Re: [free-software-melb] [Australia-public-discuss] Video/audio from patents talk and committee hearing
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. In that case, it isn't a question of whether free software companies are proponents of patents. It's a question of whether non-free software companies (who are proponents of patents) want to use them against free software companies, and the answer to that is yes. 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. (We absolutely want to protect those businesses in this community -- it is as much about them as the individuals.) Look at Microsoft's suits against TomTom for using Linux in their GPS devices. Look at Apple's suits against Android manufacturers. Look at Oracle's suit against Google over Java in Android. Then there's the non-litigous FUD claims, such as the claims Microsoft spread near the end of the decade about Linux violating Windows patents -- that is an attempt to get businesses scared of free software. 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. So the way I see it, the big opposition is going to have a much harder time arguing for free software patents - frequently written by individuals - not businesses, who often have no funds to defend themselves, and are generally unable to make use of the patent system anyway! 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'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. ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
Re: [free-software-melb] [Australia-public-discuss] Video/audio from patents talk and committee hearing
Ah, I see. But then I don't really agree with the logic. I agree that there aren't really any free software companies that support software patents. But they aren't the ones who will be opposing this -- it will be the proprietary software companies who don't want free software companies to have an edge on them. Understood. However then the policy makers would need to make a concious decision - do I hurt small businesses and take away the rights of individuals working in the public interest to aide big business? If the government has any morals, they won't. It should be an easy win. But you're right - we absolutely cannot count on it. :) I still think it's an easier argument. If this is that difficult, abolishing software patents entirely would seem almost impossible. Yet we have hope for that (as we should). The argument could be made (and I don't, of course, agree with it, just playing Devil's Advocate): Patent law is to encourage innovation. Innovation costs money. Right there. We can clearly prove that innovation does not cost money, with countless examples. How much money did Vim cost to make? This also implies that patents can only hurt free software, since it is frequently at a clear disadvantage. Perhaps it is corporations with their patents that are holding back innovation - the ability to improve upon an idea or to interoperate with software to perform an innovative function. I absolutely believe is often the case. We invest money in research under the condition that we can make money from our invention, without competition, for 20 years. Haha. Yeah. Don't make me cry. :) 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? Then, add in the argument that free software is not just hobbyists, but also includes commercial competitors (like Android). You basically have the full strength argument for why the patent system is needed in the first place. How much money does Google make from Android? Actually, I read that Microsoft makes the most money from it. From patents. :) Sorry. Not buying your argument. I am sure they will not see any distinction between commercial entities using free software licenses and commercial entities producing proprietary software. One important different (not necessarily for us, but for policy makers) is that the software typically isn't being 'sold' if it's free software. It's only serving to help sell something else, if it's selling anything at all. It's in the public interest as it provides essential freedoms for all, whereas proprietary software only benefits one company (or occasionally one person) financially. Those are some pretty big distinctions IMO. 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. :) 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. 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. 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. :) That's the closest analogy I can
Re: [free-software-melb] [Australia-public-discuss] Video/audio from patents talk and committee hearing
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Adam Bolte abo...@systemsaviour.comwrote: 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 economyhttp://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
Re: [free-software-melb] [Australia-public-discuss] Video/audio from patents talk and committee hearing
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Matt Giuca matt.gi...@gmail.com wrote: Also, would this law be applied to free-as-in-speech software, or free-as-in-beer software, or both? If I write a proprietary program but give it away for free (freeware), am I exempt? If I write a GPL program but sell it, am I exempt? It seems a tad unfair to say that commercial open source software is exempt from patent lawsuits, as it would mean that a company could gain exemption merely by providing the source code to their software. That would further our interests, but I'm not sure it would really be in the interest of the industry. Let me see ... hmm, yes. Also, important would be: *how* FOSS is exempted by the patent laws! Along with the monopoly, the patent law creates a protection: cannot patent something for which prior art exists. In the assumption that the patent law does not apply to FOSS, will FOSS still benefit by the same protection? (i.e. suppose Jose Garciahttp://www.bbspot.com/news/2003/12/valve_unified_theory.html implements the Unified Theory in an Open Source physics game engine. Would Valve be able to patent it?) What the software patent supporters would do to a politician arguing the exemption of FOSS from the monopoly applicability of the patent law but still keeping the benefit from the protection of the prior art provisions of the law? Adrian ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
Re: [free-software-melb] [Australia-public-discuss] Video/audio from patents talk and committee hearing
Three things about a free software exception: 1. It would pretty much mean recognising software as being patentable. (This might be the biggest problem.) 2. It would require putting a definition of free software in a law. (If this gets messy or botched, point #1 will hit us in the face.) 3. Australia has to comply with TRIPS: I think the two relevant parts of TRIPS are article 27: ...patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to [...] the field of technology... And article 30: Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm#5 So, would an if you respect people's freedom exception be allowed? The only attempt I know of at using this rule is the curing epidemic exception that some African countries with AIDS epidemics and no money thought of implementing. They were told 'No'. (A new worldwide treaty had to be negotiated.) -- +32 485 118 029 (-NEW), http://ciaran.compsoc.com Please help build the software patents wiki: http://en.swpat.org http://www.EndSoftwarePatents.org Donate: http://endsoftwarepatents.org/donate List: http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
Re: [free-software-melb] [Australia-public-discuss] Video/audio from patents talk and committee hearing
I thought that there was a really great idea from a commenter at the end of your talk whereby free software would be considered by law 'in the public interest' and becomes except from applying to patent lawsuits at all. Not only would this meet our goals of being able to write and use free software without consequence, but it would also encourage businesses to publish free software to protect their efforts. I like it. I share Ciarán's objections to this idea, but I thought I'd add some points of my own. Not wanting to open the GPL vs BSD debate -- I find the GPL more to my liking, but I still think it's important that people be able to license things as they wish, and this idea would seem incompatible with the ideals of the BSD license. Saying free software is exempt from patents would mean that any BSD-licensed software that infringes on others patents would not be a fully open product. You could use it in other free software projects, but you would be unable to use it in a proprietary product without patent issues. So effectively, it would transform the BSD into the GPL. Also, would this law be applied to free-as-in-speech software, or free-as-in-beer software, or both? If I write a proprietary program but give it away for free (freeware), am I exempt? If I write a GPL program but sell it, am I exempt? It seems a tad unfair to say that commercial open source software is exempt from patent lawsuits, as it would mean that a company could gain exemption merely by providing the source code to their software. That would further our interests, but I'm not sure it would really be in the interest of the industry. While I like free software, I respect the right for people and companies to keep secrets, if they wish. I prefer to let the market decide: if you want to lock up your software, then I won't buy it, but that doesn't mean I should be able to stop you from doing so. I find it troubling when people suggest special rules for free software. For example, at a recent talk, someone asked Richard Stallman: if you want shorter (5 year) copyright terms, wouldn't that mean that all GPL'd software would go into the public domain after 5 years and it could then legally be used in proprietary software. And his answer was that there would have to be a special exception for free software so that the copyright term lasted longer. Sorry, Richard. I like the GPL and what you've done, but it seems hypocritical to ask for everybody else's copyright to expire but let us keep ours because it suits our interests. Patents are a plague on the entire software industry. They are bad for free software. They are bad for proprietary software. Patent reform therefore needs to be industry-wide. We can't make this a free vs proprietary issue, because it's bigger than that. It's bigger than the issue of whether source code is available and whether you are free to modify it -- this is a fundamental issue of being allowed to write any software you can imagine, and I want the right to be able to do that whether I am releasing my source code or not. Matt ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
Re: [free-software-melb] [Australia-public-discuss] Video/audio from patents talk and committee hearing
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012, Matt Giuca matt.gi...@gmail.com wrote: While I like free software, I respect the right for people and companies to keep secrets, if they wish. I prefer to let the market decide: if you want to lock up your software, then I won't buy it, but that doesn't mean I should be able to stop you from doing so. I believe that software which is used by the government, which the government compells citizens to use (EG for communicating with government agencies), or which is needed to interpret data published by the government (IE for reading anything from abs.gov.au) should at the minimum have the source available via escrow. If in 30 years time someone wants to view old government data that is published in MS-Excel format (as happens a lot on abs.gov.au) then we shouldn't be denied access if MS stop selling the software. If MS won't put their source in escrow then MS software should be prohibited for such use. MS can keep their secrets, but a ban on all government purchases should be the result if they choose to do so. The same applies for all data which has government legislation that demands it be kept. This includes financial reports and all manner of medical data. It is simply unacceptable that if a medicine on sale now turns out to give an increased risk of cancer in 20 years time it might be impossible to access all the data related to the production of the medicine and the people it was prescribed to because MS decided to change file formats (*). It is also unacceptable that a company like James Hardy might choose an almost obsolete version of MS-Office to store financial data in order to make it more difficult for lawyers representing people with lung cancer to present a good legal case. (*) I have some knowledge of how things work in a medical company and I believe that this sort of thing will be a real problem. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/ ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
