Please check out the league for programming freedom.
Every time I send mail, I supply the URL; it's in my signature.
Also, you should all join the EFF.
Unless we support the fight against software patents and the work of the
EFF, we may soon lose the legal right to even run the free software that
we all love.
You should also (and this is really the most important) write to your
congressmen, senators, members of parliament, knesset, duma, or whoever
it is that represents you and express your concerns in this area.
PS: (Just to brag) I'm actually the one who bought the
programming-freedom domain name, and donated it to the league. One of
my few concrete contributions to building a better world.
Civileme wrote:
>
> I was pleasantly surprised to see the banner on the
> linux-mandrake home page regarding a petition for no
> ePatents.
>
> This makes me wonder, where is the American
> equivalent? It is in fact the U. S. Patent and
> Trademark Office that is one of the biggest
> embarassments of the digital age. If you want to
> consider this off-topic, or you already know why there
> should be no ePatents, read no further.
>
> SCENARIO:
>
> An individual working somewhere comes up with a neat
> little algorithm to do something useful. He publishes
> it on the internet, and lots of other people think it
> is useful, too and incorporate it into their software.
> It is an algorithm based on a mathematical fact, and it
> has been offered to the public, so no copyright is
> possible.
>
> Enter the Technology Company. It doesn't produce
> anything. It is a CEO and two battalions of lawyers,
> and a couple secretaries to handle correwspondence and
> a computer operator to run the bookkeeping system.
> They go to this individual and say, "Hay, what a neat
> idea. Did you know you could patent it? We'll help
> you for $10,000 and when the patent is granted we'll
> pay you $50,000 for it."
>
> So the patent is applied for and granted and the rights
> are assigned and $40,000 changes hands (The $50,000
> less the $10,000 "fee".) Now the technology company
> holds the patent rights to software ALREADY in use (but
> not in use for a full year before the patent
> application).
>
> The patent might be worthless. It is based on a
> mathematical fact, after all, and built on public
> domain knowledge, but to prove it is worthless, someone
> is going to have to go to court, and spend between 2
> million and 200 million dollars in a 10-15 year fight
> to prove it. Everyone working in the industry is
> either aware of this or has a lawyer who will advise
> him of it.
>
> Now the technology company approaches the Company A,
> which is using software or selling software which
> contains the algorithm, and proposes a licensing fee.
> The management of Company A has to decide among three
> choices a) stop using the algorithm, no matter the
> cost (and this includes pre-sold software which would
> have to be recalled and reparations made for the use of
> the algorithm by the customers). b) Pay the licensing
> fee, even for a long-term agreement (the life of the
> patent), or c) risk the company's money on a court
> battle where you lose even if you win. Now which do
> you think they will choose.
>
> The owners/managers of Company A are in a position
> nearly identical to the candy store owner in an inner
> city ghetto who is approached by the ruling gang and
> asked to buy insurance against vandalism. In this
> case, it's "Pay up or we'll destroy your life and wreck
> your company in court." as opposed to, "pay up or
> we'll burn down your business and break your legs."
>
> But the Technology company is by no means done.
> Obviously, since the algorithm enjoyed a brief period
> of apparent freedom, it is reasonable to assume that
> there is yet "pirate" software out there NOT LICENSED
> and paying a fee. If this algorithm produces something
> that can be placed on web sites...
>
> Dear Web site Owner/Operator:
>
> THe BBB Technology Company holds the patent rights to
> the software for producing widgetform fluxawarbles
> which have gained great popularity on the world wide
> web. Since there are unlicensed programs that utilize
> the patented algorithm for the production of widgetform
> fluxawarbles, there is a potential infringement on your
> site from any of your customers who may have placed
> unlicensed fluxawarbles there.
>
> I am writing this to inform you of an opportunity to
> avoid any potential litigation from possibly unlicensed
> fluxawarbles on your web hosting service for a one-time
> license fee the nominal sum of $17,500. Please make
> your check payable to the BBB Technology Company and
> amil it today.
>
> Thank you in advance for your early payment.
>
> Yours very truly,
>
> I. M. Suing
> Chief, Lawyer battalion 417
>
> And what does that mean to Joe Programmer?
>
> JOe has to research the algorithms granted patents, the
> filfe formats granted patents, and then perhaps pay an
> attorney to research faster, better and further amongst
> the myriad of ePatents -- and for what?
>
> So Joe Programmer can write, "hello, world" version 3.
>
> Scientists, including computer scientists, shopuld be
> allowed to stand on each other's shoulders. That is
> what is of highest and best interest to the public and
> to science. Instead, the current patent morass and
> proprietary software has computer scientists standing
> on each other's feet. And, until we find a better
> system and implement it, the situation will worsen
> rather than improve.
>
> Please, go sign the petition. Please,, someone, let's
> get an American version of the petition going. We are
> one of the biggest parts of the problem, thanks to the
> embarassment of an understaffed PTO whose policy is,
> "Grant it, and let the courts decide if it is valid."
>
> Civileme
--
"Brian, the man from babble-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org
Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents.
Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com.
