On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Adam Bolte <[email protected]>wrote:
> > We cannot allow these > > hobbyists to rip off our ideas and then compete with us at zero cost. > That > > will mean we have no incentive to invest money in further research." > > From the ABC website: > http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1097642.htm > > "The cost of an Australian standard patent including attorney fees is > usually > between $5000-$8000. Annual maintenance fees are payable from its fifth > year. > Over a 20-year term these will add a further $8,000 to the cost." > > So if a company can afford to buy patents, they can likely also afford more > developers. Would they argue that a few developers (potentially non-free, > working in their spare time as a hobby) is serious competition for them? > (Off topic: you really think this argument is a strong one? $16000 over 20 years will buy how many developers?) > > Any argument > > against the patent system can be applied equally to free or proprietary > > software. > > That's what I've been trying to show my disagreement over. I don't think we > can convince each other easily. :) > > I'm with Matt on this one, sorry Adam. Let's see if I can contribute with something relevant. > > > > It doesn't make sense in my mind to say "patents should not apply > > to free software," any more than it would make sense to say "parking > meters > > should not apply to cars that have been custom built by the driver." > Either > > you think parking meters are a good thing and should apply to anyone who > > parks in a spot, or you think parking meters are bad and everyone should > be > > able to park for free. It has nothing to do with the conditions under > which > > the car was built. > > Still not looking at the big picture. Parking meters don't apply to > bicycles. > Why not? Bicycles are vehicles too. But they don't have a huge up-front > expense and are easily obtainable by all - including kids. Because the > barrier > to entry is so low, and the value they provide (being safer, and the only > common vehicle allowed on the road that's available to non-adults), it > doesn't > make sense to put parking meters at bike stands. > Well, to slide on into the "car analogy": if you park the bicycle in a car parking spot so that no car will be able to use it, I bet you will find a parking ticket (if you find your bicycle at all). Translation: I reckon that it is NOT the fact that the Free Software have a "small parking footprint/easily affordable/green" the reason that should protect the free software against patents. > > If I make a computer program and release it as free software, it doesn't > make > sense for the patent system to apply to me because I can't afford > time/money > to start a company and patent things. That too would be crazy. > Unfortunately, capitalism does not grant you something if you just can't afford it. Other types of economies (first one with a positive connotation that spring into my mind: gift economy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy#Open-source_software>) may do it, but patents are a creation of the capitalistic culture (and I argue we are still living in one). > > If making an analogy to software patents, I'd say you have a parking meter > at > every public bike rack, and we're the ones arguing that this isn't fair - > some > people can't afford to use them. Then you have car owners saying "hell no, > we're paying taxes and we're all driving vehicles here - they need that > meter". :) > You reckon? I, as a driver (by necessity), would be very pleased to hear that no parking meters are used for both bicycles and cars. Am I that atypical for a human being? > > b) I doubt you will find it any easier to > > convince lawmakers to get rid of patents in free software as you will to > > convince them to get rid of patents entirely. > > Still haven't seen any clear arguments demonstrating this IMO. However, it > also hasn't been demonstrated that it should matter - and that we can't > argue > both points at the same time. > Clear arguments, you say? At my age, I have too small a confidence of the average capability of humans (including myself) to argue clearly. Looking on our honorable politicians we have today (sometimes I do watch the "Question time" in the Parliament), I would rate their capability to a "below average". Letting aside my personal impression, what I want to point out is that* it is not a necessity the arguments to be clear to become a law (or to repeal one)* Let me try to give you some examples: http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/open_source-is_communism.png http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_communism/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ > > > > Yes, there are lots of harms to free software authors by having software > > patents. But they are just as harmful to proprietary software authors. > > If that were true, you would see free software authors licensing patents. > Funny that doesn't typically happen. :) > How does it follow? The fact that open source authors choose not to lodge/license patents may have multiple reasons. Yes, affordability may be *one* of them (it usually is), but believe me, *I*can afford to pay $8000 for a patent application now (for a hypothetical protection, a patent grant should be better than a simple license), I just choose not to. > > > > A > > startup who wants to build a photo-sharing platform (and doesn't > > necessarily want to make the source public, because they want a > competitive > > advantage) may be sued by a troll who has a patent on photo sharing, and > go > > out of business. The net result is we don't have any photo sharing (since > > the troll isn't actually providing a service, just suing). That's bad for > > innovation, and bad for the industry. Those cases are just as important > as > > free software cases, in my view. > > You're still forgetting my argument that free software should be in the > public > interest. It's difficult, or perhaps impossible to make the same claims > about > proprietary software. So it's not just as important, but I agree it's still > quite important. > I'll pick the gauntlet if you don't mind. - do you ever buy a virus/malware to run on your computer? Isn't the malware a free software? - are you saying that the Antivirus applications that you pay for are against public interest? > > > Of course, this is a free software discussion group, so perhaps the > > argument to that is "why should we care about someone who isn't releasing > > their source code?" "Why don't we just look after our own people?" Fair > > enough, but I'm saying that if you want to fight against X, the best > thing > > you can do is gather up as many people who will be threatened by X and > all > > fight together, even if you disagree with those people about other > things. > > I would normally agree, but in this case by arguing alongside with > proprietary > software, we expand the scope of what we're fighting for and take on > additional problems associated with representing it. I'm certainly not > saying > that we should give up on software patents in general, however I continue > to > believe that putting forward an argument specifically for free software to > be > considered 'in the public interest' would be easier than abolishing > software > patents entirely forever. > > I'm glad that you use a personal/subjective point of view to express the position (like "I continue to believe"). On the same tone, I believe: a. "repealing software patents" is a smaller target than "granting open-source software an exempt from patents" - if only because it is simpler to understand by the law-makers. b. "fighting" along the proprietary software against this target has the huge advantage of a larger participation (and better - for the purpose - arms being used in the battle). Unfortunately, in this "fight", it is not the open-source community that sustain the most of this effort (and I say it is unfortunate because I see that in the world nowadays, money talk louder than rationality). > > Nobody would ever win a battle against X if all of the various interest > > groups who oppose X all decided to start their own little campaign to > > protect their interest group from X and did not care about any of the > other > > interest groups. United we stand, yada yada yada. > > Free software supporters can argue for both. I can't see why not. > Have a long and winding message and you have *lesser* chances to be heard or considered, no matter how coherent is your discourse (please recall the time we were working together: comprehensive and long presentations/argumentation is my "specialty", I'm speaking from direct experience). > > > > To show how silly and divisive that logic is, say that there is a web app > > community, and they get fed up with getting sued all the time for > violating > > every little one click or embeddable object patent. So they team up to > > fight software patents. And we, in the free software community, say "yes! > > We need to get rid of software patents!" But then, these web app authors > go > > to the government and say: > > > "We need to put an end to patent trolls suing us for web content. So we > > propose a law which says that patents cannot be used against web > > technologies. After all, the web is a source of rich innovation and it is > > being harmed by patents." > > That actually might fall under free software banner, since the code is > sent to > the client web browser in human-readable form (or easily made to do so > anyway). > > Anyway I see your point, but I disagree any example you could care to name > could truly be considered 'in the public interest' like free software > could. > Now, Adam, I do agree with you that: - would the software patents be gradually relaxed, the Open source community should the first to consider for exemption. What I'm with Matt is in *what/how* *you need to do *to* *make Open source community being exempted - the easiest way in my mind is to band together with the "closed source" part of the software world on this one. Adrian _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
