Hey Matt, >> With Software Patents, you have proponents who make proprietary software, >> and >> you have opponents that make proprietary software and free software. >> >> With Free Software Patents, you don't have any proponents from any >> business or >> company that focuses on free software. Right? Am I wrong? >> > > I'd say fairly wrong. Firstly, when you say "Free Software Patents", I > assume you mean patents being used against free software.
Nope, sorry for the confusion. I was trying to say that there are not many commercial entities that both work primarily with and support free software, and are also pro software patents. At least, I can't think of any. So the situation is quite different from proprietary software vendors, whereby you have companies who want software patents, and companies that don't. In the free software world, seeing software patents as a bad thing is much more black and white. > Look back at patent litigation against free software projects in the last > decade. Usually they don't directly litigate against free software projects > (who, as you say, are usually individuals), but against businesses using > free software. I'm sure I could come up with a few examples if I tried, however the threat is certainly there. We've seen Sony go after GeoHot (albeit using DMCA law). We've seen Blizzard shutdown the FreeCraft project (albeit using Trademark law). If patents are a way in which companies can attack an individual they see as a threat, they surely will. > (We absolutely want to protect those businesses in this > community -- it is as much about them as the individuals.) Agreed. Free software applies to everyone. I'm definitely not implying we should treat individuals and businesses separately. > Do you think these companies want to give up that edge over free software? > Make no mistake: there will be huge resistance from patent holders to a > proposal that makes it illegal to sue companies and individuals using free > software that violates patents. Sure, they might see free software as a serious threat, but it will be much harder for them to argue. As a quick example, they would need to prove that someone or some group who may very well write free software only to benefit humanity, that may have no intention or means of making money from it, should be subject to patent law. Patent law is supposed to be about innovation and business competition, neither which necessarily apply to free software authors. > But they won't be going after the individuals, they'll be going after the > businesses who do have funds to defend themselves. They'll be coming out > and saying "how dare Samsung sell a device with free software on it that > steals our ideas?" They'll find a way to not make it look like a David v > Goliath. It doesn't matter (individuals or not). It can happen, but it clearly shouldn't be allowed. So there is a good argument there. Even if you don't agree, you can argue that attacking a company using free software is the same as attacking free software authors. Take your example Samsung device; it could be (and likely is) that free software authors wrote software specifically for that device. Take that device away, and the free software is useless - the equivalent of book burning. You could go on to make similar arguments against hosting companies, OS distributors, ISPs, etc. Harm these companies for using or distributing free software due to software patents, and you harm all the small free software authors too. I could go on, but I don't think your argument has merit anyway since it's basically just saying "Don't worry about this potential for huge injustice in the system, because I don't think it will be abused since patent holders don't want to look bad". :) > It's as if I write a recipe book, and donate it to the public library for >> all >> to make use of as they best see fit. Then some corporation comes along and >> demands the book be burnt, and the author pay a large sum in compensation >> because the steps for a recipe in that book are similar to what the >> corporation came up with in a different book they probably never published. >> > > No, it's more like if you write a recipe book and say "anyone can sell my > recipes" and then a big company comes along and starts selling your > records, and *then* another company goes and sues them for selling your > recipes that are similar to theirs. That isn't such a black and white issue > (at least in the public view) because it's company vs company. Even though > in my view, it is wrong. Well that's a different story all together, but IMO it still wouldn't work. It is unlikely they would actually be selling my records because there would be no value in that - it's already free software and readily available for anyone to copy. So it would simply be argued that the only thing they are selling is the device/service/product that makes use of that code. Adam
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
