Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds And Cox Write EU Parliament On Patents
replicant_deckard writes "Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox have sent an open letter to the members of the European Parliament. They ask for strict limitations to software patents, argue for open standards and ask the members of the parliament to follow FFII's voting recommendations. Vote on the controversial software patents directive will be on Wednesday and it is expected to be a very close one. Well, do you believe these guys have any impact in Brussels?"
Well, do you believe these guys have any impact in Brussels?
Nope.
Might get some automated reply like "Thank you for contacting us, we will strive to do our best, blah blah blah".
Or it will be lost in the mail.
He could have just called up his relative.
Daer UE,
Patanst r teh suckzorz!!!! Say ON TO TEHM!!!
Loev,
Anonimouse cowerd
I understand that one can patent a process for doing something, but one can also patent an end-product. A program is an end-product of the source code used to compile it, so wouldn't software patents, in effect, cause the much feared "functionality similarity" disputes to become more substantive in the legal system?
Esoteric reference.
As much as I hope it does and do hope for it, they've got more money in strict software patents then open ones. And although they _MAY_ read it, they won't recognize the names, government don't know the names geeks do. I hope it does work out our way but with government they do end up do stupid things alot of the time ;)
Before you start the main purpose and body of the letter you might explain why you are a crediable person to listen to. If they aren't particularly technically inclined then they may have no idea who you are. Tell them who are are, why you are important, and why they should listen to you. Without that, you usually loose your influence.
-Foxxz
As much as I favor his position, somehow I think it will not be paid attention to and the laws will proceed on their path. I hope I'm wrong, though.
A blog like any other.
Well, do you believe these guys have any impact in Brussels?
I don't know - how big a check are they including with their letter?
Given that Linux is generally stronger in Europe than the US (where MS pretty much rules all), comments from the likes of Torvalds and Cox will carry more weight than they would in the US.
Then again, hefty campaign donations from rich software firms probably carry a fair amount of weight too...
It should be interesting to see what happens.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Few things could so quickly get the attention of most around here more than a letter from Linus and Alan!
"Subject: Open Letter on Software Patents from Linux developers
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds
Open Letter to
the Honourable Pat Cox, the President of the European Parliament,
members of the European Parliament:
Dear Mr. Cox,
We have been following with growing concern that Europe has been
extending patentability to computer programs. Now European Parliament
is about to vote on a directive that could put a stop to this
development, or make it worse, depending on how it is amended by the
Parliament.
US experience shows that, unlike traditional patents, software patents
do not encourage innovation and R&D, quite the contrary. In particular
they hurt small and medium-sized enterprises and generally newcomers
in the market. They will just weaken the market and increase spending
on patents and litigation, at the expense of technological innovation
and research.
Especially dangerous are attempts to abuse the patent system by
preventing interoperability as a means of avoiding competition with
technological ability. Standards should never be patentable! Likewise,
patents should never be used as means for preventing publication of
information - the whole idea of patents is to provide time-limited
monopoly in exchange for publication of the invention.
Software patents are also the utmost threat to the development of
Linux and other free software products, as we are forced to see every
day while we work with the Linux development. We want to be able to
provide the world with free high class, high quality, highly
innovative software products that really empower the users and offer
the best and only real chance to narrow the digital divide. Please do
not make this harder to us that it already is! In conclusion, we would
recommend You to vote for such amendments that
* clarify limits of patentability so that computer programs,
algorithms and business methods really cannot be patented as such;
* make sure that patents cannot be abused to avoid technical
competition by preventing interoperability of competing products; and
* ensure that patents cannot be used to prevent publication of
information.
To that end we would suggest following FFII's voting recommendations
on this directive (see www.ffii.org).
Sincerely,
Linus Torvalds Alan Cox"
The whole issue is running so bad (or meanwhile so good) because none of the members of the parliament was aware of the troubel.
... so what? It is canceled in less then 5 years because of the trouble we will get here in europe with EXISTING foreign software patents.
The new directive where brought up and prepared "silently", only noticed by the OS community. For the members of the parliament it was just a standard, "lets see that directive, and if nothing comes up we pass it" business.
Now with all those demonstrations and arguments and prominent people sending letters and making visits, its unlike the directive passes.
And if it does
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Why doesn't Alan Cox just ask his dad Pat to put a stop to this?
It's a trick. They write a negative amount on the check, and anyone that tries to cash it owes them money.
"Well, do you believe these guys have any impact in Brussels?"
None whatsoever.
As much as the US goverment is criticized on cyber issues these days, the EU has been even more hardcore on these types of issues (such as patents). One gets the impression that the collective leadership has made their minds up on the issue.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Now im all for this non-violent, direct action stuff, but if Linus and Alan are going to around defacing patents, im not sure i understand the relevance of 'EU Parliament'.
Perhaps it would be better to stick with the classics, "Linux and Alan woz ere" or "Linux rules OK?" for example.
Politicians don't like being criticised, you should be nice to them then suggest something slightly different to their proposals. Criticise them and they go on the defensive.
Ten bucks says they postpone the voting a 9th time.
That a few of your ECC types finally understand a few things:
1) The representatives to the EU are not elected, therefore are not responsible to you (i.e., the people who pay the bills)
2) Goverments understand that jobs and money keep people happy, not liberty (ref: See China), and therefore, they'll sell your soul if it keeps you in the middle class.
3) Big business promises jobs (despite their proclivity to move jobs to overseas [ref; See China] if it nets them 1 pence more than they have today) so politicians don't want to rock the boat (see point 2 above).
4) The EEC->EU move is primarily a way to make belgium & france relevant in a way they haven't been since 1936; scandanvia appears to be the only area of europe smart enough to understand this.
5) The EU will throw out stuff like "human rights" the way a cow shits; that is, it comes out the ass end in a way that looks like its planned, but is primarily a way to keep people happy (see point 2 above).
What does all this mean? That the EU doesn't give a crap about what you think about software patents. If big business is telling them it will cost jobs if they don't pass it, then it will pass (see point 2 above).
Do you finally get it? People in the US don't get it yet, and its smacked them across the forehead like the wet kiss at the end of a hot fist. Like the frog in water, the temperature is being raised 1 degree at a time so we don't notice what is going on.
Why? Because software patents belong to a global agreement signed some time ago by US, Europe, and others (GATT agreement? I'm not sure...).
Open letters are read by everyone else, sure... people on the street might take a look, journalists might use them as an easy out when they're looking for something to write this weeks column about, but does anyone have any evidence to suggest that politicians even know these letters exist?
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
We can and have made a difference - but we haven't won the battle yet. If you live in the EU and care about these issues take the time to contact your MEP and see where they stand on this issue - but remember:
I think it should be pretty clear by now (given the passage of the EU version of the DMCA, among other things) that the EU parliament and other European governments are very much in the pockets of corporations just like the U.S. government is. It's more a matter of degree than anything else.
That's why I don't think we who value our basic liberties have much time left. Others might ask why I haven't moved (I live in the U.S.), without realizing that there really isn't any place on the globe worth moving to. As far as I know, there isn't a single government on the planet that cherishes liberty and works towards maximizing that for its people. And even if there were, chances are most people wouldn't be able to go there anyway because of strict immigration laws.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
- Emails are less than worthless, remember: meet > phone > write > email
- Be polite, and STATE YOUR ARGUMENT CLEARLY. These people are generally well-meaning, but can often get confused if bombarded with 100 reasons why swpats are bad (even if all of them are valid). Most MEPs are keen to protect competition so start with "Software patents will hurt competition" and work from there.
- Don't make it about Free Software, the software industry as a whole is in danger - not just free software.
This is one of the first real opportunities the geek community has to make a real difference in politics - but it takes work, are you going to put your time and efforts where your mouth is?doh
s/immigration/innovation
"Please do not make this harder to us that it already is!"
Shouldn't it be "for us" and "than"? Isn't it possible that these members of parliment might think less of this letter based on grammar?
Of course, that sentence could be correct. If so, I'm an idiot. My bad.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
Would you take a chocobo's advice on patent law?
You: So, Mr. Random Chocobo, what are your recommendations for changing the law as it currently stands with regard to patents?
Chocobo: Kweh?
You: Or do you think that no change is necessary?
Chocobo: Wark!
You: What's that? You want me to give you some greens? I seeeeeeeeee...
graspee
This is part of a long term strategy by the rich and the super-rich to grab back the computer/Internet thing they let get away from them.
They do NOT want people to be in charge of their own systems. They want it to be like TV where you sit and consume.
They will patent and license to themselves and each other all the relevant algorithms with the long term goal of making open-source software illegal.
Did you XOR is patented and IBM pays to use it?
Free software will have to go underground. We could see people like Theo in jail.
This is going to get a lot worst before it gets better.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Linus has always maintained his reputation as a simple hacker-- someone not concerned with politics but rather technology.
.sig
This is the second such letter bearing a Torvalds
Is this the start of a new (albeit, not necessarily bad) trend of more coders voicing their opinions on IP law and its current state of affairs?
This post is many things, such as a pathetically weak attempt at humour. But it certainly isn't a troll!! What was the mod thinking of ... ??
Do you have a better suggestion?
France and Germany's governments want patents so there you go . That is what the EU will do after a suitable lenght of hemming and hwaing. about it.
Dear Alan and his friend Linus,
I've used your operating system once. It is slow, it crashed once with my Mozilla browser taking a minute to open, and none of my digital camera drivers worked with it.
Till then I suggest you improve your softwares. And Alan, tell Mom I said hi.
Love,
Pat Cox
EU President
First, I want to say that it is fantastic that both Linus and Alan saw the importance of getting involved in this issue. It is very politically important after the disaster with "software" patents we've had in the United States.
And I normally don't publicly criticize anyone about the mechanics of their message because I spent my time playing Dungeons & Dragons in high school rather than paying attention to grammar and spelling, but I really wish that they had run this by a 12th level grammarian with +2 red pencil before widespread open publication. I think that the letter itself will have a large impact, but I wish it were just a bit more refined.
Addressing the letter to "the Honourable Pat Cox" but opening with a salutation of Mr. instead of President.
Leaving out definite articles. Using a mixture of technological, legal, and political terminology but not spelling out or giving background on the different terminologies. Not saying it's wrong or unclear, but just that it might have benefitted from a bit more clarity.
I am really proud of the Linux leaders for doing something so important and inspiring. If not to the leaders of the European parliament then to me at least. I just wish I had no reservations about the form it takes.
Well, do you believe these guys have any impact in Brussels?
Maybe if you drop them from 20,000 meters.
The patent system is based on encouraging people to spend money on innovative things *and* document their ideas, in exchange for a short-term monopoly. Why should people who like to give away their efforts (i.e. the free software movement) get a free ride? The free-software movement has noble goals (I have contributed too), but I don't think it is right to tell other people that they should give us the fruits of their hard-fought research because we want give away their patentable ideas.
what do the mexicans have to do with it?
The government represantitives in the wealthy U.S./E.U. countries have all bought into the theory that all the manufacturing jobs are moving to third world countries, to be replaced by these new software/media/"IP" businesses. So, they are all behind these patents, DMCA-like legislation, and other restrictive laws.
But, it seems like most of them just don't "get it" yet. Of course, this is with a lot of help from big companies who stand to benefit from this stuff.
I dont know much about the European system but I expect that anything that has taken this long to draw up will pass in some form.
I think that the right thing to do is to demonstrate that the new rules hurt the EU because the only benifit big multinationals that can shift workers to whichever far corner of the globe is cheapest and they hurt small EU software companies.
I think also that we need to convince the EU to have tight rules on what can be patented. Personally, my big wish is to prevent patents of things like file formats (e.g. LZW patent, MPEG patent) and communications protocols and APIs.
Also patents like the patent that prevents e.g. the GIMP from supporting print output options (CMYK or whatever it is)
I don't think that Linus or Alan has any IP law skills enough to help. Well, it's good that they have sent the letter anyway. But the real guy who must help is RMS. We heard so many IP law related arguments from him, so many battles he was in the middle. Why isn't he there now? Or is he?
Less is more !
Or are you just talking out your ass?
As little interest in desktop Linux as there may be in the North America, I don't see any more in Europe.
where have we heard of software and monopolies before?
I noticed the letter contained the bulk of it arguments in a URL I think this will prevent most lawmakers from reading it since they generally don't use computers and have there email printed out.
The second most significant problem is that they give them a hyperlink to indicate what they can do to address these issues. They need to SPELL OUT what an MEP can do to help the anti-swpat cause. This means saying "this URL contains a list of amendments which are essential if this proposal is to protect competition and innovation in the European software industry".
Every additional second it takes for an MEP to figure out a) Why they should agree with you? or b) Given that they agree with you, what do they do? costs us votes.
I realize that the mods are just as stupid as the rest of us slashtards, but don't you think most of them might look and see if you're telling the truth? I mean you might get one of them, but JHC can't you find something better to target?
Theo will have to speak for himself to this point, nevertheless I have talked with Theo about patenting software and Theo said that there has never been a case of a US firm suing a Canadian individual over patent violations because the way the system works is that in order to do so, the company must pay both sides legal bills. [Theo is very much against software patents as is everyone else that I know with a couple exceptions (and they IMHO are very naive)].
...companies such as IBM, TI, and M$ basically get this for themselves via their cross licensing agreements.
I personally think this argument does not hold water and I hope it is not Theo who becomes a target.
At the time I brought up the idea of we developers in the open source community starting to build a sheaf of our own patents by each of us joining an association and paying say $100 bux per year in order to fund the registration of our patents as well as to litigate infringment.
At the same time, membership in the organisation should give each and every person access to any patents and software held by the organisation while at the same time excuding any companies that want to double dip.
This would mean that if IBM for instance decided to join, then all IBM software patents would become available on a cross licensing basis. Meanwhile if Microsoft choses not to join, then they would be prohibited from using anything "we" might control by way of our patents and agreements.
I feel in very short order the opensource community would hold all the relevant patents.
Of course, there are developers who wish to do proprietary work - these are the startups and small to mid sized companies that Torvalds and Cox warn will be harmed the most by software patents. I suppose that membership in our group could be extended to them. I see no real reason why one could not have 2 classes of software within the patent group: open and closed. So maybe we can solve the problem in this fashion. Remember that the purpose of such an organisation is to create a free patent zone that includes all of Planet earth.
I will point out that I do see a danger here as well. At some point the organisation could control so many patents that they can force every person on earth who owns a computer to join, in which case it is a licence to essentually tax and who knows - maybe it will grow into a world government eh? haha.
[back to reality] Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is welcome to email me. But remember that if this is going to fly people are going to have to put their money where their opinions are because we will have to hire competant legal staff in perhaps several juridictions.
The letter looks like a fake to me. Several typos, no introduction on who the authors are, "signature" without any titles or positions. You'd think that between the two of them, they could have done better. Smells like a hoax to me.
I agree that software patents are a bad idea and I would like to do something to stop Europe from having software patents.
However, I'm not a citzen of the EU.
I don't expect politicians to care about the opinions of those who can't vote in their country.
But perhaps someone with more knowledge of the situation can suggest a way for me and other Americans to help.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the grammar, scanning and structure of this letter as very, very poor indeed?
Not only is there no explanation as to who the signatories are but also a number of the sentences scan very badly indeed.
I realise that LT is not a native English speaker, but really, it doesn't come across as very well thought through IMHO...
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
Ok, I've watched this for a bit now, but I've never really looked into the whole issue. Now, what is the actual argument against software patents? Has anyone claimed an argument or is this just a grumbling mob saying "patents get in the way of linux so it's better if we didn't have them"?
Obviously someone has to have approached this with some structured, philosophical reasoning. I can hardly attack this or defend it without argument to attack or defend.
So, where is it? Does someone have a link? A reference of any kind?
First, the interaction between patent law and antitrust law needs to be adjusted. If you have a dominant market position, you should't be able to use a patent to prevent interoperability with your de-facto standards. This is an antitrust issue because it's only a big problem when someone has market dominance. Interoperability with Microsoft Word is important. Interoperability with AbiWord is not.
This is not totally out of reach politically. Current antitrust law in the US and the EU arguably support this position, but enforcement is hard. A bright-line standard would help here.
Second, it needs to be clearly established that Government-mandated standards (ANSI, ISO, DIN, EU) preempt patents unless patent holders object prior to the issuance of the standard. The government standards organizations should be directed to adopt policies preventing the use of patented technology in standards unless the patent holder waives their rights under patent for all users of the standard.
Finally, "business method" patents seem to have been a mistake. However, the first one (4,346,442, the Merrill Lynch Cash Management Account, attaching a credit card to a brokerage account) has already expired.
These things do time out, and soon enough that it matters. The GIF patent has expired. The RSA patent has expired. The SyncSort patent has expired. All those technologies are still in use.
Software patents are bad for Linux.
-Linus
bite my glorious golden ass.
Dear AC, My Ferrari F40 sucks. everytime i try to drive it i cant use the clutch, the wheels keep spinning. this is clearly poor design. i understand your frustration. cheers
I think it's great that cox and torvalds, took the time out of their day to submit the letter. Even if no one at all (of import) notices it's certainly better than regret. If all else fails maybe generations from now, this'll serve as one of many example of politician's insensitivy during our period, for some kid's paper (with "sic" annotating the grammatical errors, of course).
I'm sorry but I live in the U.S. and I've lost all faith. Can you blame me? Land of the free, my ass. Better have a few dollars in your pocket or you could be arrested for vagrancy. Land of the free. Fuck that. A myth for fools and paupers.
Emails are less than worthless, remember: meet > phone > write > email
My take:
meet > phone > write > shout at TV > use toilet paper with politician's image > thinking of polititian unfavorably while cleaning fingernails > email
With everything but email, at least you accomplish something. (Shouting at TV releivs stress.)
FYI, there is now also a press release on the open letter in the EFFI web pages (I just put it there).
Remember when you were a little kid, and some toy or piece of candy was the most important thing in the universe? You've come a long way since then, so long that you probably can't really remember what it was like. Well the same thing is going to happen again. You'll become middle-aged and all these worries about the state of the world will just elicit a nostalgic chuckle.
That's amusing. At some level you must realize that the majority is not with you, so "the people" really means "the discontented." So you're going to form a band of malcontents to start a civil war? You wouldn't be the first. Long before you can do anything, the FBI will infiltrate your group. Eventually you'll be sent to prison on weapons and conspiracy charges before firing a single shot. As an old, gray inmate you will have little recollection of the angsty young man you once were.
Meanwhile the sinister cabal that has always ruled the world will continue to do so. They are called parents, and they vote.
The not-for-profit organization IP Justice has a great summary of the isssue up at www.ipjustice.org and a collection of useful links here.
Take a look. They also oppose the Directive on software patents.
That idea would do more harm than good. Did you read the article about Hilary Rosen's retirement party? (Forgot the URL). One of the points was that increasing churn in Congress has made lobbyists more powerful. When congressmen serve for a long time, some become powerful committe chairs, effectively the most powerful people in the US on their particular topic. With more churn, the power goes to lobbyists, because they are the only enduring legislative specialists in their areas. Hilary Rosen is a good example of this new breed of lobbyist who is more powerful than a legislator.
Do we really think that the EU has more balls let alone less backroom politics that this will not
turn against free source?
EU is a farce, their entire research up to a couple
of months ago was highly tainted. Hence a certain scandal came to light.
These people are not there for a "common good".
# Emails are less than worthless, remember: meet > phone > write > email
# Be polite, and STATE YOUR ARGUMENT CLEARLY. These people are generally well-meaning, but can often get confused if bombarded. Most MEPs are keen to protect competition so start with "Software patents will hurt competition" and work from there.
# Don't make it about Free Software, the software industry as a whole is in danger - not just free software.
There we are. Already studiying and discussing the psyche of one of the most useless politicans the world has ever seen.
You'll need fuckin' money or a fuckin' plane to change something in this world. Since 9/11 the US is by far more sensitive when it comes to isralite vs. palestinian confrontations. Something begging didn't archive for YEARS.
Yeah, I'm right. Time knows I'm right.
WRONG
therefore are not responsible to you (i.e., the people who pay the bills)
WRONG
WRONG
Of course the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who are now deciding on the issue of Software Patents do have to worry about being re-elected (cf. Article 190 of the Treaty establishing the European Community: each term is limited to five years).
Neither most of them nor most of their voters may now understand the importance of preventing software patents, but there is one thing to be made clear to the MEPs:
The impact of software patents (and this includes any compromise claiming to avoid them while leaving plenty of loopholes to grant them nonetheless) will be felt by the public at large, and as software patents hurt companies large and small , and force them to eliminate jobs all across Europe, on election day the people will know for sure who made the mistake.
Contact as many MEPs as you can right now, with a reasoned statement explaining to them why software patents are bad for you and bad for them. You should also remind the MEPs that despite all the spin-doctoring by the software patents' proponents, software patents are not about protecting intellectual property, but about artificially creating an intellectual property interest in typically trivial, individual steps of software development, which relies on and owes all of its progress to gradual innovation, and about assigning this made-up monopoly interest mostly to foreign megacorporations - to the detriment of everyone else. For this reason, however, it is all the more important not to allow the EPO to grant software patents in the first place, for if thoughts are turned into intellectual property and then people realise that this has been a mistake, there is no cheap and easy fix by simply repealing the law (technically, a software patents directive and its implementations), as this means to disown those who have been granted an unjust proprietary ownership of ideas - i.e. those who received such undeserved gifts will cry for compensation as then what they hold title to has to be taken away from them.
J
This could have made an impact, but the impact is lost mainly due to the fact that (brief guess) 1% know who Linus is. (not to mention Cox).
Did you listen to the Debate in the Parlement ? Do you see nobody really has a clue there ?
Why do you expect them to be impressed by the words "Linus Torvald" ?
I think writing a letter, without saying who you are what you did, supposing the person knows who you are is assuming having a really big ego.
Who is this Theo you're talking about?
Of course you are not using window$ (the first operating system that need reinstalling after 2 months of use) at home, do you?
Both, Linus and Alan have named it "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux".
So I belive I can call it "Linux" from now on and not "GNU/Linux" like Stallman want's me to call it.
Or did Linus and Alan both only called it "Linux" because they didn't want to confuse the MPs?
NoSuchGuy
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
... I would probably just send this:
"I am against software patents, but much more as well. I have far too much to say to list it here. But my entire feeling about the EU (and the US, and the WTO, and the IMF as well) can be summed up by the book of Habakkuk in the Bible. It's only three chapters long, and well worth reading before your next vote."
I'm not going to throw it in here, but I'm going to throw it in an A/C reply to myself. So if you want to read it, look in the replies below.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The burden which Habakkuk the prophet did see.
O LORD, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! even cry
out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save! Why dost thou shew me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance?
for spoiling and violence are before me: and there are that raise up strife and contention. Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth:
for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth.
Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously:
for I will work a work in your days which ye will not believe, though it be told you. For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation,
which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwellingplaces that are not their's. They are terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity
shall proceed of themselves. Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more
fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat. They shall come all for violence: their faces shall sup up as the
east wind, and they shall gather the captivity as the sand. And they shall scoff at the kings, and the princes shall be a
scorn unto them: they shall deride every strong hold; for they shall heap dust, and take it. Then shall his mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend,
imputing this his power unto his god.
Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we
hall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction. Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look
on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he? And makest men as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things,
that have no ruler over them? They take up all of them with the angle, they catch them in
their net, and gather them in their drag: therefore they rejoice and are glad. Therefore they sacrifice unto their net, and burn incense unto
their drag; because by them their portion is fat, and their meat plenteous. Shall they therefore empty their net, and not spare continually
to slay the nations?
Chapter 2
I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will
watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved. And the LORD answered me, and said,
Write the vision, and make it
plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it
shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but
the just shall live by his faith. Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man,
neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people: Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting
proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay! Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall bite thee, and awake
that shall vex thee, and thou shalt be for booties unto them? Because thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of the
people shall spoil thee; because of men's blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein. Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that
he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil! Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by cutting off many
people, and hast sinned against thy soul. For the stone shall c
Your idea of a OSS-community-held patent portfolio has been advanced before, but it is never going to work either.
The OSS "community", such as it is, is composed mainly of a great horde of geeks who like to get neat stuff for free, and relatively few actual contributing developers.
It is as much as "we" can do just to keep churning out code for bugfixes and upgrades. They simply don't, as a general rule, command the resources to get patents written up, registered, and defended in the courts - all expensive and time consuming processes.
As to your suggestion that we form an association and each contribute $100 annually - we already have, in the EFF, an organization capable of looking after this, and they need that money already if you're offering. They are already short of funds. Why? It's not that we don't care really, but $100 is a fair sized chunk of money for a geek to find, expecially in these straitened times. Those of us lucky enough to still be in work are no longer paid as well as we used to be. And the rest of us are out of work.
For the sake of argument let's posit the existence of a group of people turned on by patent law. We'll call this hypothetical bunch "patent geeks" (we already know there are *some* people like us working on the legal side; people like Eben Moglen, Lawrence Lessig, and the contributors to Greplaw and the OpenLaw project, both hosted at Harvard).
Now if the efforts of OSS developers were only matched by legal i-dotting and t-crossing by those hypothetical patent geeks, then each software project could be backed up by proper legal protection.
But guess what - the people mentioned above may be interested, and can sometimes help out when critical cases get to court, but they are not patent draftsmen. I see no sign of *any* hobbyist patent draftmen willing to lend out their services pro bono, actually.
In reality, dotting i's and crossing t's have always been the OSS community's weak spot. Many applications (i.e. the entire gamut of KDE applications EVEN AT VERSION 3.2) *still* don't come with adequate (or even *any*) documentation, for example. Even worse, some projects' output is distributed in such a raw form that it can only be coaxed into life by an expert after weeks of experimentation.
But this is tolerated because it is the very absence of the usual rigorous standards required by paying customers, which allows these projects to exist in the first place, and which allows their fruits to be distributed at such low cost. It is those "flexible" standards which allows open source to exist and compete with commercial softwre in the first place.
You can surely see by now where I'm going with this. If every OSS software development project needed to be shadowed by a team of volunteer patent lawyers then most software projects would simply wither and die. The cost of operating would be too great for small players and the only projects able to survive would be those capable of going commercial like Linux, BIND, Apache, Sendmail, Samba, the GNU compiler suite.
So to sum up: many users won't pay for patent registration and defence; the larger projects may end up being forced to do it themselves, but if it were to become a universal necessity owing to increasing frequency of aggressive patent lawsuits then the only possible result is a much smaller open source universe. We need therefore to focus our efforts on changing the law to provide a more benign legal environment for pro bono software contributors.
"EU-Parlament: elected every 4th year by the people."
HAS NO REAL POWER
"EU-Commision: selected by the governments (that are elected by each country's people)"
NOT ELECTED. If this is what you consider as elected, then you are being an ass.
"EU-Council: based on a theme, representatives of the governments from each country gather (again they are elected by each country's people)."
NOT ELECTED. You are a sheep. You give away your rights so easily just so that you can be relevant.
The POWER in the EU is in appointed officials, not anything directly elected by the people. If that's what you consider good, then I don't want to live in your world.
This is untenable. You'd need to make certain guarantees with regards to continued access to patents to members. So, you guarantee access to patents to company A, they join. Microsoft comes along, they buy company A. Now they have unfettered access to your patents,but you don't have access to their patents.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The only correct approach is the abolishment of software patents. If the political system doesn't allow for that, I say democracy doesn't exist anymore, and we need a revolution.
Okay, quite simply, here's the interpretation of the Book of Habakkuk. When we raid other countries for ill-gotten profits [and remember, Enron, IP, IMF loans+insurrection in Zaire, our tariffs against non-1st-world-owned tropical fruit, the WTO helping only the 1st world, our oil companies in the 3rd world...], we destroy the infrastructure of our neighboring countries. That, in turn, makes them incredibly vulnerable to disaster, especially to external attack. If you want to measure vulnerability, it is inversely proportional to the number of independantly operating economic units. When we raid these things, and have Chevron own Nigeria, it makes Nigeria vulnerable to attack. That makes *us* vulnerable to barbarian attack. If you think that can't happen, you're wrong. ("that you will not believe, though it be told to you.") So destruction comes, and there is nothing that we can do about it, except to live righteously and faithfully despite everything. Of course, after the infrastructure is destroyed, you're going to have famine, and then plagues. That's natural to the state of things, too. You can have lots of farms exporting food to the city, but if there's no infrastructure to take the food to the city, then the city starves. If you're starving, you're also liable to get sick. But when destruction comes, we can pray for mercy. Meanwhile, we can also take refuge in God. To me, that last part that I put in italics is the most beautiful, wonderful statement of faith, when Habakkuk says "even if the crops all fail, even if everything is bad, I trust that my God is good, and that He loves us, and will strengthen us." Would that we all had that faith.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I disagee... but you make an excellent point.
While in you example M$ may end up owning the company, it is still a seperate legal entity and its IP and agreements do not automatically accrue to its owner (ie M$). In order for a full transfer to take place contracts need to be novated and this involves a negotitations step.
Furthermore M$ in their own licensing agreements have set the precedent that the license does not transfer via an aquisition.
Communists effecting Socialists, who'da thunk it! Evil Man
These people are not even a pimple on some ass to the wonks in government and business.
You make excellent points here.
I am a member of the EFF BTW, and I have written them and implored them to start doing some things in the patent area. I have heard not even a peep back. But I do think the EFF does excellent work and I do support them.
I think your last paragraph is revealing. "Many users won't pay". Well - to be frank they will if they have to. It is unfortunate to have to force users to anti up for an anti-patent protection scheme but then we are not to blame here... we are just trying to solve a problem we did not create.
Then you say "The larger projects may end up being forced to do it themselves"... and to this I respond that again it is a situation I would rather not see. Instead of valuable resources being channeled into areas such as legal make work projects I would rather we become proactive and set up a structure that any project large or small and for that matter any developer can avail themselves of with little tax on their resources.
I do not see this as a situation where we depend on pro-bono patent lawyers, rather I would like to see a situation where maybe 50,000 developers initially (there are 500,000 registered in sourceforge) volunteer to join an association for under $10 bux per month because they perceive value and that this association then picks the best of the best ideas and organises patent applications on behalf of everyone.
In the latest version of OpenBSD for instance there were at least 5 excellent patentable innovations. These were real innovations... and they are in the public domain. Meanwhile we have obvious things like XOR sitting with a patent and ridiculous one-click claims.
So, if we developers are going to be faced with a patent minefield then I see no other choice but to go on strike (which is what vested interests want... strike, quit, waste our time in court, whatever... as long as we don't develop code) or we have to fight back.
As it stands the number of us who can afford to defend ourselves from an invalid patent is probably less than 0.01%. If any of us hold valid patents the number of us who could afford to defend it also probably fall under 0.01%. As the RCA vs Philo Farnsworth lawsuits illustrate, the idea of fairness in the legal system is rather far fetched.
Holland is a country. In holland they speak dutch. In France (another country) they speak french. In Belgium they speak both, as above.
French and dutch are also spoken in other countries, eg former french and dutch colonies.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
Mega-Anony-Co is likely to charge everything they can for their substandard product, export jobs to Burkina Faso, pay their CEO ten times what he's worth and generally screw all and sundry for a profit.
I'll leave the reasonable conclusions to the interested reader.
It's as quick as email and guarantees an actual piece of paper will appear in someone's office somewhere.
It's also completely free.
They check your postcode to make sure you're sending it to your own MP. then 2 weeks later they email you to ask if you've been replied to, and publish stats on how quickly each member replies.
I believe the site said something about sharing their code, so maybe it exists in other places by now.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
From the letter:
Really? What's the evidence? I look at things like PNG (Portable Network Graphics file format), which was an innovative, technologically superior solution that probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for the patent restrictions on the compression used by GIF (CompuServe's Graphics Interchange Format).
If we think that patents are useful in some fields but not others, what distinguishes those fields? How will we draw the line? What happens when the line between software and hardware blurs (microcode?)? Is the real problem with software patents that software is somehow a different beast? Or is the real problem that overly general patents are granted?
I suspect the problems aren't fundamental. I'd like to see an honest attempt at fixing the problem by tuning the system before we chuck it all. Eliminate business method patents (software or otherwise). Increase patent application scrutiny. Shorten the duration of patent protection for rapidly evolving fields.
Just imagine that business processes are not unlike other "life processes" : fork (patent pending) solid or semi-solid device made with two or more pointed spines designed for moving food items from a plate (TM) to the mouth. see also fork (patent pending) a software process that provides a conditional or unconditional branch (TM) operation within a set of computer instructions that comprise a program (C)
Has anyone started to Wiki the law to see if we can come up with something better than the current Software Patent Directive proposed to the European Parliament?
A vote on it would be nice.
covers their graves
Business practice patents and (most) software patents are pure, unadulterated
steaming hot male bovine scat.
How can a program function designed to
automatically calculate shipping costs
(e.g. the NZ vs Canada issue) be a
patentable business process?
At the current rate of government inter-
ference that forsakes small businesses
in favor of the big multination corps,
the only jobs left in good old USA will
be robber baron corporate officers and
the vast multitude of peon surf slaves
that work for them.
In the latest version of OpenBSD for instance there were at least 5 excellent patentable innovations
With respect to building a portfolio of patents to engage in cross-licensing deals with major patent holders, just how many software patents do such companies like IBM, Oracle, Adobe hold? IBM alone holds more than 37,000 patents and this number is currently increasing by thousands per year.
Faced with patent portfolios like that, which represent annual R&D and legal expenditure in the billions industry-wide, I don't see how parity can ever be achieved. So how can we ever achieve parity in order to bring the buggers to the negotiating table? Rather than let us have access to their huge number of patents in exchange for a paltry few, they might consider it cheaper to just invent their own alternative. Or to fight it in court and bleed us dry that way, as noted above.
The current and impending software patent issue ...
in the EU will (IMHO) will favor the multi-
national mega-corporations, because they can
spend the BIG money to woo the votes. (SAP
and Microsoft will win, and Linux and OSS will
lose.) For a time
If the USA had implimented term limits for their
Congressional representatives, I don't believe
that the US patent law would be in such a mess
as it is today.
It will probably take something of a revolution
to turn these draconian laws (DCMA, RIAA, soft-
ware patent, extended copyright, US Patriot,
et.al.) into the dustbin of history. Don't
think that public protests (e.g. burning in
effigy) will work: emails & phone calls &
letters & VOTES will! Time to throw all these
double-dealing bums out of office.
Most European countries have proportional voting systems, and rather strict party discipline. I think that make "campaign lobbying" less effective, it is harder to bribe a party than to bribe a person. Of course, rich interest organization do donate to parties they believe will promote their views. Given that most countries have many parties, it is easy to find someone allready aligned with you.
However, there are plenty of lobbyists, and the parliamentarians need them. They explain how the legislation affect the interest group they represents.
EU parliamentarians are largely ignored, so they are happy for any feedback they get from the public at home. The experience you have with US politicians do not translate to EU.
If you want to "just be a hacker" you will hate software patents, as they make it impossible to be "just a hacker" unless you work for a huge corporation. Otherwise, you will have to be "a hacker and a lawyer" to know what code you are allowed to write.
Well - I think you see my point. If an association with 50,000 members has as you suggest a snowball's chance in hell to prevail, then any company with a market cap less than say $25 million also cannot prevail and hense the logical conclusion would be to forget software development.
As individuals and small startups, legislation that allows software patents and a USPTO that is basically totally out of control have the effect of putting us out of business before we can even start.
If so, then I think you can agree there is a need to come up with a solution to the problem.
You bring up the point that: How much would it cost to fight just one patent lawsuit against a major software company like SCO or, heaven forbid, IBM? More like $25 million probably judging by extant examples.
Well - if you are an open source developer how would you like to face this issue alone? And on the other hand, we might find that a company such as IBM would actually support an association and contribute software patents on a cross licensing basis. You see, AFAIK IBM has never sued anyone with regard to software patents. Perhaps they feel they are being pushed into patenting software as a defensive move (so they have their own protfolio which can be used to cross-license and hense neutalize this mess).
The _ONLY_ benificiaries of software patents are patent lawyers and the courts and attendant infrastructure who all benefit by the LEGAL MAKE WORK that these laws create.
The software development industry DOES NOT benefit in general. If there are exceptions - then I'd like to know about them. Along this line of thought... the Feeny Patent comes to mind. Certainly many have profited fromt his patent... who? The legal community. Has anyone else seen any benefit?
The short of it is that a patent generally does not protect your work. It only creates a situation where you have to pay $100,000's to millions towards lawyers for painful litigation.
The history of Philo Farnsworth should be soberly considered because he was destroyed by this system.
Many applications (i.e. the entire gamut of KDE applications EVEN AT VERSION 3.2) *still* don't come with adequate (or even *any*) documentation, for example.
Could you give an example? My installation (3.1.4) seems to have multi-chapter manuals for three or four dozen of the KDE programs.
I don't know if it's still the case, but certainly up until recently at least, many help pages would just state the program name and version and along with a list of empty headings there was a single brief comment along the lines of "Sorry, we don't have time to write documentation".
In my humble opinion (as someone who develops software for a living) if you can't document then you shouldn't be pushing software in the first place. Who else is going to do it? Is some telepathic volunteer supposed to read their minds?
If as you suggest this problem has receded somewhat in recent versions, that's a good thing.
There's nobody here disputing any of that. I agree in principle with what you are trying to achieve and I have written several letters to my MEP stating broadly the same things.
Where I do disagree is that I don't think a community-held patent portfolio can be made into a practical defence strategy.
Try to remember that patent law has evolved (like most law) to serve the wealthy and powerful, at everyone else's expense. Under current "intellectual property" law (and I do mean patents, trademarks *and* copyright), in most cases - no matter who is actually right - the winner is the one with the most money. This rule of thumb is only broken when both parties have sufficient legal resources to go all the way.
As I pointed out, it is unlikely that the EFF could accumulate sufficient resources out of subscription fees to fight even one patent lawsuit against a major player. I'd go further: I don't think the OSS community will ever be able to match those industry giants' investment in IP protection. They can afford to spend all that, and they even like it that way because in the end they make even more money out of it. Whereas we don't make any money out of it even if we win.
For these reason the *only* way we can hope to retain control of the fruits of our labours is to seek a change in the law, and specifically one which drastically reduces the role of courts and lawyers for arbitration purposes. This would level the playing field so that all participants could seek protection under the law without incurring huge legal bills. A patent office that was more open and didn't grant stupid patents would be a start; a law that clearly forbade patents on abstract processes such as software and business methods would more or less eliminate the problem altogether.
So if there are any limited resources available to be spent on fighting this issue I think the EFF are absolutely right to be concentrating on seeking changes in the law and the way it is applied.
BTW I know what you mean about IBM, one does almost get the warm fuzzy feeling about them these days. But that's only because it suits them to snuggle up to the OSS community as things stand right now, with IBM in its current form. That could all change pretty quickly if they decide to de-emphasize their software support and consultancy business. So do beware of any cross-licensing deals containing a revocation clause - because then IBM could do to us exactly what SCO is trying to do to IBM right now.
The EU parliamentarians are elected. If you didn't vote in the election don't blame it on anyone else. You'll have another chance next year.
While I think that Linus and Alan Cox are doing the right thing by voicing their viewpoints on the patent issue, they are doing it in the wrong way. When I read the letter, Linus and Cox did not ID themselves as the people behind the Kernel. Instead I saw a from two EU citizens concerning the patent issue. If they wanted a fuller impact, they should have written to their local MEP's instead of the whole parliament. I have learnt this from dealing with my local elected officials.
Support the Chagossians