[Discuss] Self-introduction and more on software patent

[matt at mattshields.org (Matt Shields)]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang <hsuanyeh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks to many kind notes from BLU members.  I believe what I have done
> wrong is that I failed to introduce myself before speaking out.  So, here
> is
> a little bit of myself.
>
> I have a graduate degree in theoretical physics and done some real
> computations using FORTRAN, C, and other/scripting languages.  As a
> scientist, I unfortunately couldn't find any position to do science and/or
> research.  Like everyone else, I need to eat and, luckily, I found a job in
> the patent field.  That led me to pursue my law degree, which I will get in
> about a year from now.  So, I am still not qualified as a "patent lawyer,"
> but I have passed the patent bar exam and worked in the patent industry for
> quite many years.  It is a pity that I have contributed zero line of code
> in
> the open source repositories.  However, I have worked under the open source
> environment to do various things for almost 20 years.
>
> Now, a bit more about software patents.  To be clear, I am not and will not
> advocate whether software patent, or patent as a whole, is good or bad for
> the society.  I also would not conclude whether the patent system is
> screwed
> up or not.  These are of your personal opinion or belief, and I would
> respect it in any possible way.  What I was trying to do in another thread
> is to tell you folks WHAT patents are, and HOW the patent system currently
> works to the extent possible to protect the open source community.
>
> I understand many of you may have very strong feelings against software
> patents or maybe against the entire patent system.  Honestly, I am not
> surprised.  But what I hope is that if you have a different opinion, please
> focus on the point and not attack me or anyone personally.
>
> I myself have once been convinced by RMS's agenda that the government
> should
> abolish software patents entirely, and that all software patents should be
> invalid.  But after these years as a patent professional, I found that
> RMS's
> agenda has not done anything good for the open source community.  Software
> patents are still there and will still be there for quite many years if not
> decades.  Open source community must do something in parallel and not put
> all eggs in the same basket.  Don't forget, people from the other side are
> still accumulating their patent strength and are always ready to attack
> whenever time matures.
>
> In the real world, patents are often used as weapons against competing
> businesses.  Everyone knows weapons are dangerous and may serve good and
> bad
> purposes.  But it would be really really tough to eliminate weapons when
> "bearing arm" is citizen's right protected by the US constitution.  Many of
> you probably don't know that "patent protection," similar to everyone's
> liberty and property interests, is guaranteed by the US Constitution.  No
> need to explain, you would see how hard it is to persuade the Congress to
> abolish the ENTIRE patent system.
>
> Even if you want to carve out software patents, it would still be very
> difficult.  The very first question is, where do we draw the line?  Namely,
> what should be considered as software and what should not?  We know that if
> you write some codes, it's software.  But if someone uses computer codes to
> control the ABS system for automobiles in a fancifully new way, should that
> be allowed or prohibited from seeking patent protection?  That would lead
> to
> more contention and would make the already complicated patent system even
> more chaotic.  Plus, it would create more jobs for lawyers, which you guys
> probably don't want to see that happen.
>
> Enough said, I have to acknowledge that I am a human being who makes
> mistakes.  It's my mistake by stating Dr. King as ever being a lawyer.  But
> if that single mistake could lead you to believe that all my other points
> are bogus, then you are not listening.  For those of you who don't believe
> in patent attorneys, I'd like to ask:  would you learn science with an
> artist, learn art with a businessman, and learn business with a scientist?
> I personally would rather learn science with a scientist, learn art with an
> artist, and learn business with a businessman.  My two cents for your
> consideration.
>
> Hope to meet with you guys in any of the BLU meetings.
>
> HYC
> http://hsuanyeh.com
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

Welcome, officially, to the BLU list.  If you're looking for a way to
contribute to the OSS community, it doesn't have to be in code.  If you're
on your way to becoming a lawyer, how about looking at using that knowledge
to help OSS?  Contact one of the OSS organizations and see how you can help.
 I'm sure they would love to get some legal assistance, and you can add that
to your resume.

Back to patents.  Everyone keeps bringing up software patents, but I think
what should be abolished should cover more than just software.  No software
patents, general business *ideas* and "well duh" ideas should all be thrown
out.  Case in point the Lodsys patent case.  It would be nice if Apple and
stopped paying off these guys and saying "we're covered" and beat them into
submission (and out of business).


Matthew Shields
Owner
BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers, Colocation,
Managed Services
www.beantownhost.com
www.sysadminvalley.com
www.jeeprally.com
Like us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/beantownhost>
Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/beantownhost>