(Copying Eric Raymond in case he would find this thread interesting -- not sure if he is a member of the license-discuss list)
While the discussions of copyright and patent law and licensing might be seen as on-topic, I suspect we are really sliding off-topic for this list with this message. It does go to the whole justification of patent policy in information processes, and how this area of policy is being abused. I just wish the OpenSource.org site had more appropriate lists to be discussing this. On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote: > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1462778,00.asp > > Russell, > > Have you read this article? What are your thoughts? I read it and many other references posted to other forums. To me it it is standard IBM FUD suggesting that creating a monopoly on a business model will somehow make more money in a given market sector. The reality is that there is more money to be made in a free market where any entrepreneur can set up their own business. As a proponent of free market economics ("free as in free market, not as in free beer") I strongly oppose business model and other "information process" monopolies. Having a business model monopoly does mean that the employees of the monopoly may appear to make more money given they don't have free market competition, but it is harmful to the economy as a whole. Great if you want to work for IBM, but I am an entrepreneur who wants to work for myself. I see this as yet another attempt by IBM to try to claim ownership over something in order to slow down a transition in the economy which IBM otherwise cannot control. This transition would force them to compete in a free market, including compete for highly competent employees who have far more options in a free market. I wish Eric Raymond would get as upset about this as he does the Microsoft Memos and write a new Halloween document about it. I agree that "It Ain't Necessarily SCO", but think that we should stop staring at Microsoft to the point of not noticing what IBM is doing. Note: If all IBM wanted to do is prevent Microsoft from getting a patent on this method they could simply very publicly publish prior art. The suggestion some have made that IBM did this to protect the movement from Microsoft is rather amusing. If it were not for IBM lobbying for the creation of information process patents we would not likely have patents in this subject matter to need protection from in the first place. IBM was already pushing for information process patents back in the days when Microsoft was still on our side opposing software patents. http://swpat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/ --- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than politicians should be bought. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3