"False" Open source Representative Tells EU Patents OK

Onno writes "Bruce Perens claims in this article That a false free software/open source advocate claims to EU parlement that software Patents are ok. " This is a strange article on a lot of levels so I'm gonna avoid commentary. You definitely should read it though- it's just that odd.

Comments

Ok....

[shish]

So we know we hate this guy and he'd never be our official representative, but who *is*? Everyone's views are different, but who is the most agreed with overall? poll?

RMS
Linus

Anyone else?

Re:Ok....

[Angry White Guy]

That is the problem with Open Source Software. There's no command structure, no CEO, no shareholders, nobody to 'officially' speak for us.

So the message can get muddled.

Re:Ok....

[Angry White Guy]

I seem to have misconstrued myself a bit in my post.
I am not advocating any one official channel for the open source community. I am stating that any time you have a disorganized (for lack of a better term) command structure, you are going to have incidents like this. We, as the open source community can understand these outbursts. We are all trying to make a better product, a better community, a better life. Sometimes one of us will get out of line. Hell, I've shot off my mouth so many times I'm suprised that nobody has shivved me yet. This is tolerable within the community. It is when it leaks out into the corporate world that it becomes a problem. Because we have no real structure to to follow, it is easy for someone to be labelled the spokesperson for us all, and the corporate world will take notice. Open Source is a faceless beast, and when one person steps up to be counted, he can become labelled as the leader.

I do not want a CEO of OSS. I think that everything has been kept in balance within the community. The righeous indignation has been kept in check by the level-headed opposition, and we have essentially elected our own board in the recognizable names which essentially head development, awareness and policing of our community. We just have to be careful because 'they' do not understand 'us'. They want a similar command structure to what they have. They want names, leaders, faces to bargain and deal with.

And for the record, Alan Cox has consistantly acted in my best interests, with what I believe is reason and good judgement. He has acted in the manner that I believe I should. Even though he has his flaws, they are far outstripped by his actions. That is the mark of a good leader. That is why I mentioned him (That and he does have a kick-ass beard) Should it come down to a fight, I know where my allegiances lie.

Software Patents

[stanmann]

I understand that abusive software patents like One click shopping or adding 1+1=10, But for non-trivial items ... gif ie LZW compression algorithm, 7-14 years of protection is reasonable. So while Bruce Perens opposes patents on principle, obviously there is a sector of the open source movement that does not. Fortunately... or not... if you ask 4 open source advocates or community members what open source stands for you will get at least 6 answers. That is the strength of open source and free software.

Re:Software Patents

[dirk]

While it is true that technical innovation are built on top of other ideas, the driving force behind many technical innovations (as well as most other things on earth) is money. Having a limited monopoly on a creation encourages people and organization to invest more into R&D, because they realise they will have the opportunity to make back that money. There would be nothing stopping people from releasing their discoveries and patents to be used freely if they so which. There would be nothing stopping OSS from using patents that are either free, or paying to use other peoples discoveries. But it would also encourage more research, as a company would know it has 5 years (or however long it would be) to make their money back. Very few people/organizations can sink millions of dollars into research the "next big thing" with the expectation they will receive nothing in return.

Software patents should be run similar to drug patents. I short, set amount of time that the inventor controls the product, then it is fair game for anyone to copy.

Is there a summary of arguments

[Albanach]

Most of us know software patents are bad. Most of us object to them. However, has anyone compiled a list of reasons in nice, plain english (or other european langauge) that we can use to summarise the arguments to our MEPs.

These are busy people. They don't have the time or will to learn what it's all about - they need a summary that says what would happen, what's at stake and what their individual countries could lose out from if these patents are implimented. Has anyone worked on this?

Re:Is there a summary of arguments

[Tim Colgate]

The UK currently doesn't allow general software patents, but they did have a discussion on this a couple of years ago - you can read their comments here: here

A particularly interesting comment they made (with respect to business method patents, but equally applicable to software) was:

The Government's conclusion is that those who favour some form of patentability for business methods have not provided the necessary evidence that it would be likely to increase innovation.

This states that there has to be a clear benefit in order to change the status quo; businesses should have to show that without software patents they are unable to innovate. This is clearly not the case.

You can read an interesting summary of user comments here

discuss amongst yourselves

[Joe the Lesser]

So the premise is that someone came to speak about open source to the EU Parliament, but the are not a respected member of the open source community, as evident by their lack of support for it.

The real question is, who got this guy to speak? He was likely chosen for his viewpoints, regardless of how they represent the whole of the open source community.

I don't recall electing Bruce, either...

[Patman]

I find it funny that Bruce claims that this guy is a 'fake'. I don't recall electing Bruce to any position representing me as a free software user.

Graham's position may not be what I have chosen. It may not be what Bruce chooses, or what CmdrTaco
chooses. But it sure as hell doesn't make him a 'fake' anything. Bruce speaks of the "Linux, Open Source and Free Software movements" as if we are one big group of people who all feel precisely the same way about everything - namely, the way he does. I'm sorry someone disagrees with you, Bruce, but it's a big world out there, and that's gonna happen.

Re:Business decision

[Skjellifetti]

All of this is great advice. But it gets even better. I spent a summer working for as an intern on Capital Hill. One thing I learned is that, for an issue where the average voter doesn't really care or pay attention and which is likely to be under the radar of the average Congressman (i.e. software patents), two or three hand crafted letters can make a huge difference. It doesn't take two or three hundred letters to make a Congressman pay attention to your concern. A few individuals can have a disproportionate impact in this situation.

Of course, the key phrase here is "under the radar." Don't expect to have the same influence if you are writing about abortion, gun control, or tax cuts. But I do encourage you to write on the larger issues. You will still an impact, but the impact approaches zero as the number of people who care approaches infinity.

Software Patents = Patents on Math/Logic

[slipstick]

I have no formal training in CS but I've been coding for years and read extensively. My understanding is that an algorithm can be reduced to a mathematical construct(addition, subtraction, equality etc.). As such it behooves the proponents of software patents to show that all math is patentable. Last time I looked this still wasn't the case.

This ranks right up there with patenting genes.

They are discoveries not inventions. Imagine the chaos if we had allowed patents on the structure of the atom. "Look I've discovered the structure of gold. Anyone wanting to use gold must pay me in, umm, well platinum! Yeah that's it!"

Now the expression of that algorithm in software may be copyrightable(a different debate) or the wiring of it in hardware may be patentable.

I think that at the very least all software patents must express themselves in the underlying mathematics of how they operate. As such it would be obvious to any second grader that it's not a patentable object. If someone can come up with a way not to use this inherent attribute in an algorithm, well than that would be patentable.

Similarly the method/machine used in the discovery of the structure of a gene or substance would be patentable. That is the purpose behind patents and not simply patenting something just because you got there first.

"Look that big bright orange object in the sky I will call the sun. I patent the sun. Everyone wanting to use the sun must pay me in gold!"