OT: nVidia driver [was: Wish list] -- nVidia doesn't own a lot of the IP

[Bryan J. Smith]

From: Rui Miguel Seabra <rms at 1407.org>
> He's not talking about patents in general but software patents.
> All software patents are bad, and virtually all software patents are
> patents on _common_ideas_

I completely disagree.  There are countless, innovative software patents
in many areas -- especially 3D, semiconductor, etc...  You can't start
eliminating software patents altogether without throwing away a lot of
innovation.

The problem is the "one-click" and other non-sense.  Don't blame the
entire patent concept as the problem because of the stupid patents that
are granted.  The US needs massive patent reform, yes, I don't disagree
with that.  But do away with all software patents?  Sorry, that's the
wrong move.

Companies are expending a lot of funds to research many ideas.  *NOT*
Microsoft -- don't think of Microsoft when you think of software
patents.  Think of companies that truly innovate.  They are rare
compared to the crap that is granted, but they do exist.

Sorry, but I have to say that the community is not always entitled to
the absolutely latest innovations in many areas that are truly novel.
Thankfully we do have companies who make them available and usable by
even community software in open standard APIs.  That is a very nice
touch, and should be appreciated.

> Feel free to be the first to draw the line in the sand from whereupon
> it's a common idea or not. Nobody was ever able to clearly define
> that, so what you say is very nice in principle, but unfeasible in
> practice.

The problem is the _lack_ of "peer review" in the patent system.
Regulation, legislation and laws have _never_ solved problems as good as
putting "peer experts" on the problem.  That has always been the
problem, people always wanting to go to more legislation, instead of
relying on peer experts and industry-based approaches.

> But this is getting more and more off-topic.

I didn't introduce it.  Some people want to introduce their political
agendas here, and I'm merely trying to show the other side.  I'm sure
that's "annoying" at times, but I'm trying to let people know how to
avoid being viewed as "community radicals" by others.

If you want Linux to engage the corporate world, you have show them how
things should and should not work.  Not that the entire system is wrong,
because if you take away the absolutes, it's really just skewed, and
_can_ be fixed.

I think Red Hat's new venture in getting companies to work together in a
common patent pool is the most _helpful_ and most _American_ thing I
have ever seen, and it's why I continue to believe Red Hat is the _best_
Linux company in the world.  It believes strongly in community, yet
understand that community is about _choice_ -- be it an individual or
corporation.

And not some ideal of federated mandate where not everyone might agree.

Corporations and individuals who ban together in a community by choice
will topple those who abuse IP, marketshare and other, unethical
tactics.  It is a far better, far safer, for more useful approach than
by federated mandate that says "we know better than you."


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                     b.j.smith at ieee.org 
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you.  Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them).  Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work.  ;->