rjack wrote: [...] > The Review article Here's more:
http://digitalbusinessstrategy.com/?p=74 ----- OSBC: Initial Thoughts Eben Moglen and Patents 25th May 2007 During his OSBC keynote, Eben Moglen said that Science must be free. Knowledge must be free. Let freedom ring. This parallels the argument hes made in the past that patent software is akin to patenting math. This is compelling rhetoric, and demonstrates Moglens abilities as a lawyer. But rhetoric is a double-edged sword, in that it can be put in the service of logic and truth JFK or Martin Luther King come to mind or in opposition to logic and truth. I believe Moglens rhetoric falls in the latter category. There are two main flaws in Moglens arguments. First, he confuses knowledge with invention. My undergrad degree is in Physics, so I know first-hand the huge difference between Physics and Engineering. Our purposes were different, our training was different, our culture was different than the Engineering students down the hill at UCLA. The goal of the physicist is to further knowledge without any thought to its immediate usefulness. Its rare that any new discovery in Physics has any commercial application within the twenty-year period of patent protection. Engineerings goal, on the other hand, is to make things that solve an immediate problem, often a commercial one. They couldnt be more different. The same difference is found between theoretical and applied mathematics. When Calculus was invented by Isaac Newton, it had no commercial application. On the other hand, figuring out how to perform real-time Fourier transforms to compute 3D distance readings from sound echoes hardly advanced the state of mathematical knowledge, but it did make sonar possible. Invention, and knowledge, two entirely different things that Moglen lumps together. Knowledge is free, always has been, and that didnt change with software patents. Invention, a commercial activity, has historically been protected for a short period of time. I dont know if Moglen deliberately confuses these two categories, or just doesnt understand the difference, but either way, its a shame. As a result of his confusion of knowledge and invention, Moglen implies that true invention must be instantiated in a physical invention, since any innovation instantiated digitally, according to Moglen, is not invention but knowledge. He is selling software short. Is invention any less deserving of protection because it results in software rather than a physical contraption? Software engineers should take offense at that implication. They are no less inventors, or innovators, than someone building a new hybrid engine or a nano drug delivery device. His artificial conflation of invention and knowledge leads to a necessary short-changing of digital invention. [... the part I don't quite agree snipped ...] ----- regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
