Appendix A Regain your programming freedom

Until a few years ago, programmers in the United States could write any program they wished. This freedom has now been taken away by two developments: software patents, which grant the patent holder an absolute monopoly on some programming technique, and user interface copyright, which forbid compatible implementations of an existing user interface.

In Europe, especially through the GATT treaty, things are rapidly approaching the same pass.

A.1 Software patents

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted numerous software patents on software techniques. Patents are an absolute monopoly—independent reinvention is precluded. This monopoly lasts for seventeen years, i.e., forever (with respect to computer science).

One patent relevant to TeX is patent 4,956,809, issued to the Mark Williams company on September 11, 1990, applied for in 1982, which covers (among other things)

representing in a standardized order consisting of a standard binary structure file stored on auxiliary memory or transported on a communications means, said standardized order being different from a different order used on at least one of the different computers;

Converting in each of the different computers binary data read from an auxiliary data storage or communications means from the standardized order to the natural order of the respective host computer after said binary data are read from said auxiliary data storage or communications means and before said binary data are used by the respective host computer; and

Converting in each of the different computers binary data written into auxiliary data storage or communications means from the natural order of the respective host computer to the standardized order prior to said writing.

… in other words, storing data on disk in a machine-independent order, as the DVI, TFM, GF, and PK file formats specify. Even though TeX is “prior art” in this respect, the patent was granted (the patent examiners not being computer scientists, even less computer typographers). Since there is a strong presumption in the courts of a patent’s validity once it has been granted, there is a good chance that users or implementors of TeX could be successfully sued on the issue.

As another example, the X window system, which was intended to be able to be used freely by everyone, is now being threatened by two patents: 4,197,590 on the use of exclusive-or to redraw cursors, held by Cadtrak, a litigation company (this has been upheld twice in court); and 4,555,775, held by AT&T, on the use of backing store to redraw windows quickly.

Here is one excerpt from a recent mailing by the League for Programming Freedom (see section What to do?) which I feel sums up the situation rather well. It comes from an article in Think magazine, issue #5, 1990. The comments after the quote were written by Richard Stallman.

“You get value from patents in two ways,” says Roger Smith, IBM Assistant General Counsel, intellectual property law. “Through fees, and through licensing negotiations that give IBM access to other patents.

“The IBM patent portfolio gains us the freedom to do what we need to do through cross-licensing—it gives us access to the inventions of others that are the key to rapid innovation. Access is far more valuable to IBM than the fees it receives from its 9,000 active patents. There’s no direct calculation of this value, but it’s many times larger than the fee income, perhaps an order of magnitude larger.”

This information should dispel the belief that the patent system will “protect” a small software developer from competition from IBM. IBM can always find patents in its collection which the small developer is infringing, and thus obtain a cross-license.

However, the patent system does cause trouble for the smaller companies which, like IBM, need access to patented techniques in order to do useful work in software. Unlike IBM, the smaller companies do not have 9,000 patents and cannot usually get a cross-license. No matter how hard they try, they cannot have enough patents to do this.

Only the elimination of patents from the software field can enable most software developers to continue with their work.

The value IBM gets from cross-licensing is a measure of the amount of harm that the patent system would do to IBM if IBM could not avoid it. IBM’s estimate is that the trouble could easily be ten times the good one can expect from one’s own patents—even for a company with 9,000 of them.

A.2 User interface copyright

(This section is copied from the GCC manual, by Richard Stallman.)

This section is a political message from the League for Programming Freedom to the users of the GNU font utilities. It is included here as an expression of support for the League on my part.

Apple, Lotus and Xerox are trying to create a new form of legal monopoly: a copyright on a class of user interfaces. These monopolies would cause serious problems for users and developers of computer software and systems.

Until a few years ago, the law seemed clear: no one could restrict others from using a user interface; programmers were free to implement any interface they chose. Imitating interfaces, sometimes with changes, was standard practice in the computer field. The interfaces we know evolved gradually in this way; for example, the Macintosh user interface drew ideas from the Xerox interface, which in turn drew on work done at Stanford and SRI. 1-2-3 imitated VisiCalc, and dBase imitated a database program from JPL.

Most computer companies, and nearly all computer users, were happy with this state of affairs. The companies that are suing say it does not offer “enough incentive” to develop their products, but they must have considered it “enough” when they made their decision to do so. It seems they are not satisfied with the opportunity to continue to compete in the marketplace—not even with a head start.

If Xerox, Lotus, and Apple are permitted to make law through the courts, the precedent will hobble the software industry:

• Gratuitous incompatibilities will burden users. Imagine if each car manufacturer had to arrange the pedals in a different order.
• Software will become and remain more expensive. Users will be “locked in” to proprietary interfaces, for which there is no real competition.
• Large companies have an unfair advantage wherever lawsuits become commonplace. Since they can easily afford to sue, they can intimidate small companies with threats even when they don’t really have a case.
• User interface improvements will come slower, since incremental evolution through creative imitation will no longer be permitted.
• Even Apple, etc., will find it harder to make improvements if they can no longer adapt the good ideas that others introduce, for fear of weakening their own legal positions. Some users suggest that this stagnation may already have started.
• If you use GNU software, you might find it of some concern that user interface copyright will make it hard for the Free Software Foundation to develop programs compatible with the interfaces that you already know.

A.3 What to do?

(This section is copied from the GCC manual, by Richard Stallman.)

To protect our freedom from lawsuits like these, a group of programmers and users have formed a new grass-roots political organization, the League for Programming Freedom.

The purpose of the League is to oppose new monopolistic practices such as user-interface copyright and software patents; it calls for a return to the legal policies of the recent past, in which these practices were not allowed. The League is not concerned with free software as an issue, and not affiliated with the Free Software Foundation.

The League’s membership rolls include John McCarthy, inventor of Lisp, Marvin Minsky, founder of the Artificial Intelligence lab, Guy L. Steele, Jr., author of well-known books on Lisp and C, as well as Richard Stallman, the developer of GNU CC. Please join and add your name to the list. Membership dues in the League are $42 per year for programmers, managers and professionals; $10.50 for students; $21 for others.

The League needs both activist members and members who only pay their dues.

To join, or for more information, phone (617) 492-0023 or write to:

League for Programming Freedom
1 Kendall Square #143
P.O. Box 9171
Cambridge, MA 02139

You can also send electronic mail to league@prep.ai.mit.edu.

Here are some suggestions from the League for things you can do to protect your freedom to write programs:

• Don’t buy from Xerox, Lotus or Apple. Buy from their competitors or from the defendants they are suing.
• Don’t develop software to work with the systems made by these companies.
• Port your existing software to competing systems, so that you encourage users to switch.
• Write letters to company presidents to let them know their conduct is unacceptable.
• Tell your friends and colleagues about this issue and how it threatens to ruin the computer industry.
• Above all, don’t work for the look-and-feel plaintiffs, and don’t accept contracts from them.
• Write to Congress to explain the importance of this issue.

  House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
  2137 Rayburn Bldg
  Washington, DC 20515
  
  Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights
  United States Senate
  Washington, DC 20510
  

  (These committees have received lots of mail already; let’s give them even more.)

Express your opinion! You can make a difference.

About This Document

This document was generated on January 31, 2023 using texi2html 5.0.

The buttons in the navigation panels have the following meaning:

where the Example assumes that the current position is at Subsubsection One-Two-Three of a document of the following structure:

• 1. Section One
  • 1.1 Subsection One-One
    • ...
  • 1.2 Subsection One-Two
    • 1.2.1 Subsubsection One-Two-One
    • 1.2.2 Subsubsection One-Two-Two
    • 1.2.3 Subsubsection One-Two-Three     <== Current Position
    • 1.2.4 Subsubsection One-Two-Four
  • 1.3 Subsection One-Three
    • ...
  • 1.4 Subsection One-Four

This document was generated on January 31, 2023 using texi2html 5.0.