Slashdot Mirror
WIPO Pressured to Kill Meeting on Open Source
panthan writes "The Washington Post has has an article about a proposed meeting of the WIPO concerning open source having been removed from consideration, apparently due to pressure from the US State Department and the USPTO. 'In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth.'" Lawrence Lessig has some comments.
Be interesting if the Government players most opposed to Open Source are those gaining political power by others NOT using it, when they themselves are.
Or have I watched too many X-Files?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If Microsoft is so concerned that Open Source is infringing on intellectual property then they should voice their concerns in front of an audience that is sympathetic to them.
Lessig states that: "First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights."
While this is true, we can observe WIPO's actual goals by their ACTIONS. WIPO's ACTIONS show that WIPO intends to protect and expand Intellectual Property rights when they result in profits for WIPO's member states and their corporations.
Conversly, WIPO can be counted on to act against Intellectual Property rights that do not result in profits for WIPO's member state corporations.
On a seperate note, is it reasonable to increase the cost of BSA's lobbyists by causing them to recieve more snail mail? Would anyone like Emery Simon to be treated like a spam king, and for Emery Simon to recieve a spam king's snail mail load? I don't suppose anyone has access to Emery's personal information? Or is this an overused solution already?
-EtA
Regardless of what WIPE-ASS has a meeting on, or doesn't have a meeting on, there will still exist software that is given out or sold with loose restrictions. To assume anything else simply defies logic....
We may experience some bumps along the way, but our government can't ignore the millions of people who depend on Free software to earn their pay, run their businesses, and educate their minds. I doubt that in the long run, the legal system will continue to favor restrictive licenses heavily over non-restrictive ones.
You can run, Microsoft/Adobe/BSA/etc, but you can't hide! Of course you are also welcomed to join us!
Yes, I am optimistic...
> One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth.
Given that the US Constitution justifies IP on the basis of promoting progress, we can't be asking the question of whether our laws actually do that, now can we?
IP law has become nothing more than an authorization for a gold rush, as everyone hurries to stake their claims until there's nothing left that you can do for free.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Does this mean that IBM could lobby to have Microsoft not considered? That Sun could lobby to get Apple banned from other meetings because they have a different set of Intellectual Property protection than what Buymusic.com has? (All right, bad example, but....)
It seems that the only way that some businesses (read: Microsoft) are able to keep up the pressure against Linux is by trying to do it with laws. Why don't we have an Open Source DVD player for Linux? Oh - well, the MPAA helped get a law passed that makes it basically illegal to create. Sorry about that, but that's just how it works.
Yes, I'm a little irritated, and if I discover that my local senator/congressman was involved in this in any way, they can expect a nastygram listed as "voting for the other guy come election day".
I find it interesting how the major players (aka "Microsoft") are trying to keep out their real competition. What if Open Source was part of the Intellectual Property decisions? Wouldn't that be a good thing for everybody if every OS supported Intellectual Property in a truly fair and just matter? Well, good for everyone except Microsoft - can't have a level playing field if we can keep the competition out, right?
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Here's the email I just sent to my two senators: Dear Senator --, I just read in the Washington Post that the World Intellectual Property Organization had initiated plans for a meeting about the role of open source software. According to the article, a reference to the meeting in Nature magazine triggered a flurry of lobbying from organizations like the Business Software Alliance. (The BSA, in case you didn't know, is essentially just a division of Microsoft.) Even the U.S. Patent Office chimed in, portraying open source as somehow opposed to the ideas of intellectual property. The full Washington Post article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A234 22-2003Aug20.html
Just so you don't think open source is some kind of "hippy thing", I work for the largest private equity firm in the world that is focused exclusively on information technology (here in Greenwich, CT) and I spend my days looking for good technology investments. It's clear to me that far from a fringe movement that opposes business, open source is a model for collaborative software development that makes possible a whole range of business models and innovations. Companies like IBM and Apple have wholeheartedly embraced open source. The only companies opposed to open source are those that currently enjoy relative monopolies in their areas. I.e., Microsoft. By putting actual competitive pressure on Microsoft, the open source has forced changes on Microsoft that the U.S. Government (or at least the last administration) were unable to accomplish.
It distresses me that Microsoft's lobbying power has this much sway over our government, particularly since the open source movement is by it's nature decentralized and therefore has no cash reserves to fight back.
By the way, if you don't know much about the BSA and open source, here is an article that describes the BSA's strong arm tactics used in bullying small businesses:
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag=l h
I hope you will take this issue seriously and, if you haven't already, take some time to become educated on open source.
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
She added that the WIPO official who embraced the meeting had done so without proper consultation with the member states, and that WIPO's budget already is strained and cannot accommodate another meeting next year.
...
or next century, they're on such a tight budget. There are only 179 member world states after all
What a shitty excuse. Who do they take people for ?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
First, and foremost, it was the political lobbying. Hey, if I had that kind of money, I sure as hell would use it to my advantage.
Secondly, and not as prominetly, it was also a fear of this just turning into a political flamewar
Third, the bitch needs to be sacked. To say that Opensource undercuts the ideals of "intellectual property" just goes to show either how incompetant she is, or to what degreee she has been bought.
--LordKaT
From the article:
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.
"To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.
They obviously don't get it.
Or, maybe I don't.. Is there a broader assumption behind "intellectual property rights"? Is this assumed to be only the right to restrict your IP as much as possible? Or, the right to protect the IP of big businesses only?
Wouldn't the right to control how my IP is used, and demand that it remain open, and any changes remain open, fall neatly into Intellectual Property Rights? Perhaps Lois should read the GPL some time.
from an old link.
It's been obvious for some time that the U.S. government accepts a LOT of fundraising and soft money, OSS doesn't give politicians any, so why should they care about it?
Meanwhile, MS lobbies, and gives money to keep MS in the government. .
Except for a select few, the U.S. reps in power don't really go off idealism. They like their power, the money they get, and all the comps, until we get them to reform their own system, we don't have a choice
Error 407 - No creative sig found
... please, please take such things into consideration when casting your vote in 2004.
Open-source allows each country to be less dependant on the United States for advances in computer technology, because they won't be tied down to Microsoft. This is just the same game the U.S. plays with all other things; we want complete domination of the world market.
IP is ok if only the United States exists in the world, but once you get the whole world involved, open-source becomes much more attractive as a computing solution.
People will probably say, "Without IP, you can't survive if you write programs etc." Well, there must be a way to set up a system that WILL allow you to make money, without invoking IP. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than me can say what that is.
I thought the GPL grants the creator IP rights, but it is the creator who chooses to release his/her code to the open source community for consideration. I don't recall anywhere in the GPL where the creator actually surrenders his/her IP rights. If that's true, the what better forum to explore this issue than in front of the WIPO?
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
It's not like I can't understand their concern - I work for a company selling proprietary software (running on open-source OSes), and I'm not thrilled about the notion of someone else fielding a product we can't compete with (assuming feature parity).
If someone does, however, then more power to them. They went to the effort, and they decided that all should benefit from the fruits of their labor.
That's downright noble.
What big business seems to be doing here is using process rather than product to beat down the barbarian hordes. Why shouldn't the intellectual property concerns of open source advocates be taken into consideration when formulating a world IP policy?
sloth jr
http://www.desnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510048824,00 .html
"As he was seeking political favors, a friend of Sen. Orrin Hatch bought a whopping 1,200 copies of Hatch's largely self-produced music CDs, for which Hatch receives $3 to $7 each.
Hatch, R-Utah, and his friend, Monzer Hourani, a Houston developer who twice before has landed Hatch into major ethics controversies, say he wasn't trying to buy political help with those CDs and they merely share a love of his music."
This is the asshole that wants to let the RIAA/MPAA 'destroy' your computer if they suspect your of violating their IP rights. Nice to see how he skirts campaign finance rules.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
I know, I know, none of us have even owned a pen for years, but the weight given to a real paper letter is hugely more than an email.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, consider writing a real letter!
open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.
In his weblog, Lessig mistakenly turned this paraphrase into a direct quotation from Boland. He then continued, this time with an actual quotation from Boland taken from the same article:
To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO.
I'm not at all saying that the Post mischaracterized what Boland was saying, but it's important that words aren't put in her mouth, which is what Lessig inadvertently did.
Now, on to Lessig's analysis:
If Lois Boland said this, then she should be asked to resign. The level of ignorance built into that statement is astonishing, and the idea that a government official of her level would be so ignorant is an embarrassment. First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights. It can't exist (and free software can't have its effect) without it.
Lessig makes a good point about property rights, and how free software does not subvert them.
But free software is nevertheless deeply subversive. What it subverts is not property rights, but the ability of corporations to corner the market in a variety of software applications. Whether Microsoft builds it, or OpenOffice.org builds it, something of value is being created whenever people sit down to code software. The only question is whether this labor enriches society as a whole, or whether a significant part of that labor extracts wealth from society for the benefit of Microsoft's shareholders.
It seems to me that Boland's view of WIPO is that it exists to serve the interests of companies who create proprietary software. One of the drawbacks to free software is that it is, well, free. And unless a company (like IBM) gets a vested interest in selling hardware and services to accompany this free software, there's not going to be money to counter the lobbyists who steer WIPO's agenda in a pro-Microsoft direction.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Frankly I don't think this will really do much for or against the adoption of FOSS. The fact of the matter is Linux/*BSD/Apache/Perl/et al are taking off all by themselves, and the way the licenses are designed there's no way to legislate FOSS out of existance without fundamentally changing copyright laws, so much in so it would be detrimental to all software companies.
FOSS is here to stay and will continue to be adopted whether or not the WIPO sit around and talk about it.
So, it's open source that drives our society to technological and economical stagnation! I mean, of course $100.000+ fines, crooked CEOs bent on stock fraud wearing the IP sword (+3, +5 vs trolls) and the fact that users get nailed up the arse in the name of piracy are all good signs of a healthy economy where any technological advancement is sued into oblivion and where economic growth is humongous -- for a select few.
I must cry but there aren't enough tears.
Hate me!
The Global Capitalist Republic Governing Body, well okay maybe they're called the illuminati must defend their interest (IP/IPR/...) by all means possible. Then again maybe the right name is WTO or World Bank, or IMF, or .... .... Dang this sort of leaves you feeling like all heroic efforts by the OSS community are wasted. ... they will lose, and we will gain the future. Sorry, some of my "60s" attitude is hard to oppress. Also, 1969-71 I was in the USMC. I remain (as always) flabbergasted and bewildered by reality or maybe it's those flashbacks.
I hope y'all understand we are politically outnumbered, under-funded, poorly organized,
We have lost the war, but not surrendered, we have not failed, we have not been defeated, dinosaurs go extinct, aristocrats pass into insignificant, but interesting reading, news shorts, and box-office dud movies.
We should never expect the ruling elite to embrace or control the future. In other words
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
That's Krisha to you. Philistine.
Between this, SCO, and the stuff MS et al have tried in the past year, consider it game on for the war on OSS. I get the feeling that things are really going to heat up as we head into 2004 and get even hotter in 2004. Thankfully, OSS has enough of a foothold to defend itself and (hopefuly) survive. I'll be sending another FSF donation tonight, what else can we do folks? We need some OSS lobbyists or companies with lobbyists to want to help protect OSS. Ideas? Suggestions?
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Oops, mispelled Krishna. That's gonna cost me in my next life. Christ.
The key to this article was in the second-to-last paragraph:
"But open-source is not just a political challenge. It strikes a starkly different, and sometimes opposite, pose from that of traditional capitalist systems."
Many companies are afraid of what this might mean to their current business model. What could open source eventually do the global economy as a whole? This "quiet war" against open source is being waged mostly by corporations in the U.S. that feel they probably have the most to lose.
Consider possible long term effects for them: The U.S. economy has seen absolutely stunning growth during the past 100 years. It has doubled in size six times during that period. Economic theory suggests that this happened because of the technological advancements. Now in the Internet age, any person in even third world countries can get online and instantly have all of the knowledge of a highly professional college graduate from the U.S. Open source gives them the opportunity to have access to information, tools, and concepts which normally would have been accessible only by the traditional business model in first world countries at a price. With the open information revolution it is "free". This concept alone could revolutionize economies around the world: suddenly they have access to the same information, but without the price. This over time will lessen the technological dominance the U.S. has held traditionally. Any new developments made within the U.S. can easily be copied and re-produced in other countries, and possibly even countries with a better comparative advantage than the U.S. (meaning they can do the same for less).
- Case in point:
it took technology companies many years to reach the point where hard drives, CPU's, memory, etc. in a PC are so fast and big as they are today. Now, anyone in a poor country could get a computer, and instantly have the benefit of all those years of development. Then with that computer, they can start downloading open source software and accessing information that they would never have been able to do otherwise. A relatively poor Ecuadorian could learn skills to rival his U.S. counterparts, start programming and outsource at a much cheaper price!This is scary for U.S. companies because it means the competition would suddenly increase, and given the relatively high cost of labor in the U.S., it could mean harder economic times for us. I imagine there would be sort of an "evening out" effect economically between the U.S. and other countries.
On top of this, when consumers are faced between the choice of two products, one that is free and one that is $100 (for example), the closer they are to being just as good, the less the consumers will buy the commercial product. To have to compete with open source would mean large profit losses for companies especially like Microsoft, who has for a long time enjoyed near monopoly status.
The only thing protecting this from changing are so called "Intellectual Property" laws that would prevent this from happening. When you see it this way, you see that Microsoft and others are simply trying to protect their interests and investment. Personally, I like the open source revolution. It definately benefits customers. We all benefit from competition, but companies have an increasingly hard time surviving in such conditions. I also recognize the importance of companies though: they are the ones that make the economic wheel spin. We rely on companies for our jobs. We have some interesting decades ahead of us. I honestly believe open source, and open information as a whole will be the main factors in revolutionizing the global economy yet again.
Is it any wonder that these companies, and even our own U.S. government fear somewhat the effect open source could have on their respective growth and income? How about we as individuals of the U.S.?
well we wouldnt want the people actually paying taxes to get a tax break.
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
No, it's worse than that. A US Governemet representative has spouted some of Microsft's more outrageous and stupid anti-GPL FUD. This, from Lessing, is absolutly incredible:
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights."
If I don't have the right to share my IP as I please, what rights do I have? If I can't take my software and release it so that others can use it and share their insights to make it better, what can I do with it? Do I have to keep it to myself and hope that Microsoft will make me an offer for it?
This is total bullshit, I have every right to do as I please with my own work. If the government will back me up when I put silly restrictions on my users, it had better back me up when I put reasonable ones or none at all on them.
Louis Boland, for such a stupid statement, should be removed from her post imediatly. It shows a complete disregard for copyright law, free speech and even lacks common sense. It does not follow that the US government would spend my tax money to protect a restrictive publisher or author, but not one that is less restrictive and more directly meeting the purpose of copyright laws: to promote the state of the art and expand the public domain. Some people do not need government protection or direct monetary reward to share their ideas. It's as American as Ben Franklin's newspapers. Louis, I hope you have been taken out of context and will work to reverse this cancellation. WIPO needs to consider the issue and should encourage it because it is in everyone's best interest. If you really think free software is somehow counter to Intelectual Property rights, I hope that you are removed tomorrow and never see another public appointment.
This message was composed and posted on free software that is arguably better than Microsoft crap. It cost me less money to aquire and continues to cost me less money to maintain as well as enriching my knowledge of software and enabling me to contribute to the state of the art. Non-free software vendors won't even let me understand their inner workings, much less contribute to it's improvement.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
No sir! I'm in California, and come October 7, I'm going to vote for someone who can kick some { commie | French | Al Qaeda | People who don't invest in lobbyists } ass! That means you you { fuckin' | goddamn } { foreign | wimp-ass} piece of shit!
Vote for The Terminator for Governor. Come 2008, he'll be back!
Sigh.
Actually, I'd sooner shoot myself. My vote is for Georgy.
Welcome to the wonderful world of crony capitalism, where profits are big and barriers to entry are bigger. When the player with the most money gets to set the rules of the game, is it any wonder those rules favor them?
Liberals claim that more regulation will fix the problem, while conservatives and libertarians say less regulation will do the trick. I say blanket solutions based on ideology are never as good as actually thinking about the problem.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Can Microsoft challenge 180 groups from 180 nations?
Yes. They probably have a larger income than at least the bottom 10% of those countries.
*Shoots himself* argh someone run Windows on this gun - it is not killing me
If GNU made a gun, it would shoot perfect, it would never need to be reloaded, and it would be free. If anything, the Unix gun would kill you on the first shot, even if you aimed it away from yourself, via the GNUaim loadable module!
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
A little background:
The coming of Bush into the presidency of the US changed a number of things in the way the US deals with "problems" both internally and externally. 9/11 only sharpened that circumstance, but didn't change the fundamental motion of it.
Since Bush came to power, either legally or illegally, depending on your point of view, a number of international treaties, such as the kyoto agreement, have been either postponed or ignored by the US. The trade disagreements between the US and it's international trading partners have increased sharply. US pushing the EU to accept GM food and fighting hard to not have to label it as such is an example thereof. Bush slappping a 30% tarif on steel imports made more enemies in the world.
Things came to a head in 9/11 and most of the US' traditional allies came out and helped the US, such as the huge international effort in Afghanistan. These were the same allies, including, surprise, France and Germany, that had helped the US in Gulf War one, and Bosnia and Kosovo.
However, only just over a year later, the US had lost almost all of that sympathy in it's invasion of Iraq, and it's sidestepping of the UN. Foreign countries had started getting tired of US bullying. The US is very quick to shout it's mouth off about Democracy and free tade as long it is in US interests to do so, but is just as quick to bully and cry out loud if it is not. This is nothing out of the ordinary. Most countries are self serving.
This attack on OSS will, in all likelyhood, only increase in pressure as OSS continues to grow and become more successful. Microsoft, who is in all likelyhood behind the SCO attacks, will probably continue to lobby politicians to outlaw OSS as far as they possibly can. While outlawing OSS in the US will be difficult, as OSS is now bringing in money to major corporations, such as IBM, you can be sure that MS will use the argument that internationally the US will lose money due to MS software being used less and less.
This is even true. From Europe, where Germany has a major stake in the succes of SuSE as a German corporation, through India to China, where the government is standardising on Linux, many countries are trying to stop the flow of money from their own software industries to the US. MS' ridiculous arguments are of no interest in those countries where they are trying to strengthen their own economies. Thus MS will try to use the US government to push it's case outside the US.
However, I am pretty sure that it will be a resounding failure. The Iraq episode showed just how many countries are fed up with US bullying, and the US government trying to bully countries into using MSware will only serve to anger them even more.
Millions of Americans have paid with more than money to protect this freedom. It is an absolute disgrace to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to allow international corporations to throw so much money and influence at destroying the freedoms others have died to preserve.
I don't mean to hurt your patriotic feelings, but isn't it very possible that many of those millions dies exactly for tho right of those huge corporations to trample over poverty stricken bodies?
I still have no idea today as to why exactly the US invaded Iraq. It might have been WMD or just plainly Saddam, but it could just as well have been for Halliburton, Bechtel and other well connected companies to do some business over the dead carcasses of Iraqis and US soldiers.
To be slightly more serious, most people seem to equate intelectual property with "good for the economy" so finding someone who doesn't support "strong IP laws" is rather difficult. Especially if you add "who can actually win" as a requirement.
Since most people seem to believe the general equation that "good for buisness" = "more jobs" = "more money for me" - I can't imagine a politician who would make loosening IP laws an issue. The other side would cream him, saying that he's against improving the economy and would hurt buisness.
Maybe I'm just overly cynical. I rather hope I am.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
She's a high-ranking lawyer at the US PTO (I'm guessing a GS-14 or 15 or equivalent). Her career has been in intellectual property law. If she's ignorant of the issue (unlikely), she should be removed. If she's disingenuous (far more likely), she should be removed.
My father is a blogger.
There is a certain amount of truth in the comment that Tobin posted to Lessig's discussion that the meeting was really a forum for the usual lefties to rant. On the other hand, as near as I can tell from the results, the typical WIPO committee meeting is an opportunity for the usual suspects on the commercialist-control side to rant
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's simple really.
Bill hasn't just phoned in a "kill order" to the WIPO. He's apparently found someone or some people in the WIPO who are free market zealots, and convinced them that a pack of free-love, anti-property political liberal socialists had hijacked their organization to promote hippie values.
I could see this from several indications. First, Microsoft, and Bill himself, have made it clear that the political tack they were taking consists of painting the Open Source advocates as dangers to the present system of intellectual property -- not to mention the creeping Red Menace of SOCIALISM. No kidding here. Secondly, it was there in the remarks of Borland herself, who made it clear that she thought that the meeting was about undermining ther present system of IP. And lastly, I'm reading posts here and there which proclaim the view that the OS advocates are trying to "politicize" the WIPO by talking about such things. My god, what hypocrisy.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It would be interesting to find out how much he paid if he's getting a 250k tax cut.
What seems shitty to me, is that my ex-wife paid exactly $0 in Federal taxes, got a refund back for over $2,000 and she's pissed that she didn't get a check from the government this summer. It's hard to justify giving someone a tax relief check when they don't pay any taxes.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
Yeah, but the dependencies on the trigger module, barrel module, and grip module would be hell. And don't forget the command-line switches you'd need to actually FIRE the thing... ;)
--RJ
Fully agree with the sentiment expressed, but...
Interesting factoid supplied by a lobbyist recently interviewed on Slashdot:
I am writing to express my opposition to your policy with respect to
the WIPO open source meeting. Our constitutional principles dictate
that the intellectual property grant should be limited, and WIPO is
not purposed to promote IP to the detriment of the public common.
Moreover, it is contrary to the founding principles of WIPO that IP
should be promoted against the wishes of generous authors and inventors
who intentionally license their creations freely. Please reconsider
your decision and support the open source meeting.
Regards,
Michael L. Love
MacCHESS
Cornell University
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
Free as in coffee.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Why is it so hard to understand that Free Software is just a buyer's consortium? Allowing buyers to do their own thing is much closer to a free market than a convicted monopoly is.
Michael
I personally think that even this is bullcrap. If anything, a strong system of proprietary rights may be good for one person/corporation, but it screws the hell out of everybody else. It just guarantees that there will be no innovation made by anyone on the technology except for the creator, even if they have a new or better idea than the creator. But hey, this isn't about the best ideas, it's all about products just good enough (yet still crap) to be released for money....
I know I'm reiterating the same information, but in my opinion, the open source is one HELL of a lot more conducive to innovation and "the development of groundbreaking software". That Simon guy assumes that all open source is developed and released/distributed for free, when in fact it's not. The GPL has a provision for distributing software for monetary compensation... so that there's still economic incentive.
IANAL I am a software developer. If I license my IP under the GPL or any other open source license then how have I in any way waived my rights to my IP. Can someone explain to me what the logical basis for her argument is? Or is this just regurgitated FUD from a spin doctor paid by a certain large corporation (The identity of which you can probably guess).
The GPL is a license that controls intelectual property rights. As far as I know I control the IP rights to my code I can if I choose use for example the GPL to grant limited rights for others to use my code. I do not waive my rights to my IP.
Speech: Free
Beer: $699.00
All your IP are belong to us!
Speech: Free
Beer: $699.00
When I speak to those around me, and even to those of older generations, I do not find a people who have sold out to large oppressive and monied interests. No, I find instead only a people who have again and again been told the lie that things are how they ought to be, the lie that labels those those who dare oppose the status quo as un-American, as radicals, and as communists.
.
But when I tell these people in plain and simple terms what is happening in this nation and in this world, and what it is doing and going to do to every one of us, they see through the lie these oppressive and monied interests have told them. They know that we are well-meaning just as they are. The know that we care about our country and about its people and about our brothers and our sisters just as they do. They know that the label is a lie. They know it isn't right.
We must rally the people if we are to tear down the corporate "intellectual property" regime. When we see what we have today, we know that our government will not fight for us. If our government will not fight for us, then we must fight to take back our government, and we can do this in no other way than by rallying the people to fight with their vote
We must tell them that it ain't right We must tell them that it is important to every single person. We must tell the people that they can change it. We must tell them that it is they and they alone who can will the difference.
It must be from the people that change will come. The people of our nation are not bought and sold. They are a decent and ethical people of noble spirit, who must only be exhorted to acknowledge foremost in their minds that the freedom and opportunity we as persons deserve and must secure is ours to be had if only we will join together as fellow brothers and fellow sisters to vote out these dogs whose masters oppress and enslave us.
Woe unto you rich and monied interests on that day if you have abused that privelege we have given you. For when the people of this nation are but made to realize what you have done to us, they will raise up their voices in righteous outrage against this bought and appointed corporate government and against those oppressive and monied interests to which it was long ago sold, and they will vote your cronies out forever more.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
Media tampering along these lines began long ago, at least as far back as WR Hearst and the "Give me the pictures and I'll give you the war" quote from 1898. Corporate tampering with the government runs back to at least the Bank of the United States and Nicholas Biddle in the 1830s. Now they have combined in the form of a corporate giant wanting to dominate not only the content of information most of this country sees but also its distribution and means of transmission. No one can really blame Microsoft for wanting to act in their own best interest, after all if they win then they likely gain control over most computer systems on the consumer, commercial, and military levels. This means billions of dollars and a monopoly on software that the government will be hard-pressed to crack, both because of the importance of the product and the lobbying money that would result. It is not going to simply hand over its golden goose to open source programmers who can do the job cheaper, better, and more efficiently. Instead it seeks to badmouth its only competition at every turn. Microsoft is free to say what it wants as long as it is prepared to back it up. It is only when the freedom of speech is applied to those whom we do not wish to hear that we truly prove our respect for that freedom.
And the second they say anything they can't outright prove, the same body of laws deems that slander and is grounds for legal action. I hope they slip up with the open source community there to greet them, but until then we *grudgingly* have to respect their rights to free speech, even if that includes lobbying Congress with barrels of cash (since bribery in that form is somehow considered "free speech" under current law).
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
RMS: "Guns don't kill people, GNU/Guns kill people."
I'm going to nitpick here, and I apologize for having to use your post to do it, but people, before you write your senator, know how to do it right. Do it right, and you'll sound intelligent and erudite. Do it wrong, and you'll sound like a crackpot.
So I'm going to take this post as an example and show you what I believe makes a good letter. First off, this part is right out:
The BSA, in case you didn't know, is essentially just a division of Microsoft.Baseless allegation. Makes it sound like you have an axe to grind specifically against Microsoft. Stick to the facts.
The full Washington Post article is here:Very good. Back up your facts with documentation. Most likely than not this task of tracking down info will be handed to an intern, so make sure your references are very clear. Use direct sources (like this one did) and avoid google caches.
Just so you don't think open source is some kind of "hippy thing", I work for the largest private equity firm in the world that is focused exclusively on information technologyAnother good one. Cite personal experience. Better if you could name the company (you can always include a disclaimer that these views are your own and not your company). You may get lucky and work for a company that contributed to his campaign. However, lose the "hippy thing" phrase. Makes it look like you're assuming what the senator thinks already. May want to leave out "the largest" and substitute "a prominent". Being the "the largest" may be a matter of opinion.
Companies like IBM and Apple have wholeheartedly embraced open source. The only companies opposed to open source are those that currently enjoy relative monopolies in their areas. I.e., Microsoft.Might be a good place to include some references to press releases or interviews that back this up. Makes it look like you seriously did your research.
By the way, if you don't know much about the BSA and open source, here is an article that describes the BSA's strong arm tactics used in bullying small businesses:Excellent. You back up an otherwise harsh allegation with documented fact.
Now, I did not take the time to follow all the links, but you want to make sure they come from reliable sources. Major news and media outlets like the Washington Post or the NY Times are better than "niche" groups like Linux Journal. CNET is kind of in between. And, yes, I know perfectly well that these sources may vary for differing definitions of "reliable". We know the media puts their own spin on it. But remember that politicians rely on the media for much of their information, so you have to use that to your advantage.
Sorry to sound pedantic in all this, but many of us know we are intelligent, but we need to convince the politicians of that as well. If anyone else has any other suggestions on good letter-writing, feel free to add.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
However, if MS ever devises a way to make billions using the Open Source model, you will see such a vast philosophical about-face and massive, unbearable, and inescapable ad campaign the likes of which the human race has never known.
..especially MS...would have to completely reinvent themselves to exist in a FOSS world.
Maybe a large multinational corporation has done just that. IBM tossed a billion with a "B" dollars into marketing and developing Linux. They claim to have "more than made it back". Perhaps it isn't the vaunted FOSS community that's led MS and Sun to create a kamikaze company. IBM makes money from sales, service, and hardware. It is almost no skin off their backs to be good Open Source citizens....if they can give Sun and especially MS a good hard screwing in the process so much the better. On the other hand, Sun and MS
I think you've just figured out why IBM has cheerfully marketed OSS to the utter mortification of Sun and MS. The obvious next step for IBM is to quietly do some lobbying of their own.
Wow, I never thought of it that way. I voted for Bush... now I'm starting to second guess myself. This whole plan Microsoft has is all coming together. They lobby the US government dirty so that no department will even think about OSS. They use SCO to jack up vaporware royalties for Unix until all those customers jump ship. World domination is not much farther after that. I'd like to think that the Open source community is strong enough to survive this but I don't know. Maybe I'll be voting democrat next election. But can we really trust them either? I mean, these people get money, sex, drugs whatever they want just for votes. Does it really matter what club you belong to?
What that means is that SCO, for example, could immediately be sued by Samba for distributing their copyrighted (and GPL'd) code without permission. GNU could probably do likewise, unless SCO has their own C compiler and other tools. Every Linux distribution would need to get permission to distribute all those lovely tools, etc...
If the GPL ever becomes invalidated, it doesn't automatically mean that GPL'd code becomes public domain. It means that the real, entrenched copyright law kicks in, oh, didn't that get extended recently by the same kind of people that want to turn off the GPL? Kind of ironic...
In my experience as a US federal employee, and in specific regards to software purchases, the goal seems to be to buy (or contract for) a single piece of software that, in theory, will satisfy the government's needs in perpetutity. Of course, that short-sighted thinking results in a periodic replacement of the entire software system. Frequently, the systems we use are either out of their support lifetime or the company that developed it no longer exists.
Because of the incredibly long life-cycle these government systems need to have, closed source software makes no sense, to be honest. The government isn't willing to pay a perpetual service fee, and the costs to replace the system and retrain employees is insane. That doesn't mean that OSS is the solution; the payroll system isn't going to be appearing on Sourceforge any time soon for many reasons. Plus, no one would ever work of their own accord on the kind of specialized applications we need.
The government needs to start contracting out for the software, and then out-and-out buying the software, rather than licensing it, source code and all. If we contract to design a fighter jet, we don't do much (if any) of the actual design work, but we sure as hell own the airplane at the end of the day, and we have mechanics to repair it if it breaks. When it comes to software, on the other hand, the government's in the practice of buying jets with their hoods welded shut, then buying another one when it gets a dent.
-ieaiaio
"Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights. "
Lois baby. You have it all wrong. Open-source does not run counter to intellectual-property rights. If the open-source community didn't have IP rights they wouldn't have the right to share code.
Open source may run against the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights FOR THE RICH CORPORATIONS.
The WIPO, as many fear, does not give a shit about the human condition if it in any way lowers its members bottom line.
Come on Lois baby. Squeal like a pig for me.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Lois, she is implying that either Open-Source is based on the destruction/weakening of IP rights, or encourages the violation of IP rights, and you wouldn't want to be one of those kinds of people, now would you?
Nice troll, the whole question only makes sense if you don't examine it.
Some of what Microsoft and others consider "IP rights" deserve to be destroyed. Microsoft should not have the right to tell you how to use their software. I can do what I want with any of my other property. I can read a book anyway I want including out loud in a room full of friends, lend it to friends and sell it. These are things Microsoft does not allow you to do with your software. How copyright law was perverted into this strange, one user at a time, non transferable, you can't say bad things about Microsoft, straight jacket is beyond me. How Microsoft considers the restrictions they put on their users a "right" they have is also beyond me. The free software foundation has a much better idea about what your rights are, check it out yourself, you might learn something, even if you are an evil troll.
I certianly do not encourage the violation of any law, regardless of how silly. When that law is morraly wrong, I will violate it myself and encourage others to do so. Never let bad laws make you a bad person.
Fortunately, I'm not caught in any of Microsfot's evil snares and I don't have to figure out ways to defeat them, because free software is all about sharing methods of getting things done. I don't need Microsoft's crap and I don't recomend it to anyone. Free software has produced whole operating systems that are easy to use and of exceptional quality. I own my computer and all the softare that runs on it in a way that terrifies the likes of Microsoft. The few restrictions the authors place on my distribution of that software has little effect on me. The whole "IP rights" you think of make no sense whatsoever to me because I don't need anything from people who would violate what I consider my rights.
What Lois says implies a violation of my ability to distribute code under the GPL. That would be a terrible violation of everyone's IP rights.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Quote: Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." As she is quoted as saying, "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."
I have long held the informed opinion that the people within UN WIPO are corrupt - it is why I have this website.
My logic is proven - not one lawyer has been able to give argument against the facts. These people at UN WIPO have no honour - they are too cowardly to answer my charges.
People have every right to use words for whatever legal reason they wish - true or false?
UN WIPO made rules that abridge peoples rights to choose words on the Domain Name System - words that are not used for any unlawful purpose.
Fact 1 - a trademark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('classification') in SPECIFIC country. UN WIPO aid and abet corporations to overreach their trademark rights on the Internet - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
UN WIPO, together with ICANN, the US Department of Commerce (also Patent and Trademark Office) actually help corporations violate the First Amendment rights of US citizens.
How this got rated "insightful" is beyond me.
:-P.
I have lived in both the US and the only country (to my knowledge) that practices direct democracy on all levels. It does work well for them. People are a lot happier with their government, and that's although they (living in a small country) tend to know quite a bit more about the rest of the world than most people in the US do. Some of their laws are more restrictive, some allow for more freedom than the US does (and I'm saying that although most votes didn't turn out as I wished they had). They certainly have a much smaller percentage of their population in prisons
Since direct democracy has been demonstrated to work reasonably well for at least one country, what you are saying is that you and your people are not capable of working that kind of democracy. Maybe.
May take is: After communism died (in the US earlier, because communism was largely unacceptable there forever), lots of people seemed to have this "new" idea of an ideal society which they believe will magically work as soon as they'll get a chance to try it.
Before arguing for anarchism, make sure you have a working example, and it had better be better than Afghanistan. It's nice in theory (so was communism, to some extent), but it doesn't work with your real, average people. Anarchism is the pipe dream of a new generation.
America will be backsliding in technical innovation in the IT industry because of this.
We will be caught with our pants down just like we were with our Curtis bi-planes against the Japanese Zeros at the beginning of World War 2. Only this time it might not be the military that is looking stupid, they've learned enough to avoid that for the next 100 years, but it will be the famous and legendary American Innovation that will suffer.
Look at the other nations out there. Many of them are outpacing this once great nation in their technical prowess, innovation, and capabilities today. This is only going to serve to accelerate the process until we become and sound embarassment to the world.
The Battlefield of the next 100 years will not be a military campaign. That's been dying out since the end of World War 2. The new battlefield is the economic viability of a nation. By crippling the economic engine of a nation you can now render a nation effectively useless without the need for such unpopular actions as actually blowing people up. This is what the United Nations have been doing for years and for the most part it is working and is considered Politically Correct. At least more so than military invasion and geographical conquest.
As we permit these American Corporations to attempt protection of their markets in the United States, we expose the United States to economic erosion on the global market making us more vulnerable to economic attacks.
Considering what has happened to the United States since the World Trade Center was destroyed it's pretty evident that an economicly focused attach can have a more devistating effect on the United States as a whole than a military assault can have. With this new knowledge, it has to be recognized that the new battlefield of soverign nations is not a geographical map with pill boxes and trenches, but an economic environment consisting of market shares, tariffs, subsidies...
As these Corporations meddle with the Global Economy and the role of the United States of America they are meddling with the well being of the Nation as a whole and are quite willing to go through some sacrifices of our nation in order to expand their own goals and objectives.
This is no longer about Microsoft making shitty software that is easily overrun by email virii or the fact that everything is proprietary. This is not about our future as a Nation and our ability to remain a viable economic entity in the future Global Markets. We must participate on the Global playing field in order to win, we cannot hope to succeed for long if we always require a Home Field Advantage by excluding Open Source as a viable option in our future
This is distressing on a whole lotta levels. I see the discussions here of "crony capitalism", the way Inetllectual Property laws are now being used to stifle innovation and not promote it, etc., etc.
But let's take a longer view of things...
China and India have both declared for Open Source software. Together, they comprise 4 billion people, enough to dwarf the USA population. Quite soon (in historical terms), I expect to see most technological innovation to be coming from these countries rather than the US simply because they are more interested in promoting new ideas than they are in preserving the old order. 20 years ago, who would have thought that these caste-based, rigid social structures would have changed enough to embrace these concepts?
But America is resilient and America is capable of change. We have proven this (if nothing else) in our short 200 year history. When the shift has become so obvious that even short-sighted politicians notice and the deeply-entrenched "good old boys" have had their power reduced through their own ignorance and incompetence, then America will change and we will have the chance to compete again.
And the human race will continue to evolve and move forward.
If a company doesnt have commercial based software that is better than an open source alternative, then well, that is their own fault. Companies out to make $ should strive to make value added software, make their products just *that* much better than opensource if they expect to stay in business.
Stop whining & start programming.....
Simple it doesn't.
But they don't want to argue that you are using the same laws and protections they are.
Much easier to just state you want to destroy IP, because you're not using it right.