctuation and few foreign words. There are no difference between them (except in degree)!
You're hiding. You're driving your opponent's argument into a reductio ad absurdum while hoping no one notices that for your own argument the road to absurdum is the briefest of brief, straight shots.
For the one-click patent, no part and no combination of parts exists at a level which is not purely abstract. It's not about single clicks. It's not about clicks at all. It's about a unitary intention emanating from the user.
It doesn't require mice. It doesn't require a specific input device at all. It's about any human computer interface device which transmits a humans intention to the computer whatsoever.
It's about the abstract resulting end state of a set of abstract entities irrespective of the individual steps through which that ends state was achieved or what the embodiment of the abstract entities are.
This is how things USED to work...
Posted Jan 20, 2012 5:55 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Now, if you were to design a novel hardware *component* for use in actual, physical circuits, that would be be an entirely different matter. In that case you've invented a novel way to use the physical properties of the universe toward a specific goal. If anything justifies a patent, that would. To get to this point you have to reduce your abstract ideas to practice, i.e. actually build something, or at least show that in principle the component could be constructed from real materials.
Well, this is exactly how patent system was designed initially. Of course this approach worked poorly if someone wanted to use patents as a deterrent thus later these requirements were abandoned.
Posted Jan 18, 2012 5:57 UTC (Wed) by sitaram (subscriber, #5959) [Link]
We might need a "collapse thread" feature to the threads (or have I missed it somehow?)
Some people take an article about X and launch into a long debate about Y, and for people who don't care about Y it gets tedious paging down, and or looking at the left edge to find the next comment that is outside that sub-thread.
Actually, just printing the indentation number (perhaps in parens) next to each comment subject line would be fine; I can Ctrl-F for the next comment with the same number in parens.
Posted Jan 27, 2012 6:42 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]
Have you mailed that in as a suggestion? I like it! =:^)
Meanwhile, IIRC there was an LWN firefox extension or at least grease monkey script. I've never tried it, but it could well have something like this, and if it doesn't, adding it should be reasonably easy, I'd think.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc. Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds


text:
The following papers were written by Richmond Fed economists, in some cases in collaboration with outside economists. They represent work prepared for later publication or presentation to professional meetings. They are circulated in this series for purposes of discussion and comment only.
Paper | Title | Author(s) |
13-06 May 2013 |
Demand Externalitites and Price Cap Regulation: Learning from a Two-Sided Market |
Zhu Wang
13-05 May 2013 |
Market-based Incentives |
Borys Grochulski
Yuzhe Zhang |
13-04 April 2013 |
Competitors, Complementors, Parents and Places: Explaining Regional Agglomeration in the U.S. Auto Industry | Luis Cabral Zhu Wang Daniel Yi Xu |
13-03 March 2013 |
Banker Compensation and Bank Risk Taking: The Organizational Economics View |
Arantxa Jarque
Edward S. Prescott |
13-02 March 2013 |
The Supply of College-Educated Workers: The Roles of College Premia, College Costs, and Risk |
Kartik B. Athreya
Janice Eberly |
13-01 February 2013 |
International Reserves and Rollover Risk | Javier Bianchi Juan Carlos Hatchondo Leonardo Martinez |
Tim Sablik
(804) 697-5464

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Birmingham Office
serving Alabama & Mississippi
Darrell Dawson
E. firstname.lastname@example.com
New RTS Headquarters
The 2012 holiday season was moving time for the RTS Florida team. Expanding both office space and warehouse, RTS moved into its new headquarters at The Quadrant corporate center in Deerfield Beach, FL. Please be sure to change your contact information! Read More...
Mitsubishi Electric
RTS is proud to announce that Mitsubishi Electric has selected our firm to represent their complete line of commercial projectors, flat panel displays, and video wall systems. Please call our office for your next church, entertainment facility, or digital signage need. Working with local distributors we can fill any of your video needs immediately!
Rep Firm Of The Year!
At InfoComm Las Vegas 2012, Ron Tunks Sales was awarded with Rep Firm Of The Year awards for MediaMatrix and Crest Audio for the fourth time in the last five years. Since 2007, RTS has been awarded the award for best sales firm for the Peavey Commercial brands three times each, including the Triple Crown award for all three Peavey Commercial brands in 2008.
RTS News Network
- New RTS Headquarters - 23 Oct 2010


text:
Six Dumb Questions with Chowder
Posted in Six Dumb Questions on July 24th, 2012 by H.P. TaskmasterMaryland trio Chowder are one band whose pedigree and lineage give you absolutely no context for what they sound like. Some bands, you know what you're getting just by who they hang out with, but when you consider that guitarist Josh Hart cut his teeth playing in early incarnations of Revelation and Unorthodox — both names of formidable contribution to Maryland's doom scene — and that he's currently a member of Earthride, well, that kind of sets you up to think doom, or at very least some derivation thereof. On their long-in-arriving debut full-length, Passion Rift, Chowder defy almost every expectation you could put on them while still also using guitars.
The album, released by I, Voidhanger Records, is entirely instrumental and blindingly varied musically, bouncing hardcore rhythms off wild off-time changes and the kind of progressive technicalities that only true fans of Rush seem to be able to make gospel. There are elements of heavy riffing to be found here and there, but not enough to really ally the band to one genre or another. They never rest that long, and even ambient pieces like "Mazuku" or the opening "Mysterioid" have more to them than they might at first seem to, with Hart adding layers of synth, mellotron and even theremin to the mix of effects and drones.
Comprised of Hart alongside bassist Doug Williams (also cello) and drummer Chad Rush, Chowder began in 1992. It wasn't until 2006 that the band released a demo through Revelation guitarist/vocalist John Brenner's Bland Hand Records, and Passion Rift has been another six years coming beyond that, so when it came time for listening to the album (streaming a couple tracks here), I had plenty of questions about how it was made, when and what were the band's motivations.
As you can see in the following Six Dumb Questions, Hart had plenty of answers. Please enjoy:
1. Take me through the history of the band. It seems like Chowder was always in the background while other projects were the main focus. How has working with Chad changed over the years? Did you always know you wanted to keep the band instrumental?
Chad and I started writing music together while I was still in Revelation, back in 1992 I guess. A mutual friend thought we might be on the same page and it clicked pretty early. We wrote a few songs around that time but just sort of always considered it a sort of side-project as I was busy playing bass with Revelation and then Unorthodox soon after. In 1994 we managed to get into a studio and record four of the tunes we'd been screwing around with over those couple of years under the name Spectre that I clipped from my favorite Revelation song. Our friend Rich Newberger sang on three of those songs and his brother Steve played bass. It was pretty exciting to hear that stuff recorded because it was so weird for the time period. I don't think many people we played it for really knew what to make of it then. That lineup kind of fizzled out and Chad and I continued to write a ton of music after I split with Unorthodox. It was one of those periods when you're just spilling over with ideas, like every time I picked up my guitar I was writing a keeper riff or something. Sadly, we could never flesh out a lineup to play live and just kind of floundered over the years.
Back then I thought we wanted a singer as well and that was really tough because I was super-picky and there weren't many people around that really fit what I expected. So we just hammered away as a three piece, Chad, myself and Joe Ruthvin on bass who left to form Earthride with [Dave] Sherman and Eric Little. It was always easy to write with Chad though, we both had a somewhat eclectic tastes so nothing was ever really a contention idea-wise. I'd bring something to the table and we'd both get really excited about it and try out best to form it into something unique. I remember laughing our asses off at some weird riff that just seemed so ridiculous but by the time we'd evolved it into a song it felt really, really cool and fresh. That was even before we started to implement synths and other post-rock effects. Chad's talent for irrational timing was really exceptional and allowed me to just go with whatever crazy thing came up. As far as being instrumental goes, like I said that wasn't the plan but I was always into that kind of thing from the early math rock bands like Buzzard and King Sour to the obvious Rush and '70s prog tracks where the bands just busted loose for a song or two.
I think the thing that made me say, "Screw it, we don't even need a singer," was this Asylum tape I used to just play constantly that was a whole 45-minute side of songs without vocals. That was my favorite thing out of all the Maryland "doom" bands and it was funny because when I started playing with Unorthodox, Dale [Flood] and I used to joke about him not singing anymore and just going that route. By 2006, when John Brenner and I were booking the Doom or be Doomed fest in Baltimore and the idea of Chowder playing was on the table, I was comfortable with the idea of just playing the music and started to write with more self-indulgence and less conventional structure. I felt the addition of all the synths and mellotrons could keep things interesting enough that some kind of vocal wouldn't be missed. Ultimately, I really don't have anything to say to these people listening that they haven't heard 1,000 times before anyway. I know as I get older I get kind of burned out on hearing the screaming guy wailing at me about his inner tumoils and emotions or whatever book he/she just read.
2. When was the material on Passion Rift written? What's the writing process like?
The album is all over the place. "Mazuku," "Salt Creep," "The Innsmouth Look" and "Head Full of Rats" all go back to the '90s. The rest of it was written for the album between 2007-2008. I think it's a good mix and some of our best material. I purposely kept it off the 2007 EP we did with Bland Hand Records to save for a full-length if it ever happened. I'll usually bring riffs or whole songs to the other guys and we build on it from there. Sometimes I'll have specific ideas about what the drums or bass do, but mostly it's very loose and we just sort of design the song together based on a rough outline I've come up with. Playing with guys who really know their chops is a huge comfort when coming up with ideas. We developed a kind of language over time to communicate ideas back and forth. Like, "Try one of those sizzle drop, slap runs" and Doug would know what I was referring to. Most of the descriptions aren't really words though and are just sounds. DUN DUN DUN dee doo DUN dddeeeeiin!!
3. One thing the album seems to do is balance different styles. The songs have a lot from prog, more than a bit of hardcore and some doom in them. When you started putting together the demo in 2006, how clear of an idea did you have of what you wanted to do stylistically? When you're writing when does something start to take shape as a Chowder song?
I know that no matter what I write that these guys can play it and they're up for trying it out which is the beauty of this band in my eyes. There's never been a conversation about what we should sound like or, "is this new song really us?" I know we're not breaking any new ground here but the idea has always been to just write what sounds good, what feels right. The demo was actually recorded in 1997. John Brenner released it for download on his Bland Hand Records label around 2006. No, it's never been clear. I'm so heavily influenced and have been by so many different kinds of music and bands that it's nearly impossible to write within a style on purpose, if that makes any sense. Like if you were to tell me to write a straight doom metal song, I would have trouble. Same goes for anything else, punk, hardcore, rock. Everything seems to channel through some screwy filter and come out all twisted up. If I'm writing, it's a Chowder song. If I start playing something on the guitar and it sounds like it could be a potential Earthride riff, for example, I usually have to change some element about it to make it fit. Music loses its power when it tries too hard to capture a certain vibe or sound. If you can easily stuff my band into a genre then I'm probably not living up to my full potential as a musician.
4. When in the recording process for Passion Rift were the samples, keyboards, mellotrons, theremin added? How much of that stuff comes from experimenting in the studio and how much is thought out beforehand?
Most of those things were recorded after the basic guitar, bass and drum tracks. There are a few parts in the there that were recorded with me on synth with the bass and drums at the same time though. Any part like that was written and rehearsed long before we booked recording time. The track "Mysterioid" was written almost entirely in studio with only the main synth notes worked out before. It and "Mazuku" were both intended to be production pieces only so we had some room to mess around with them in there. Adding a bunch of different things, getting out of hand with it. Everything else is written. Anything you hear in the other songs was worked out ahead of time at home and at rehearsal. We were very lucky to meet Jim Rezek through our engineer Mike Potter. Jim has the nicest vintage synthesizer and keyboard collection I've ever seen and was entirely open to the idea of us coming to his house and recording some tracks on his equipment.
5. What are some of the differences for you between playing guitar in Chowder and playing bass in Earthride? Are there things the two bands have in common, or is it a totally different experience?
Laziness. In Earthride, I'm able to lay back a good bit and stay in the pocket with Eric, which was something I missed while playing all this wacko, technical music for so long. I can just live out my Geezer Butler fantasy while relaxing up there and groove to the massive heaviness. With Chowder something is coming down the pipe at all times. A chord or key change, a solo, something to trigger on the pedals. It requires a shitload of concentration and I'm going to go so far as to say it isn't much fun. When we're playing that material live and we nail it, it's very rewarding but I'm not so sure it's worth the panic attack I'm about to have about every 30 seconds attempting it. I totally get why bands like Rush and Genesis simmered down on that shit over the years. It wasn't just for the sake of selling records! And those guys are WAY better at that stuff than we'll ever be. I gained a hell of a lot more respect for what bands like that accomplish in a live setting trying to be fancy like them. Ultimately, it's two different experiences, both rewarding though. I have loved playing other people's music because each one taught me something new that I've taken with me and implemented in writing my own songs or how to behave (or not). Joining Earthride was almost a no brainer anyway because I went to high school with those guys. We've been friends a long, long time. Hell, Eric and I were in our first band together with Kelly Carmichael from Internal Void back in 1985. So it feels like home. Chowder feels like a draconian P.O.W. camp in Siberia…only less smiling.
6. What's next for Chowder? Will you guys do shows, and would you be able to recreate all those layers of keys and effects in a live setting?
Well, things are a little weird these days for us. Chad moved to the West Coast a couple years ago and seems to be happy doing what he's doing out there. I have however started rehearsing and writing some material with Ronnie Kalimon from Asylum/Unorthodox/Internal Void and things are going nicely. Doug has expressed interest so I'm hoping he'll be available to join us soon and we can start moving forward. I'm not sure what will actually come out of it. My desire would be to play some shows, maybe a fest or two and most importantly record something new. I'd pretty much given up on anything happening at all as it was a true struggle to get this record onto a label and released and then with Chad moving it was looking pretty grim. Anything at all is a bonus. Everything we've recorded is done so in a way that it can be reproduced live aside from the obvious production tracks. There are parts on "Passion Rift" and "Custody" where the guitar drops out and I take over on the keyboards which we were also doing live. Anything that plays concurrent with the guitar is done by Doug on the Taurus pedals or triggered by me on Roland PK-5 midi pedals from an E-MU Vintage Keys synth. It's a nightmare, let me tell you. I look like a fat, dancing idiot up there trying to nail all that stuff at the right times. During our last few shows I would be thinking, "Never again, never again," but somehow we always ended up there doing it again. Must be the loads of girls that come out to see us.


text:
Colour | Grey/Chalk |
The Dita Tee Dress in grey and chalk stripe is a draped dress with a flattering silhouette. Delicately constructed, this style features unique woven trims along the neckline and armholes. Luxuriously soft, the Dita Tee Dress contours the body, suiting all shapes. Also available in washed black and chalk stripe, charcoal/black or plum.
Size 10 measures 78cm from back neck to hem.
This style is very loose fitting.
Also available, The Dita Top, The Dita Vest Top, The Dita Stripe Jumper Dress, The Dita Jumper Dress, and The Dita Dress


text: The Android Market is no more but don't despair it has simply transformed into the google play store. At AndroidPIT we bring you a dedicated news feed detailing the newest in play shop apps and google play games as and when the news breaks. Why trawl through the play store searching for the newest apps for your android? Why not rely on our highly trained team of android fanatics to guide you to the best in android apps? Check out our feed today for the best in all things google play.