Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Of telescopes, patents and the death of discovery

By | June 4, 2008, 4:00am PDT

“If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
–Isaac Newton.

[The opinions expressed here are mine alone, and not those of Google, Inc. my current employer.]

It isn’t really a surprise that I ended up in the computing field. I started in astronomy. As a small child I used to lie outside on my back on top of the crisp crust of snow on my parent’s lawn in Sheffield in the UK. Dressed in a fluffy parka, wellington boots, gloves, and a pair of binoculars; I never noticed the cold back in ‘them days’. I was too busy looking out at the universe, trying to discover something new.

Like so many other amateur astronomers in the UK, I was inspired by Sir Patrick Moore, host of the BBC’s “the Sky at Night” television programme. Amazingly, Sir Patrick is still presenting the show today, being its original creator and only host since 1957. I gave up astronomy once I tried to make a career of it by starting a PhD, and found that professional astronomy is incredibly boring. I ran away to join a software house, and never looked back. Occasionally I still miss those peaceful nights of my youth, but working on software is much warmer.

The similarity between the two is that astronomy, like computing, is one of the few fields of science where amateurs can still make a difference. There is so much that is unknown and undiscovered out there that even though an amateur isn’t going to discover a new planet, it’s perfectly possible for a talented observer to be the first to spot a new comet, or even a supernova. Even with a modest investment in equipment, an amateur can perform useful tasks, and help make discoveries that genuinely advance the science.

Computing science is like that too. You don’t need to create the world’s largest or fastest supercomputer in order to do useful research and create new algorithms or programs on which others can build. The universe may or may not be infinite, but the field of mathematics, on which computing is based, definitely is. That feeling of power in discovering that here was an infinite universe of software and mathematics, living right inside the computer on my desktop, was the key to my new career. I’ve never gotten bored with creating software and I don’t believe I ever will. It’s still my amateur hobby, as well as my paying career.

Of course, another advantage to computing that I found out pretty quickly is that talented amateurs don’t stay amateurs for long. There is a far greater market for computer scientists than there is for astronomers, and there’s more money in it too, although I wish that were different. Astronomers are horribly undervalued in monetary terms if you consider the spark of imagination for science and discovery they bring to young people in our culture.

Creating new software is an exploration of inner, rather than outer space. But it’s just as compelling to anyone with the talent and inclination. Like amateur astronomy, amateur computing science is just plain fun. Actually, it’s more fun for the amateur than astronomy. The price of telescopes really haven’t changed so much over many decades. Large pieces of glass as mirrors or lenses are heavy and hard to make. But computers, disk drives and networking equipment just get cheaper and cheaper.

Even multi-core processors and parallel processing on gigabit networked machines is now easily within the budget of the motivated hobbyist, so what was once the preserve of IBM researchers is now available on the desktop, and probably soon within throw-away devices as well. Once unimaginable sizes of disk drives are now a commodity. My first hard drive was 20 megabytes. I recently bought on a whim a one-terabyte drive for my desktop PC. Think of the advances in file system storage software needed to effectively make use of and manage that space. Managing a terabyte of storage was once a research project thought to be in the realms of fantasy, it was such a large amount so space.

Computing science is new enough that there may be easy discoveries still within the reach of talented amateurs. This is not solely a rich countries game as so much of science can be (think of the entry costs of particle physics for example). Even developing countries can afford computing labs that can compete with the first world. All you need are cheap PC’s and brainpower, and no one has a monopoly on that.

Having bemoaned the fate of the poor astronomers I do envy them one thing. A great advantage that astronomers have over computer scientists is that they don’t have to deal with the insane concept of patents in their field of research. Regular readers will know I consider software patenting a dangerously stupid idea, with the potential to bring any progress in the field to a grinding halt.

What makes this especially damaging is the rapid progress of computer hardware I mention above. What was initially the preserve of professional researcher rapidly becomes mass-market, then obsolete. This means the people who get initial access to a class of hardware can lock up the field of software that runs on those machines completely using patents, prohibiting the natural progress of research described by Newton in the quote above. Had software patents been available when the first parallel computers were created the software to run them would be the subject of endless litigation and restriction, not freely available to everyone in the Free and Open Source software of today.

What innovations are we stifling right now with patents that lock out the scientists, amateur and professional, from research? What new software can’t be created due to these restrictions. We may never know what we didn’t discover or create due to their chilling effects.

It’s like people claiming ownership on particular areas of the sky, and just as absurd. “You can’t look at that star, it’s mine, I patented looking there. Here’s a coin-operated telescope if you want to peek”. Good luck making scientific progress in astronomy with these restrictions.

I’ll finish with this wonderful quote that re-phrases Newton for this modern, patent-crazy age :

“If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders.”
– MIT professor Hal Abelson.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
36
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Of telescopes, patents and the death of discovery
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
Took me time so that you can undergo a lot of the suggestions, nfl store but I truly cherished the write-up. It proved being Exceptionally effective to me and I am certain to every one of the commenters right here
It should be written in our constitution, that no idea should be able to be patented or receive some kind of legal protection - only the implementation of the ideas. Virtually every software developer is guilty of (unavoidably) violating growing numbers of patents, and things will only get worse and worse, until the software industry comes to a screaching halt.
0 Votes
+ -
Part of the problem is the legal field...
DonRupertBitByte 4th Jun 2008
...it's VERY profitable to be in the field of litigation, which is an indirect contributor to the problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes ...
P. Douglas 4th Jun 2008
... software patents are a boon to lawyers - not to software developers. That's an important way you know that they do more harm than good to the software industry.
0 Votes
+ -
This country was founded on the limits to 'owning ideas'. Copyrights and patents are to stimulate innovation. The maxim "Greed = Stupid" is amplified by congress. The damn mouse takes from 'public domain' and puts nothing back. Arthur C. Clarke conceives 'geo-synchronous' sattelites for communications and got 'zip'. Jeff Bezos patents a process 'single-click' and gets millions. The system is broken.
0 Votes
+ -
and let him tell you how the universe looks and what he thinks is going on.

If anyone else builds a telescope, bomb it, they must be using it for nefarious purposes.

All of his "discoveries" would be "good for the economy", Wall St. would love that man, he would be a hero.
Can you name someone who has been hurt by a software patent?

I didn't think so.

Patents have been used for a hundred years to protect the ideas of their creators.

I personally believe it is better to implement the idea and corner the market, rather than to rely on patents, still I believe there is a place for them.

The current generation does not understand this, because the current generation is not creating anything. They want to steal music from the musicians. They want to pirate software from Microsoft. They want to "share" everything. They want to tax the oil companies into poverty.

One of these days, they will wake up from their Starbucks and realize that nobody is creating anything any more, because there is no more money in it.

If you're against patents, ask yourself whether you have ever actually created anything useful in your life that someone might want to buy from you.

Dave Morris
0 Votes
+ -
Are there "new" ideas?
ebudae@... 4th Jun 2008
I think the argument that without patents there will be no innovation because people will not make money off their creations has worn itself thin.

The open source community has shown that there are plenty of people out there willing to contribute time and effort to create something better, even if they don't get paid for it.

As for young people wanting to share everything, I have to ask, where is the problem in that. Does everything we do have to be evaluated in monetary terms? Not that I am against making or having money, but is that all it's really about?

I think you are also mistakenly invoking the notion that young people are not creating anything. Just take a look around places like YouTube or AtomFilms. As a matter fact just look at YouTube and FaceBook and MySpace. These are all the creations of young people.

I would argue that "new" ideas are hardly ever really new. They are always advances made because of research or advances that have come before. That is why I do not belive in patents. As much as any of us would like to think we have had an original idea, all ideas are born from experience. Who are we to deprive someone else of the right to co-opt their experiences into a "new" idea or creation?
0 Votes
+ -
patents aren't a problem
merc2dogs` 4th Jun 2008
The problem is that currently patents are given that are too wide with vague wording, so if I patent a method to do something it can be worded so vaguely that any other way of doing it is covered by my patent, in short I can patent doing the job not the method or device I use to do it which was/is the reason for a patent in the first place.

Many things in common use would never have existed if historical patents were allowed to be as broad as they are now

Nothing wrong with patents, or copyrights, they have just been allowed to encompass far too many aspects of the device or process.

Similar goals with similar materials WILL result in similar designs. Modern patent systems will eliminate most competition and stifle creativity.

Ken.
Yes I can ! Microsoft has been hurt repeatedly !
Software patents is a VERY silly idea that puts software developers in US at a disadvantage.
0 Votes
+ -
Time bomb patents shouldn't be allowed, where someone patents a vague idea and waits for someone else to make money off it. Patent trolls shouldn't be allowed, only people who patent something themselves. Patenting the obvious should not be allowed - why doesn't the patent office do prior art searchs by posting patents to slashdot or something? Method patents (business or software) should not be allowed, only actual patents just like for manufactured goods. But if normal patents are allowed, people will just come up with better ideas and make them obsolete.
0 Votes
+ -
Time bomb patents?
FateJHedgehog@... 4th Jun 2008
That's not the problem with the concept of software patents, though. The patent system contains a few hypocricies. For example, you can't patent the discovery of a planet or the research produced from such observation but you can decode part of a genome and place a patent around that strand so that no one else may toy with it. While a good number of programming concepts are protected, how would the possibility of having to pay a licensing fee to employ a bucket sort feel? how about writing up code to allow an auctioner to buy something at a fixed price rather than challenge other users for its cost (yes, there is/was a patent, and was a lawsuit, like that)?
I think the argument that without patents there will be no innovation because people will not make money off their creations has worn itself thin.

The open source community has shown that there are plenty of people out there willing to contribute time and effort to create something better, even if they don't get paid for it.

As for young people wanting to share everything, I have to ask, where is the problem in that. Does everything we do have to be evaluated in monetary terms? Not that I am against making or having money, but is that all it's really about?

I think you are also mistakenly invoking the notion that young people are not creating anything. Just take a look around places like YouTube or AtomFilms. As a matter fact just look at YouTube and FaceBook and MySpace. These are all the creations of young people.

I would argue that "new" ideas are hardly ever really new. They are always advances made because of research or advances that have come before. That is why I do not belive in patents. As much as any of us would like to think we have had an original idea, all ideas are born from experience. Who are we to deprive someone else of the right to co-opt their experiences into a "new" idea or creation?
0 Votes
+ -
Oops!
ebudae@... 4th Jun 2008
Apologies, this was supposed to be a reply to previous post, not to the story.
0 Votes
+ -
Yep.
FateJHedgehog@... 4th Jun 2008
This kind of mistake occurs so often in the reply system that I'm surprised ZDNet still questions whether you want to reply to the story or the message when you try to look at individual messages.
You equate software patents with restricting parts of the sky, I like this analogy. Authors will copyright there works but imagine if they could patent individual phrases within the article (book, essay, etc). Pretty soon we would have nothing new to read.
Programmers should be able to copyright their programs, but the individual techniques within the programs should be available to the next guy
randy14221@gmail.com
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks !
JeremyAllison 4th Jun 2008
I rather liked the analogy myself, it seemed appropriate happy.

Jeremy.
0 Votes
+ -
disagreement
merc2dogs` 4th Jun 2008
I feel it should be the other way around, you should be able to patent the WAY you do something, not the act of doing it.
The way I read your post, if I come up with a new fanasticaly fast way of sorting data, I could copyright the spreadsheet or whatever it's used in, but not my method.

My method is the new thing, not the spreadsheet, if my method were handed to all the programmers there would be no potential to market it as it would be the same as every other one out there.


Ken.
0 Votes
+ -
That's called copyright.
JeremyAllison 4th Jun 2008
You're mixing up copyright and trade secrets and patents. The way you do something you can (C), and you can keep it a trade secret. I have no beef with either of these things. We (the Samba Team) depend on copyrights for our licensing. We don't use trade secrets but I have no problem with them in a normal commercial context (absent monopoly restrictions).

Jeremy.
0 Votes
+ -
Trade secrets worse than patents.
Anton Philidor 4th Jun 2008
If the goal is use of inventions/innovations by others, which is more advantageous, the publication of information required for patents or the intentional concealment of such information as a trade secret?

In return for the revenues from licensing for a period of time, the holder of the patent agrees to provide full documentation of his new idea.
0 Votes
+ -
Trade secrets less harmful than patents
JeremyAllison 4th Jun 2008
At least in software. You can tell this by the fact that *no* software developer reads patent applications to learn how to write new software. In fact lawyers advise never looking at a patent filing to avoid the triple damages from "knowing infringement".

So much for "advancing the art" by patents documenting new techniques. Patents are purely harmful in the software field, they have *no* positive applications and do not advance the art one iota.

Trade secrets are annoying, but not actively harmful in the way that software patents are.

Jeremy.
0 Votes
+ -
Sort of...
fde101 5th Jun 2008
You'd patent an algorithm, or copyright an implementation of the algorithm.

Agreed, patents are problematic, primarily because of their abuse and the relative lack of knowledge of those granting them.

I don't have an issue with copyrights at all.
0 Votes
+ -
on the compensation issue
Linux Geek 4th Jun 2008
There is a far greater market for computer scientists than there is for astronomers, and there?s more money in it too, although I wish that were different.
You might have a good salary and a fulfillig position at google , but I saw some statistics where the average astronomer earns $100k but the programer $60k.
I'd rather be an astronomer than crunching lame reports about cost cutting, ROI or idiotic tax regulations.
It's very easy to criticise the current patent system, but what would you suggest it is replaced with to protect invention?

Good patents are *not* like looking at the sky. The sky is there - anyone can see it. A good patent protects something that one person has invented. Or do you seriously suggest that anyone can invent anything?
Or do you believe that no-one should make money out of an invention?
And why do you distinguish software patents from any other sort?

It's very easy to be critical of the system and damn everyone who makes money out of it - but stop being so negative. Suggest an alternative that rewards an inventor.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: It's easy to knock patents,
FateJHedgehog@... 4th Jun 2008
"Suggest an alternative that rewards an inventor."
That would be a conversion in the policies of companies - that they can claim contractual ownership on their employee's work - rather than the patent system. The "payment by product/patent" method is not really employed in any market of which I am aware, except in the practice of raises and promotions which are inconsistently applied to begin with. People who have developed things and are getting full patents' worth for the invention's successes, I tip my hat to them. What we are anxious concerning are patents and patent-litigation that is outwardly aggressive, and can be characterized by being a dog-in-the-manger.

The problem with the patent system really is that it has become too inclusive for different types of media, and the drop-off dates for when things enter the public domain - for things that still CAN enter the public domain (*coughmickeymousecough*) - hasn't kept up with the diffusion of easy-access, easy-use media creation products. Methods of methods of information and product exchange have also matured and accelerated. Patents are still worded in O(n) while society is working in O(log(n)) and quickening.
0 Votes
+ -
Mickey Mouse is a copyright problem
Anton Philidor 4th Jun 2008
Copyright is forever, or thereabouts. But patents still expire within 20 years or so, which is perhaps too quickly.
0 Votes
+ -
Excuse me about that error.
FateJHedgehog@... 4th Jun 2008
n/t
0 Votes
+ -
Duration of patent
Anton Philidor 4th Jun 2008
To me, the issue was not, of course, the error, but how long a patent or copyright should last.

A software patent lasts for 20 years. And 20 years later the (hypothetical) industry created by a brilliant idea is still growing.

Why should an industry with profits in the $ billions and growing rapidly cease to pay the font of all those profits after a certain number of years?


A correction isn't important; wrote it because I thought it a good way to raise the issue. Sorry.
0 Votes
+ -
Happens all the time
Ole Man 4th Jun 2008
When you confuse "profits in the $ billions" with serving the public.

That is, after all, the purpose of patents, isn't it? To serve the public? Depends on what world you're living in, eh?
0 Votes
+ -
Newton's quote translates a Roman observation
Anton Philidor 4th Jun 2008
A European insisted - probably correctly - that Newton had stolen an idea from him. The European was a short man. So Newton announced superciliously that he stood on the shoulders of giants and (implicitly) not short people.

Anyone who would take away the ability of an inventor or innovator to profit from his ideas is as supercilious as Newton. And far more damaging. Newton at least did not steal income from the true inventor.

When Jefferson was considering whether or not to support patents he was reluctant to do so. He thought that, like science itself, ideas should be free to all from the beginning. He allowed himself to be persuaded.

Then, after his own time as chief of the patent office ended and patents became very easy to obtain, there was a huge outpouring of invention and innovation that built the US economy very quickly. Even Jefferson was amazed.

So if you want a productive economy, don't confiscate people's new ideas by failing to protect them from thieves.
0 Votes
+ -
Newton was a lucky man
Ole Man 4th Jun 2008
That no one had patented his ideas before he had them. Otherwise, he could have been prosecuted (or persecuted?) for expressing them.

Software is nothing but a machine language, and a language is nothing if not in the public domain. What good is a language if it cannot be freely used (for any or no reason)?

Don't subvert my ideas by refusing to agree with them.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Of telescopes
mike@... 4th Jun 2008
Like so many 'anti-patent' articles - where's the meat?
Where are the examples of where software patents have
prevented development? The argument seems to be that
software patent somehow relate to a different class of
'invention' from other technologies. While the debate
about whether patents are socially desirable is one which
should and will always be there I suspect, if (which I
believe is the case) 'software' is technical in nature and
developments in software benefit society as do inventions
in other fields of technology, why shouldn't the inventors
be entitled to reward for their efforts. The mobile phone
industry is hardly stagnating and yet huge numbers of the
developments there are in the software area and are
protected (and then licensed by the way)..

There also seems to be confusion between 'development'
and 'exploitation'. Just because a patent exists doesn't
prevent 'development' (eg further invention). It may
prevent exploitation without license, but why should one
person's ideas be expropriated by another without just
reward?

M.Brunner
0 Votes
+ -
It needs different treatment under the law. Read this :

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html

to understand why.

Jeremy.
Yes it does prevent development by others who cannot even find out if they are infringing on a software patent intil the the day the are sued !
Software patents are used for 2 purposes:

1. By big business: Collect a big pool of patents to have a bargaining chip and to cross lisence with other big businesses.
2. The "troll method". Just waiting for someone to sue based on a vague patent.

As a side info: Just over 1% of software patent applications is by software companies. A company like Microsoft is still at a severe disadvantage; they loose money on software patents. They are the biggest software company, but they still lose out due to the fact that software patents are held overwhelmingly by entities that are NOT software companies.
Yes, I was. I started a small software company back in the early '90s. About 6 months after our product was released on the market, our competitor obtained a software patent and sued us for infringement. We were ultimately able to win the suit because we had evidence that the patent holder had material information that they didn't submit when they applied for the patent. But the whole thing cost us over $100K and about a year of our productive labor.

If software patents had existed during the beginning days of software, we'd have been paying $1000 for a word processor for around 20 years.
0 Votes
+ -
Need for patents
Rick_R 31st Oct 2008
There is a fundamental error in the "patents stifle innovation" argument. It is the fundamental reason why patent law exists. Without protection of their property, many companies would simply treat everything as a trade secret. Try getting the recipe for Coca Cola. Your probably aren't familiar with Zildjan cymbals, so here's the background:

The Zildjan family originally were cannon makers. They developed a secret formula for cannon barrels. Eventually it was discovered that the same mixture made good-sounding cymbals. For decades Zildjan had a monopoly on cymbals because no one else had a good formula. Zildjan already had better-sounding formulas. But they didn't use them. Eventually, a Swiss company, Paiste, discovered a good-sounding formula and Ringo Starr started using Paiste cymbals. So THEN Zildjan started using its better formula.

The idea of patent protection is that other companies can LICENSE intellectual property. Imagine how much sooner modern operating systems would have developed if instead of re-inventing Windows Apple had simply gone to Xerox and said, "We want to license your GUI operating system." Similarly, if Xerox had patented the GUI concept, Microsoft could have licensed everything and brought it to market a lot faster rather than re-inventing it from Apple.

The other thing is that without the ability to protect their investment in R&D, many companies would choose to simply not develop at all. That would stifle innovation a lot more.

The biggest problem is the NIH concept (Not Invented Here). Too many companies want to re-invent the 747 instead of just license someone else's technology.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Of telescopes, patents and the death of discovery
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
Took me time so that you can undergo a lot of the suggestions, nfl store but I truly cherished the write-up. It proved being Exceptionally effective to me and I am certain to every one of the commenters right here

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix