RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond wrote: [... questions ...] http://google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10.10109131121160.13573-10%40calcutta.flora.ca (Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform) [...] In order for us to move forward we need to reject the concept of ideas as property [...] You know, rather than asking questions you should have simply posted http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html and be done with it. I, for one, don't share your beliefs, obviously. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote: (Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform) My most recent submission to the Canadian government on copyright policy includes a reference to that document among others. No need to reference the Google version when the original is still proudly published by its author: http://www.flora.ca/copyright2003/ Hopefully people can read the full versions to get the context of your out-of-context quote. Many of the laws you appear to promote are in fact against private property(1) so quoting that I believe thinking of knowledge as property is unhealthy to the debate doesn't serve the purpose you intended. (1) Software patents and interface copyrights are used to revoke creators rights (copyright holder need not be aware of a patent in order to have information process patent infringement claims revoke their copyright - a real form of copyright theft) and traditional property rights (owners of ICT licensed to be under the control of some third party, part of the DMCA problem). I even include a Thomas Jefferson quote on my homepage and in that paper if you wanted to reference that as some sort of proof of my politics http://www.flora.ca/russell/ If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea... You know, rather than asking questions you should have simply posted http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html and be done with it. I, for one, don't share your beliefs, obviously. I just looked at the title as I had never seen this before: The dotCommunist Manifesto. I gather this is your way of ducking the questions. At least you didn't mention the name Hitler, but the technique is quite similar to try to dismiss someone by attributing qualities to them that aren't true (or aren't relevant to the conversation even if they were true). Just so you know, I support the views I have because I am a supporter of free market capitalism in a post-industrial economy. I find that all these 'ist and 'ism words never help a dialog. I don't go around saying that anyone who disagrees with me is this 'ist or that 'ist. I doubt you would like or agree with which 'ists your views that seem opposed to creators rights, private property, and free markets make you look like either *grins* The Open Source software movement exists across all parts of the left-vs-right political spectrum, and you simply cannot 'dismiss' it as being either Left-Wing or Right-Wing as it is neither and both. By the way: PCT/IPR is to creators' rights like water is to humans: too much and they drown, too little and they dehydrate. If you continue to try to over-simply things with more protection, more water and drown the software sector you may get what appears to be your wish and have IBM the only entity that survives. I will continue to do whatever I can to promote the Open Source movement (regardless of which name a particular group uses for it) to make lifeboats to protect people against that attack. --- 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
Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:30:14PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote: (1) Software patents and interface copyrights are used to revoke creators rights (copyright holder need not be aware of a patent in order to have information process patent infringement claims revoke their copyright - a real form of copyright theft) and traditional property rights (owners of ICT licensed to be under the control of some third party, part of the DMCA problem). I seriously doubt this is true. You may feel that the effect of the patent right revokes a copyright. But I doubt that is reflected in the law. Considering that a patent is for a significantly shorter term than a copyright you may just be temporarily impaired from making use of your work. If patents are good or not is really not clear to me. I think it really depends on the circumstance. But I don't think it's very useful to your argument to distort things. I particularly think your condescending tone is unsuited to this list and your argument. It is very likely influencing the responses you're getting. As more people have replied to you disagreeing with you you've gradually increased this tone. That's not to justify any of the responses you've gotten. Some of them are downright bad themselves. However, perhaps the more effective thing to do here is reach out to IBM and ask them why they're behaving this way. I don't think anyone on this list can really answer that question for you. Roblimo has offered to ask IBM himself. I think it's clear that some people in the Open Source community do not have the same feelings as you do about patents. Continuing this thread isn't likely to change that or get your question answered. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] Copyright law on the expression ... protects ... Right, *expression*. And that's why patents are your friends. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg5.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg7.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg8.html IANALBIPOOTN, sort of. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Sorry I am adding more non-licensing messages only the next day. I'm trying to keep my messages to a minimum. Will stop posting if an OSI person tells me that it really is too far off topic. In an email message I wrote to the patents are your friend comment: Patents may be IBM's and your friend, but they are the enemy of Open Source software and myself. Alexander Terekhov then said that I have yet to present evidence of my claim. To this I respond that Alexander has not provided any evidence to support his pro-patent position either. Alexander, I don't feel the need to defend my position as I am not posting it into a BSA or other software manufacturing lobbiest forum. I have no interest in trying to convince this other part of the software industry of things which I acknowledge they believe are harmful to their interests. You may find with the issue raised in a purely Open Source forum that you will have to defend your position in support of software patents, not me defending my position in opposition. Just to clarify, I am not sure I understand what you disagree with. Can you clarify your beliefs on the following. a) That in order to make a software patent compatible with Open Source requirements you need to render it harmless with a RF patent license with no field-of-use restrictions. b) That software patents can be rendered harmless by the Open Source movement, but that beyond ways to achieve this activity there is no other benefit software patents can provide to the movement. c) Software patents are claimed to be of benefit to software manufacturing creators, but that this is a highly controversial belief even with other software manufacturing creators. I happen to disagree with the position that software patents benefit the software manufacturing sector (Don't think royalty on existing patent, think land-mine against creating new software), but you don't need to agree with this to acknowledge that the issue is highly controversial. Note: The League for Programming Freedom is not made up only of Open Source creators, and includes many software manufacturing creators as well. http://progfree.org/ http://swpat.ffii.org/ d) That the Open Source movement would be better off if the legal minefield of software patents was not a threat that Software manufacturing vendors could launch against their chosen way of creating/distributing software. Two public policy (rather than patent pools which I don't believe can work) solution paths are suggested: statutory limits against patents on software, or fair use exemptions for Open Source software. e) That patent quality is a serious problem with software patents, and that existing tests for useful, novel, unobvious are not rigorous enough? Lets skip the statutory test for now given IBM's opposition to this test. f) That with the nature of software, especially with the volume created through peer production methodologies, that patent quality is a practically (costs vs benefits) unsolvable problem. That is my belief, but you don't have to agree with me to acknowledge that patent quality is a serious problem. g) That if patent quality cannot be raised such that there is general agreement within the sector that a vast majority (90%?) are valid, that it is better to provide not enough protection to valid patents than to provide too much protection to invalid patents. When answering these questions please don't just think of what IBM or its employees would privately benefit from, but from what the larger software sector(s) and economy outside of IBM would benefit from. --- 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
Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing the rhetoric of technology neutrality that is the most common political phrase used against Open Source software. The problem is, software is not a 'technology' any more than laws, acts of parliament or Roberts Rules are a 'technology'. You're free to believe in whatever you want... just try to keep in mind the following: http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/softpat/1420.htm [...] a computer program may or may not have a technical character. What is decisive is whether the program in question makes a technical contribution to the state of the art because it is this which lends a technical character to it. This is an important distinction. And, perhaps, also this: http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf (see 3.4 Patents Are Your Friends) regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing the rhetoric of technology neutrality that is the most common political phrase used against Open Source software. The problem is, software is not a 'technology' any more than laws, acts of parliament or Roberts Rules are a 'technology'. You're free to believe in whatever you want... The belief systems of well financed interests such as IBM and (more recently) Microsoft are being imposed on all of us through the creation of new government protected exclusive rights. Whatever my beliefs are, I can still be sued for infringing an illegitimate information process patent, and these illegitimate exclusive rights are still putting a chill on innovation -- sometimes in countries where such exclusive rights do not even exist. I cannot afford to be sued by IBM, whether IBMs claim of exclusivity is legitimate or not. Your right to swing your cane ends at my nose applies also to your belief that information processes like software should be patentable being imposed on me as an Open Source participant. just try to keep in mind the following: I am well aware and mindful of the opposition to Free/Libre and Open Source Software. Raising awareness of this opposition is in fact what I am trying to do with this thread in this forum. The discussion around their being a technical contribution in pure software is simply a way to create a back-door to applying patent laws outside of a industrial/manufacturing context. The existence of software should neither subtract from or add to the patentability of an industrial/manufacturing process, and software can not 'in and of itself' offer a technical contribution. Free Software existed before software patents. IBM has been a strong force internationally promoting the creation of this new form of statutory exclusive right (software patents) as a form of opposition to Free Software (commons-based peer produced software, Open Source, whatever term you want to use). IBM has recently been trying to bring public attention to the fact that they are participating in specific Open Source projects and receiving considerable economic benefit from Open Source. My question still remains: Why is IBM in a very public way advertising the benefits of Open Source and Linux, while at the same time lobbying against Open Source in less visible (and less understood) public policy circles? We could go around and around in circles talking about technical contributions and technology neutrality, but my question will still remain. --- 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
Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond scripsit: My question still remains: Why is IBM in a very public way advertising the benefits of Open Source and Linux, while at the same time lobbying against Open Source in less visible (and less understood) public policy circles? That's not a question, it's an argument. Try next door. Insofar as it really is a question, the answer is the same as for all Why do they? questions: money. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Original line from _The Warrior's Apprentice_ by Lois McMaster Bujold: Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one. English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: Only on Barrayar you risk to lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Ken Brown wrote: I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect? I'm meeting some IBM people at LinuxWorld next week. I'll ask them. :) - Robin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
(Will try to make this quick -- I don't want to dominate this thread, and won't post any more today in the hopes that others have interest as well) On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote: I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect? I don't want to sound like Richard Stallman here, but if you mean Intellectual Property and not Internet Protocol with your shortform 'IP', you are using confusing terminology. Copyright law on the expression of software (not interfaces) protects both Open Source and non-Open Source software. In fact, both can and do co-exist and most companies have both royalty-based and commons-based peer produced software. Patent law on industrial/manufacturing processes involving the manipulation of nature protects computer hardware inventors. There is a separation between production processes and the product itself avoiding this area of law regulating the activities of private citizens, and RAND licensing between manufacturers opens up this type of innovation. Software patents are one form of information process patent that are very different. Analysis of information processes trivially show that they are different than manufacturing processes, and to extend patent law created for very different subject matter into this area is inappropriate. Software patents are also incompatible with Open Source software. The only thing that the Open Source movement can do is to disarm a software patent through a license -- it can never benefit from software patents. Information process patents are like nuclear weapons in that everyone claims that they need them for defensive purposes. A treaty between the USA and Canada saying that they will not nuke each other does not protect Canada from nuclear attack from different country or a terrorist any more than IBMs Open Source patent licenses will protect Open Source developers from third-party patent claims. What we need is not treaties that say that we won't nuke each other, but non-proliferation and disarmament treaties to rid the world of software patents. In my opinion, I do not believe that they IBM's model has a long-term future. IP inextricably competes with the existence of GPL open source and open source in general. I believe that whether software should be Open Source or not should be the choice of the creator of that software. Copyright offers that choice -- software patents do not. Whether non-Open Source software has a future is something that free markets should decide, not something that is imposed on us by governments listening to special interests like IBM. --- 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
RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote: I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect? Of course they can. In my opinion, I do not believe that they IBM's model has a long-term future. IP inextricably competes with the existence of GPL open source and open source in general. You're drinking SCO's Kool-Aid. Brian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
