microsoft has made both server and client OSes as well as all the apps used on both of them
i think that company is monopolizing the economy so why not just implement 50/50?

The fallacy states that, “just because breaking windows causes the glassmaker to get paid, doesn’t mean the money would not have been spent on something else.” In other words, “breaking things so that the repair costs will stimulate the economy is a really dumb idea.”

Now, if we followed your reasoning – everyone should buy the most expensive solution just to support the economy. No matter what the quality of the product is, just buy it so you boost put money into the economy? It’s a bit flawed, don’t you think? If you’re a business owner, you estimate quality vs cost and decide based on that factor. And can you honestly say that proprietary software is of better quality than open source?

I, for one, am concerned that systems that run governments across the world, including US, are based on proprietary software. This in fact means that companies producing said software have control over their customers. Who has ever seen Windows source code and can say what does it do? Or what will the next update do? With open source software you may, if you wish to, analyze the sources, fix them if needed, do whatever you wish. If a security flaw is discovered, you may fix it on your own. What can you do with proprietary software? Nothing.

There are pros and cons as with any other solution and worrying about $400 billion disappearing from US economy is not something you should be concerned with in my opinion. That’s because that money will be spent on other things and, again in my opinion, will do more good than harm.

Also, anyone wanting to make a point regarding my grammar or anything – it’s just stupid to try and counter reasonable arguments with statements like “omg, l2type, wtf!”. Also, I’m Polish so spare me, English is not my native language.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you are correct that patent litigation can be enormously expensive and tie up tech companies, but the fact remains that patents spur innovation historically. Those who chose to ignore the fact that patents and exclusive right spur innovation are simply fooling themselves and are not seriously interested in engaging in meaningful debate. Without patents the investment necessary to move innovation forward is not available.

Additionally, many software patents are obviously invalid on their face because they should not have issued due to prior art or they are woefully inadequate to disclose the invention. Those who choose not to understand patent law and make assumptions that are incorrect hardly have any rational reason to complain that patents stand in the way of innovation. If you want to let bad patents that are unenforceable stand in your way that is a you problem, not a patent problem.

-Gene

That is just plain nonsense. Software patents have a tangible effect on new product development. Whether you care to admit it or not, patent litigation (or the threat thereof) based on claims against dubious ‘submarine’ patents are routinely used to extort money from companies of all sizes or to stifle competition. The threat of patent litigation is probably the #1 risk factor for a tech start-up company. The costs of defending against a dubious patent lawsuit can easily top a million dollars, an expense which can easily cripple or bankrupt a small company.

While I can’t say that I agree with everything he has done and said, I’m certain that we can both agree that a lot of waste could be cut out of the government. The directive to explore open source solutions seems to be in line with that.

My real fear is that President Obama may be biting off more than he can chew with health care reform, the economic stimulus, our current foreign policy mess, etc. There is a lot going on. I hope he and his team can pull it all off.

I do not think that the idea of the government using open source is bad for the economy or the state of patent protection.

I think your position makes a lot of sense, and is probably the position of most folks. I do not have anything against open source software per se, I just wonder whether now is the time for the government to be looking to move into open source software. I use some open source software myself.

In terms of Republicans being fiscally responsible, obviously they are not and have not been for some time. I think that is why they have lost 2 elections in a row and will continue to lose until such time that they get back to basics and become fiscal conservatives. I think the US wants to be slightly left of center on social issues and somewhere right of center on fiscal matters. With a two party system that seems impossible these days.

For the record, while it is obvious I am a Republican, I hammered the Bush Administration and particularly Jon Dudas while he was at the Patent Office. I am equal opportunity when it comes to pointing out what I think are bad ideas.

Personally, I run windows on my machines, but every other piece of software I use is Open Source. This is not because I don’t believe in patents. This is because it is a much much lower cost alternative for me. Not only is the software itself free to me (though I generally “donate” to the author if they request it), but I find the software is usually more reliable. I also get better support in user forums and the like than I get from the person who answers the tech support hot line of a proprietary product after I’ve been on hold for half an hour.

In short, I choose open source because it makes the most economic sense for me. I would like to be able to expect the same from my government. It is very rare that I have any hope of that, just look at the no-bid and cost plus contracts the Bush Administration spent the last 8 years handing out.

And before you blow me off as some liberal, please explain how Republicans can claim to be the fiscally responsible party after the ride they took us on for the last eight years.

There may be an explanation for why there are so many terrible software patents out there:
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Its-All-About-C,-The-CIA-Interview,–Not-People-Like-You.aspx (last story on the page.)

Software patents aren’t necessarily bad, but they’re suboptimal. Software is so enormously complex, it’s impossible to make software without doing something that someone else has used as part of a patented work. The problem, as I see it, is that you can be sued for things that don’t violate the law.

For example, suppose General Electric has a patent on some doohickey that goes in a jet engine. Part of the patent specifies that the doohickey is fastened to the chassis using bolts. If GE were to sue Ford because they fastened some entirely different part to the chassis of a truck, and they also used bolts, that would be completely ridiculous. But GE could still file the lawsuit. The case would be thrown out of court, but GE could still file the lawsuit.

However, software is a relatively new field, and not everyone is computer literate. If someone were to sue me for writing code that “parsed user input using a series of switch statements that efficiently represent the desired workflow of the program without explicitly using conditional operators,” most judges aren’t going to know what that means, but the concept has been around since the seventies.

Even if the patent examiners actually have experience in the industry, there are better options for protecting the intellectual property of the programmers. A better option would be to use copyright law instead of patents.