European MP Responds on Software Patents

Wolfbone writes "The Guardian newspaper has a contributed article from the European politician Arlene McCarthy in which she responds to a previous article in the same organ by RMS and Nick Hill on the issue of software patents. If the appalling mixture of misrepresentation, non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete does not make your blood boil, you are a cold fish indeed."

Comments

GNU a monoply?

[brettlbecker]

We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users.

Interesting... this seems to be saying that, through the use of the GPL, the FSF is, perhaps unwittingly, attempting to create a monopoly. I'm not sure her statement holds water... how does the GPL stifle competition and innovation? I mean, releasing software under the GPL is the choice of the developer... and as for "imposing" the license on users, aren't *all* licenses imposed on users? Isn't that really part of the definition of a license? It's still the user's choice whether or not to *use* the software. Simply because they can't take GPL'd software and package it without the source and sell it doesn't mean that the software is part of a monopoly... geez! The GPL certainly is another form of *contract*... but monopoly? Give me a break.

B

Re:GNU a monoply?

[JaredOfEuropa]

"We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users."

Heh, my guess is that Stallman pissed her off. He seems to do that to people a lot... She's confused about the difference between patents and copyright though.

The GPL forbids me to take an interesting bit of software with a GPL licence attached, and use its code in my own closed source program. However I am free to duplicate the programs functionality by re-writing it, using the GPL'ed software as an example. That means I can freely use other people's ideas, but I cannot freely use their work.
However, software patents actually cover algorithms and/or business methods. I am not allowed to freely use a patented bit of software in my own product, but I am also not allowed to duplicate the functionality. That means I cannot write my own 'one click shopping' routine.

Anyone who wants to can get out from under the GPL licence... if they are willing to do the work. Not so with patents.

Re:GNU a monoply?

[rnapier]

What else is a monopoly but the exclusive control over the rights to something? You have copyright on the things you write. That gives you monopoly control over them. That's what copyright means (monopoly control over copying). It doesn't mean "stifle competition and innovation." That comes later.

The point you are trying to make I believe is that the GPL does not create an abusive monopoly, or perhaps that it does not create an undesireable monopoly (depending on who desires what), but it absolutely creates restrictions on what can be done with software under it. And that isn't freedom (but then I never said total freedom was good).

In response to "aren't *all* licenses imposed on users," the answer is yes. So to have total freedom, you have to have no license. We have a name for that: the public domain. That is total freedom.

As far as "It's still the user's choice whether or not to *use* the software," this is true of Windows as well. Does this mean that Microsoft does not have a monopoly? Would things change if some core piece of technology that everyone used were under the GPL? Given that we're headed that direction, it's a valid thing to consider. The "if you don't like it, you don't have to use my stuff" has always been the argument of monopolists (and they've always been right in their way).

Re:Oh, please...

[oogoliegoogolie]

Everybody knows European MPs (Member of Parliament) are next to useless anyway.

Unlike Canadian MP's, Australilan MP's, and members of the US Congress, which always represent the people that elected them and never ignore the little guy in favor of big business, lobbyists, and their own political interests.

Parliament

[nepheles]

This article is, generally, totally irrelevant. The European Parliament holds virtually no power, and is, generally, merely a talking-shop. The Council of Ministers, and, to a larger extent, the Commission hold all power. There are attampts to change this with the work-in-progress that is the Constitution.

This lack of power of the Parliament leads many single-issue candidates, washed-up politicians, and other power-hungry novices to run for election to European office in the Parliament. Very few serious politicians will be found there, bar those who lead the political factions present. As such, we can safely ignore the warblings of this MEP.

If only we could find a similarly talkative Commissioner. It's what the EU needs

She doesn't get it

[Halo1]

If we fail to offer European industry the possibility of patent protection, we will hand over our inventiveness and creativity to big business, who can cherrypick ideas and patent them.

So what she's saying is "If we don't allow (software) patents in Europe, big businesses will patent every thing". Hello, this is you wake-up call: if there are no software patents, big businesses can't get them either!

It's exactly the reverse: if there are no software patents in Europe, then European businesses (and inventors and every one else) can still get software patents abroad (e.g. in the US), while foreign businesses can not enforce their software patents here in Europe. So if there are no software patents in Europe, the Europeans actually have an advantage over foreign (big, small and everything in between) companies.