Slashdot Mirror
Patent Mess May Stifle Australian Software
gtoomey writes "Australian Open Source lawyer Brendan Scott is claiming the USA/Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) will damage all Australian software development.
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald says that developers have probably built products which 'infringe' on U.S. software patents, while the FTA is forcing Australia to adopt DCMA laws."
I think that was somewhat the point of the article, the shitty software patent system in the US is effecting everyone else i the world.
The problem, at it's heart, I think, is the incongruence of technology and law. On the one hand, lawmakers don't understand technology well enough to write good laws, and on the other hand technology is such a broad topic and a fast moving target that even if there were a bunch of technologically savvy people in position to write technology laws, the way the system exists today by the time a law was written, passed and enacted the lawmakers would be 6 months behind on what needs to be done.
I think one of the major factors to this is that people both in and out of industry don't really understand how blazingly fast technology moves. While 10 years might be reasonable for a phsical invention, having ANYTHING locked up in patents in software is going to stifle innovation horribly.
I'm all for companies who invent new and great things in the world of software to be able to make money on it, they put in the work and they deserve it. But the reality is that software patents really don't seem to necessary. If I invent some super great algorithm and software based around it, and really do keep it a secret untill it's released in my product, by the time my competitors are able to churn out a competing product I already have mindshare and better damn well already be working on the next version of my software.
Of course the corperations won't be happy without a patent, and in some sence it's even justifiable to say that they are right to want some insurance that nobody else can rip off their idea, but if the lawmakers are going to get paid off to allow software patents, I think it should be for a maximum of 1 year. This gives them a head start as a reward for their work, but still allows innovation.
This all of course doesn't address the problem with junk patents, but at least it would go some way to minimizing the damage. I'd much rather we only have to wait for 1 year to be able to have applications which use double click or radio buttons than 10 years.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
AND we don't have a bill of rights either...
Funny that most people consider out democracy to be better than America's in terms of representing the people. Our gun crime rates are WAY lower per head, in fact I think all crime is way lower (probably because we have real welfare, health and education accessable to all). In fact, in many ways, before the neo-liberal reforms of the past few decades Australia was probably only suceeded by war-time britain in representing an ideal socialist state married with real democracy.
But now we have compromised a bit towards market capitalism and our economy is one of the strongest in the world. However, our social amenities have also erroded. It's about striking a balance really.
This is why so many aussies are worried about the FTA with the US. Not because we don't like you, it's just that american companies will use the FTA to change our local legislation re: culture, software, drug prices. So it's not a FTA, it's signing away some of our sovereignty, equalising with a society who's ideals we respect, but who's standard of living is below ours in so many ways.
America is a ghetto compared to Australia. I recently had medical problems, and with no insurance I saw a doctor about 10 times, got xrays, blood tests etc. etc. Didn't hand over a dime, no waiting in line, it just all worked... for free. I don't think you americans understand this. Got my university degree via a government loan which I pay back with no interest once I start earning over a certain threshhold. So it was free too until I get a job with it that earns a reasonable amount. If I never get that job, I don't have to pay it back. And if I can't find a job I get a reasonable set of benefits, straight away none of this 6 months before benefits stuff you americans have. And on top of this our economy is arguably stronger than that of America's.
WTF? you say. WTF indeed.
The basis of good policy is to not argue about ideology it is to look at other societies do and learn from them. Case studies of other societies should inform the policy process, but in your myopic vision america cannot see that the standard of living we have is far greater than theirs even if you guys have a tad more GDP per head.
This is why you should vote back in the democrats and get a real healthcare system. Your health, edcuation and welfare systems are the laughing stock of the western world. It was once said if you want to know the essence of a country you should look at how it treats it's poor.
Oh mighty america, how you are powerless.
I ask myself what motivates the proponents of chapter 17 of the FTA. This is the chapter that seeks to extend the monopolies of patents and copyrights. By my understanding someone standing for free trade should be against increased regulation and monopoly and so against chapter 17. A paradox.
The best explanation I have come up with is that proponents of chapter 17 are not for free trade but are for private ownership. They are typically against public property and against increased regulation of property, as they believe those weaken private ownership. In the case of patents and copyright they are for increased regulation as they believe it strengthens private ownership.
Perhaps chapter 17 of the "Free Trade Agreement" is really a "Private Ownership Agreement"?
Chapter 17 of the FTA allows abstract ideas to be claimed as private property. We shouldn't be talking about whether chapter 17 of the FTA is good for free trade but whether ideas are property to be privately owned.
No idea is formed in isolation. Instead all ideas draw from those around and those who have gone before. It is impossible to have a non-social idea in that having ideas requires interaction with and inspiration by other people.
Witness the emphasis the scientific research community places on publishing ideas and establishing networks of collaboration.
Thomas Edison once said "Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration." The existing patent and copyright system allows the 99% perspiration to be protected. Chapter 17 of the FTA extends the monopoly to include the 1% inspiration, thus hampering innovation.
Strongly dissagree there. The reason our current government is "anti-American" (it isn't really) is because of issues like Iraq, envronmental issues, human rights etc.
Unfortuantly copyright law etc. isn't one of the reasons. But there deffinitly are good reasons.
Our current prime minister was a protester of the Vietnam war. I think that says alot.