Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"False" Open source Representative Tells EU Patents OK

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-thats-a-long-subject-line dept.

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.

3 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. Software Patents by stanmann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  2. Is there a summary of arguments by Albanach · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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?

    1. Re:Is there a summary of arguments by Tim+Colgate · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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