[9fans] Public response to a private question

[9fans] Public response to a private question

[mycroftiv]

Q: Why are you upset?  The IBM multi-pipe patent probably doesnt
overlap with hubfs, as a legal matter, because the patent is really
about the implementation details, not the general idea of muxing.

I understand these things pretty well.  The problem is, everyone knows
that software patents are a huge mess and exactly what is considered
the "meat" of the patent and what is considered the "implementation
detail" is not at all clear until the matter is actually litigated in
court - and it is not as if there is any public disclosure for how
this patent is being used, and exactly how IBM regards the scope of
the claims.  That's precisely the problem with the whole thing.

Suppose I had never written hubfs.  I would look at this patent and
say "wow, I can't write this software, because it would be very easy
to claim it was infringing" - and its not as if IBM would offer me any
kind of guarantee that I can write whatever pipefs I want to and not
violate their patent.  That is why its all wrong.

As I believe I have said clearly, I think that Doug McIlroy invented
all of this clearly in his original garden hose and grid/array ideas,
and doing muxing 9p pipes with a detailed control interface is not
something that I believe should be patentable, because the clarity as
to what exactly would or would not conflict with this patent isn't
available.  I should be able to make Plan 9 grid software in my
basement without worrying about all of the patent landmines.

Furthermore, there is the basic moral issue that we have a system that
rewards non-cooperative behavior more than cooperative behavior.  The
goal of a system of laws is to produce benefits for society.  I fail
to see how the patent in question can be said to produce any benefit
to society in comparison to having the same technology available
without a patent and without restricting what independent creators can
do and offer to the world.

Ben Kidwell
"mycroftiv"