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.
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
> 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
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.
... please, please take such things into consideration when casting your vote in 2004.
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!
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.?
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.
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.
I don't think very many areas of the federal government are using open source software, and I'm certain that OSS gives no more than limited political advantages to its users. In fact, using proprietary software is often in the government's best interests (but not that of the taxpayers, which is an entirely different issue...).
If a government agency's operating costs go up (due to software costs in this case), then when it goes and asks Congress for a budget increase it's likely that they will receive a larger amount in discretionary funding (they receive the same percentage of a new, larger budget). Discretionary funding is the stuff agency heads love to have, since they can spend it on their department in whatever fashion they see fit: office parties, fancy artwork, whatever. So, when choosing between two equally functional but differently-priced solutions, a depressingly large amount of the time, the government chooses the costlier product. The vendor and the department both win, and as usual taxpayers get stuck holding the bag.
the coolest club on
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
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)
I work in the Federal Government. We use lots of Free and Open Source Software. Sometimes because it's better, sometimes because it's free (sometimes for both reasons).
If I need to do something, it is far easier to grab a free implementation than to go through channels to get budgeted and all the hassle that goes along with that.
We use lots of proprietary software too, often because it's the only thing that does the trick. Sometimes because we started using it before a free alternative was viable. I am migrating my Splus applications to R (mostly for technical reasons). We use MS Office because everyone else does.
I have Linux on my desktop.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
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