On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Ben Reser wrote: > I don't see how you can claim this is an infinity-minus-one vs infinity > argument. ... > If the length of a patent hurts software innovation was not the point. > Nor did I make any commentary on that. I simply pointed out an > inaccuracy in your statement. ...
Just to clarify, I am not disagreeing with your interpretation of the law and it is how I interpret the law as well. What I was trying to say is exactly what you do not want to comment on which is that when talking about *software* creations and speed of *software* innovation that talking about 14-20 years vs 50-120 years (depending on country, when the creator died, etc) becomes a *practical* argument of infinity vs infinity-plus-one. Me authoring FLOSS software which I am not allowed to distribute until the end of the term of a patent I was unaware of when I created the software (and I have no way to innovate around) has the *effect* of not allowing me to exercise rights I would normally have in copyright such as the right to distribute my own software. It is true that I still hold copyright and will be able to exercise those rights at the end of the term of the patent, but with the speed of innovation in software this really doesn't offer me much. Having multiple rights to exclude being in parallel means that you can only distribute the work if you have somehow cleared all the exclusions. The suggestion that you can simply pay some royalty (assuming RAND of course - I shouldn't need a lawyer to author software..) ignores a lot of situations and business models that do not rely on monopoly-rent-seeking, or otherwise have no way to collect this rent. With FLOSS it doesn't matter if the royalty is a million dollars per copy or a millionth of a cent per copy, you do not have the right/ability to count copies under FLOSS license agreements so you cannot successfully negotiate a rent-seeking license agreement. The only way the copyright holder is able to distribute their software as FLOSS is if the patent holder offers a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, field-of-use-unrestricted patent license. If the motivation for applying for the patent was to collect monopoly-rents then why would they offer that RF license? If the motivation for applying for the patent was to exclude competitors and simply have a monopoly, then why would they offer that RF license? If the motivation for the patent was to ensure that only a small number of large companies could exist and "compete" in a given market, then why would they offer that RF license? Why should my right to receive the moral and material benefits from my own software under copyright be dependent on the benevolence of a patent holder who I received nothing from? If I actually read their patent and learned something then maybe there can claim to be an exchange, but I see little evidence that people in the software industry learn from patents. In fact most software creators I know avoid looking at patents for fear of being tainted by them. > Thereby implying that he hadn't done that already. I'd argue that his > previous informative links and commentary showed in my mind that he was > trying to do that. Did you read all the links and commentary? I did, and I disagree that he was demonstrating thinking outside of the IBM box. I understand why unlimited patentability is good for very large companies like IBM and can't argue against. I do not believe that what is good for IBM is good for the software sector of the economy as a whole. I did not see explanations of how unlimited patentability would be good for SMBs or other sectors (such as the volunteer sector, private citizens innovating in their home, etc) for which information process patents are only a liability and a chill on their creativity. > Certainly if I were him I would have been offended that because you > didn't share my opinion that you decided to call my opinion self > centered after the effort he went into explaining his position. I don't believe he explained his position. When asking direct questions they were avoided. I put a list of many of my questions in a single message just in case they were missed and did not receive replies. My hope was to bring the conversation to the point where the reasons for each side were clear, possibly even to the point some "trusted third party" could tabulate the pros-and-cons of information process patents. This would allow people to look at the core areas of disagreement and decide for themselves where their priorities were and what the balance of public policy goals should be. I am being honest when I say I am baffled by the views of those who support information process patents. I am not trying to be insulting when I try to get answers, but the other side suggesting that I am somehow 'stupid' for not understanding their logic, or that I am being dishonest, or that I am a communist or some other 'ist, doesn't help the conversation at all. --- 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
