[slackline]

Android is neither apple nor M$

it's an open source user interface developed by google (although they did buy up the company that originally started developing it if I remember correctly) that uses the Linux kernel (kernels are the software that gets the hardware inside your computers to work with each other)

[mr__j5]

hardware v software patents. As a software engineer, this is my point of view and from what I understand the more common point of view in my industry.

Some algorithms are pretty damn clever and there is no reason why they shouldn't be protected.

However, the majority of the ways in which things are done in software are pretty obvious and shouldn't be patentable, because 1000's of people could independantly come up with the same solution. Many of these ideas have wrongly been patented by the US patent office and this is why people in general declare that software patents are bad.

The way in which people make money in software is not usually to invent some new clever idea, but to just do a really good job of implementing something that people need, using readily available ideas.

[Stu Littlefair]

totally agree with that - the patent system is badly broken and the bar needs to be much higher with respect to what is patentable. I think that applies to hardware and software equally.

[Paul B]

totally agree with that - the patent system is badly broken and the bar needs to be much higher with respect to what is patentable. I think that applies to hardware and software equally.

  - what probably bothers us all about Apple is that if they were successful, our much less expensive Android devices would likely no longer be available. Also, the various patent-claims are in the mainstream press a lot more than others who indulge in the same tactics due to how prolific Apple are (its hard to deny their devices have been revolutionary).

[slackline]

totally agree with that - the patent system is badly broken and the bar needs to be much higher with respect to what is patentable. I think that applies to hardware and software equally.

  too, but still think there are huge benefits to open source software that benefits all developers (and ultimately end users too).

[tomtom]

Interesting interview with the jury foreman here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/28/apple-samsung-foreman-explains

Addresses quite a few of the questions posed on this thread...

[chummer]

Android is neither apple nor M$

it's an open source user interface developed by google (although they did buy up the company that originally started developing it if I remember correctly) that uses the Linux kernel (kernels are the software that gets the hardware inside your computers to work with each other)

Oh I see   

Fuck Apple off then Pete! Cunts!

Although surly getting the App to as many users as possible is important helping fund NWBF even more?

[stevej]

Interesting interview with the jury foreman here
...
Addresses quite a few of the questions posed on this thread...

No it doesn't. The foreman really didn't do his job properly. He holds a bullshit worthless* patent for something with masses of prior art and made the jury ignore prior art to 'speed things up' when the validity of nonsense patents lay at the heart of the case.

The jury awarded damages for things they had decided did not violate any patents etc., irrespective of the punitive/not-punitive damages backtracking still ignored the judge's instructions simply on the basis that they reached a decision before they could possibly have even read and understood them.

Proper discussion here with way more quite frankly, ridiculous details of the whole farce

*This isn't really true; apparently nonsense patents with bags of prior art can be worth $billions...

[tomtom]

Interesting interview with the jury foreman here
...
Addresses quite a few of the questions posed on this thread...

No it doesn't. The foreman really didn't do his job properly. He holds a bullshit worthless* patent for something with masses of prior art and made the jury ignore prior art to 'speed things up' when the validity of nonsense patents lay at the heart of the case.

The jury awarded damages for things they had decided did not violate any patents etc., irrespective of the punitive/not-punitive damages backtracking still ignored the judge's instructions simply on the basis that they reached a decision before they could possibly have even read and understood them.

Proper discussion here with way more quite frankly, ridiculous details of the whole farce

*This isn't really true; apparently nonsense patents with bags of prior art can be worth $billions...

OK, so maybe I should have put "Addresses quite a few of the questions about why the jury decided what they did"..  which to me seems pretty relevant to this discussion! I didnt think I needed to be so explicit....

Just as well I dont work in patent law then, eh?

I'm amazed people are so worked up about this - its just two massive companies trying to screw each other over... Its not like either of them are stopping a solution for disease/poverty/world hunger from being used....

Oh wait a minute, the big Pharm companies hold loads of patents and sell drugs for ridiculous profits... Now thats something worth getting het up about..

[petejh]

I'm amazed people are so worked up about this - its just two massive companies trying to screw each other over... Its not like either of them are stopping a solution for disease/poverty/world hunger from being used....
...

It is something worth getting worked up about - as long as by 'worked up' you understand it to mean doing a little research in order to form informed opinions in order to then make an informed choice...instead of just adopting the herd-mind = 'whoo cool new gadget, cool company blurghhhhh'.

The 'This American Life' podcast is brilliant - I recommend taking 50 minutes out and listening to it, I was shocked what a shameless cash cow the patent system has become. Another example of capitalism truly ass-fucking a once-noble institution?

Not under any illusion how unimportant releasing a climbing app is but it's obviously got a few people on here thinking. Stu - don't worry I shall plant a little tree for each edition of the guide that we sell, whilst trying to erase from my mind the fact it was printed in China and probably poisoned a river in the process.

[slackline]

Some algorithms are pretty damn clever and there is no reason why they shouldn't be protected.

still think there are huge benefits to open source software that benefits all developers (and ultimately end users too).

To expand on this now I'm not about to rush out....

I think its somewhat slightly arrogant for any individual (or company employing a group of progammers) to think that they have produced the best, bug-free, perfect code that can not ever be improved upon.  Thus so having others look at it and suggest/contribute improvements is a good thing.

Ultimately its why Richard Stallman started the GNU project, he was working for MIT but had issues with the provided driver for a new printer as it lacked a useful feature he had implemented in a previous version.  He wasn't allowed access to the new official drivers though (see here).

Yeah M$ and Apple employ thousands of progammers, but their programs are not bug free (especially M$), and nor are any other programs we all use (including open source software projects btw).  Yet proprietary software is are sold/marketed as fully functional products (only really in relatively recent years has the emergence of "report this problem to help improve things" evolved in M$, can't comment for apple as I've never used them).  Thats all useful, but if someone see's an error occur in a program they are using and has the skills, knowledge and inclination to investigate and solve it themselves, why the hell not let them do so? From a business perspective if they willing to do it for the pure joy rather than for remuneration what is there to lose?

The difference is that open source software does allow this freedom and I can't see a sensible argument against it.

[mr__j5]

How do I get paid for my job if I am giving away the source code to it ?

Yes, there are many OSS projects that run and get donations and can support some engineers financially. However, there are far more that are in no way financially viable and are just ran as a hobby or as something that a company created on route to something else and are happy to just give it away.

Many of the main developers of large OSS projects still contribute in their spare time and their main job is writing paid software.

[tomtom]

Free stuff only works for the programmer/operator/company as long as there is some sort of payback...

For the programmer an OS program may enhance their reputation/skills/job prospects etc... or help them attract funding for future ventures.

Google (for example) sell advertising, but do it through the canny medium of a search engine/mail/other services..

FaceAche do the same, except through the medium of a popular, handy (for some) vacuous portal for whatever, like, innit etc..

Dropbox is free - in the hope you'll use it so much you will pay for more etc..

I write and distribute free software for what I research - but I know the payback will be through citations, reputation etc.. that ultimately helps me get a better job and salary etc.. (I enjoy it too..). Getting people to contribute to OSS is really hard in my experience... In c.10 years of having OSS out there, I have probably over 200 people who have used (rather than just downloaded) what I do (thats not bad for the size of academic niche I occupy), but I have had two people contribute to the code and its development (breifly..)... Even getting folk to help add to a Wiki-based-instructions seems impossible (I'm going to have to pay someone to add things there - or do it myself)..

Sorry - I dont mean this to be a rant against OS/OSS, just outlining how its not quite as straightforward as I had hoped...

[fatdoc]

AND..... best non climbing thread on the forum ATM goes to...

THIS ONE.

brilliant read, thanks all.

I'm working from home, on a macbook, with an ipad and iphne on the desk.

I wont be buying another iphone.... i dont want a big delicate smartphone to bust... i use my pad for 90% of my previous smartphone use indoors, usually in wifi... interesting the order of the products coming to sale??? i see a iphone mini in 18 months.. to try to keep me  tethered to the apple cord.

I agree with the innovation / cunts / patent law fucked up  / lawyers should all be killed posts...

FWIW I'm in the Stu camp more than the slackline...

the reason i left MS for apple was to buy into the  "because it works" stuff... pre phones etc...

and for a luddite, with the cash, it was a good option.

now the apple OS are more frail, more buggy, less polished, with ios infringing into their lions and leopards.

i'll stay with mac, but not for phones...

oh, btw... if apple could make their phones to actually have a good call quality that would be more than useful, but someone else has probably patented it

[finbarrr]

Google (for example) sell advertising, but do it through the canny medium of a search engine/mail/other services..

FaceAche do the same, except through the medium of a popular, handy (for some) vacuous portal for whatever, like, innit etc..

if by FaceAche you mean facebook then:

Google and Facebook don't just sell advertising, they sell information aswell.
sometimes a cartoon says more than a thousand words:

[fatdoc]

clever.

wad

[slackline]

How do I get paid for my job if I am giving away the source code to it ?

By charging clients for you to develop the features that they want rather than the direction you think software should take and by charging for technical support for commissioned software that is already used.

There is nothing contradictory a far as I can see about being open with your code and charging clients for the time you spend developing it. If some other nerd comes along with and suggests an improvement or bug fix surely that's a good thing for you and ultimately as project lead you could decide whether our not to incorporate it?

Also, surely its as good an addition to a portfolio to be able to demonstrate yourself as lead on an open source software project  as any other copyrighted/patented software you've developed as it still positions you as the one who knows the most about it and demonstrates many desirable skills.

The crux is having a project that of sufficient interest to get enough investment, so it has to be a good product and of use either to many or some specific niches who then have to pay for you to develop the clever algorithms (which you might have patented).

Again, it sound like a no-brainer to me.

Yes, there are many OSS projects that run and get donations and can support some engineers financially. However, there are far more that are in no way financially viable and are just ran as a hobby or as something that a company created on route to something else and are happy to just give it away.

That doesn't mean that the culture couldn't shift to what I describe above. Software would still get developed, people paid, its just that the whole copyright/patent bullet would be removed from the ecosystem.

Its the lack of willingness to change that is the barrier.

Many of the main developers of large OSS projects still contribute in their spare time and their main job is writing paid software.

Probably because when you work on others problems its not as interesting and people who code like to have their own challenges, but again, I don't see why the culture can't change. At best it would be beneficial and remove the bullshit around which this thread started (i.e. patent disputes) and at worse it would make no difference with you/individuals/teams of programmers working on the software as they would anyway.  One drawback I've seen cited about open-source projects though is that not everyone is cut out to be a project manager and fulfil the role of tactfully mediating code changes etc.

@tomtom : so having your software open source hasn't resulted in tons of others offering assistance, but if it had been closed source what difference would there be?

It would still have been you doing the development anyway so what, if any, has been the disadvantages of sharing your source code?

[Jaspersharpe]

Get Swype beta Slackers. That post looks like one of my Mrs' texts (which she writes using Swype beta). 

Agree with fatdoc, this is a fascinating thread. Carry on....

[slackline]

  Will check it out, its not so much the swyping, but the words it suggests/the dictionary and me not checking (due to trying to write as quickly as I normally type).

[Jaspersharpe]

Here you go:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,19532.msg370861.html#msg370861

Will check it out, its not so much the swyping, but the words it suggests/the dictionary and me not checking (due to trying to write as quickly as I normally type).

That's what my Mrs says but it doesn't stop texts full of nonsense being annoying. She is also very quick at typing on a proper keyboard, it's still no excuse. 

 

[slackline]

Back on topic...

@tomtom : so having your software open source hasn't resulted in tons of others offering assistance, but if it had been closed source what difference would there be?

It would still have been you doing the development anyway so what, if any, has been the disadvantages of sharing your source code?

tomtom responded on twitter with...

cons are made no £ from it. Pro's are not having liability or to provide support..

So I'm wondering how much time was freely spent responding to queries from the c.200 people who have used the software and whether charging for this time spent might have resulted in an equivalent revenue had the software been closed source and license charged?

Companies like MySQL and quite a few others do fine giving away their software but charging for support.

[Jaspersharpe]

In related "Apple really are a bunch of cunts" news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/03/bruce-willis-apple-itunes-library

[Iesu]

In related "Apple really are a bunch of cunts" news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/03/bruce-willis-apple-itunes-library

shame that it turns out it's a bullshit story isn't it?

It (or rather the commnets) did make me think about copyright issues with all this digital media shenanigans vs physical media. Very interesting, but that is a whole other thread's worth!

[slackline]

@tomtom : so having your software open source hasn't resulted in tons of others offering assistance, but if it had been closed source what difference would there be?

It would still have been you doing the development anyway so what, if any, has been the disadvantages of sharing your source code?

tomtom responded on twitter with...

cons are made no £ from it. Pro's are not having liability or to provide support..

So I'm wondering how much time was freely spent responding to queries from the c.200 people who have used the software and whether charging for this time spent might have resulted in an equivalent revenue had the software been closed source and license charged?

I guess only tomtom is going to be able to answer the above, come on Tom, how much time have you spent helping users for free?

I'm also curious why the lack of remuneration for obtaining software is seen as a disadvantage (perhaps also by other software authors who've posted in this thread) whilst not being obliged to provide support is an advantage?  If you don't support your product then people aren't going to use it (or they'll have a hard time doing so, and feel aggrieved having spent money on something they can't use). 

The liability issue is irrelevant to whether a piece of software is open or closed source as disclaimers to absolve authors of software of liability can be applied to either.

[mr__j5]

With all of the major software packages that I use, you have to pay for them and if you want support, you have to pay more.

This is a model that works very well in the corporate environment.