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."
This type of stuff has gotta affect everyone, not only in Australia.. Any thoughts on the matter?
It won't damage Australian software development. Microsoft Australia, Sun Australia, Apple Australia will do just fine.
For me personally, you can catch me at Elisabeth St intersection washing windscreens for the MS, Sun and Apple developers as they head of to work.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Outsource to Tasmania.
I mean, if you are willing to put your post in the queue, please try to at least sound like you know what you are talking about. It is the DMCA. Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Not DCMA, not YMCA.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
One would think that the primary roadblock to software developemnt in Australia is the price of Net access and bandwidth. Isn't it ridiculously expensive there compared to North America?
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
I posted this information in the earlier (less specific) story about the FTA's impact on Australian software development, but we really need to take action to let the media and politicians know that this is a big issue.
One of the best tactics is to send letters to newspapers. The FTA is a hot topic in the news right now, so there's a good chance that letters relating to it will be accepted. You can send letters to the editor at the following addresses:
The Australian
Sydney Morning Herald
The Age
You can also let your feeling be known to the shadow minister for the Arts, Sport and Information Technology (Senator Kate Lundy). Her contact details are here. Be sure to mention that this issue will affect your vote.
The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts have so far brushed off any suggestion that Australia's software industry will be harmed by the FTA, and really do not seem to understand the issues. However, you can contact them here, and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts here. Once again, be sure to mention that this will affect your vote.
You can also find out which electorate you are in, if you don't already know, and send your local federal MP a message about how disappointed you are over the FTA's impact on the IT industry.
slingshots
You mean boomerangs?
As we all know software patents are an absolute must for innovation. After all we wouldn't have browser plugins, the double click, one click ordering from a web shop and multitasking if it wasn't for patents.
Yes, you heard right, there are patents floating around for these things.
On a seriouse note. Of course it will damage Australian IT. The only entities that profit from patents are big corporations with big patent portfolios. Now I don't claim to know a lot about the state of the Australien IT industry, but I doubt that there are many companies that can match the patent portfolios of say MS, IBM, or Apple.
Open source developers and not to forget small and medium sized businesses are allways the losers when it comes to software patents.
I'm a small software development company, a one person one in fact. While I don't have any concerns (yet) about the DMCA, I do worry about patent implications.
Given the spate of trivial patents that are granted, it's somewhat inevitable that any piece of software more complex than perhaps "Hello world" is bount to infringe on something, somewhere.
I'm seriously considering moving my operations base overseas. NewZealand would be nice but it's a tad too close, especially since I've heard that there's plans for greater unification between Au and NZ.
I've contacted my state and local representitives about this matter, strangely all of them see to forsee it as something which "will" happen as apposed to something that the people of Australia even have the slightest choice in. Seems to me that "democratic" governments are far from being such anymore.
PLD.
It has already been raised by America as being a part of any free trade agreement (which supposedly New Zealand wants) and the only reason we don't have a free trade agreement now is our less than 100% support on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - the ongoing nuclear-ship ban also hasn't helped.
Of course New Zealand is most likely to give that bargaining chip away before negotiating any free-trade agreement. Our copyright and patent laws are alredy being revised to bring them more into line with a DMCA type approach. American forces in particular are bringing their weight to bear to re-outlaw parallel importing. And we're mostly likely to bring our commercial laws (including copyright, and DMCA type provisions) into line with Australia. Whenever that happens (eg food regulations) it is always new Zealand that changes to match Australia.
Pretty much our only hope is a general anti-American sentiment by our leftish government. Two problems with that:
a) we won't have a leftish government forever
b) a leftish government is more likely to trade away copyright provisions (no votes there) in exchange (or compensation) for being able to slightly bad-mouth America in the political arena
So we're doomed. But lobby anyway.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Australian copyright law has anti-circumvention provisions and has had since 2001 IIRC.
Australian copyright law is already completely anal. We don't have a concept of fair-use like the US copyright system. We're not legally allowed to tape shows off the TV.
And kangaroo militia.
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
Make a small ghost company under a diff name in Shanghai just to fake that it was developed there, and use that as an 'outsourced' source contract company.
But the FTA is shortlived any way, the super uber great depression will happen after GWB gets re-elected, and then the US$ will freefall as everyone dumps it.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
As an Australian software developer (we don't all work for M$, Sun and Apple) patents on really intuitive or evolutionary stuff have always bothered me. Ok... patent some really clever and mind-blowingly original stuff but don't take someone else's idea, improve it and then patent it... innovation will stand still!! I recently saw a DotNet video and some guy was going on about a "new" command shell for Windows called "monad" (I think). You chain simple windows command together with a "|" symbol to get them to do more complex things. Ok, instead of passing text you passing objects (neat!) but as if no-one ever thought of that before! I bet M$ will patent the "|" symbol and then go after bash! The question is, I suppose, how do you know if you are infringing a patent until someone comes knocking on your door? Does it come down to checking every function and algorithm for possible infringement. What can we (as developers, not just Australians) do... any ideas?
Just hypothetically, I wonder if the entire rest of the world could collectively survive a cessation of all trade with the USA? And could the USA survive it?
Just in case too many countries ever get a bit tired of the US trying to make them their bitches.
Aren't most of the Samba developers in Australia? If so, would this mean that MS could now go after the Samba developers for infringing on patents in SMB?
Hmm...
Whether governments and economic systems would survive is another matter, as the stock markets would collapse, held up as they are by the belief that the US overseas debt will eventually be repaid. Some countries are likely to hold off anarchy better than others, and the core EU states might take over the US role eventually.
As for the US, I guess the long term prospects might actually be beneficial. OK, there would need to be restrictions on oil use. The Bush family would lose influence without the Sa'udis to back them up, but other oil companies would gain power. The Government might have to put down a number of armed uprisings. The economy would go into depression until manufacturing could be restarted, but, let's face it, stuff is changed much too frequently and the skills are there to keep exisitng equipment going, just like the Cubans have to. People might even get healthier as a result of eating less. But there would be a huge one-off benefit from the writing off of US debt to the rest of the world. And the US would be militarily powerful enough to ensure no-one tried to collect on that debt.
I guess the biggest problem would arise if the trade cessation was not associated with an end to military interventionism. If the military intervention stopped as well, the US would benefit financially from bringing the soldiers home. And the likes of Osama Bin Laden would no longer have a USP. OK, Osama, you got what you wanted. Now see how your countrymen, especially the rich ones who just lost their incomes, like it.
Pity about Israel, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, but eventually the fallout will decay, and at least no-one will be fighting over who owns the Jerusalem Crater.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
This is something that has always irritated me. When people begin to discuss a "global market" inevitably these issues arise. If done correctly it can be a major benefit for everyone involved, if done badly it hurts all involved.
For some reason I have yet to see it done correctly (well, I know the reason - short term monetary gains - in the long run this hurts everyone involved). In each instance that another countries laws are cited, or they are "merged (so to speak), they take the *most* restrictive parts of each and implement that.
This isn't an "American vs Australian" issue (well, this particular battle is, but not the war). More than several of the laws passed in the US are done so because "some random country" does it. Even the DMCA was mostly an amalgam of the most restrictive parts of what other countries do. Once it was passed here other countries cite us. Eventually someone else will pass another DMCA amalgam (maybe the US, maybe not - others have done so just as regularly in the past) and we all "have" to follow along.
It is like a feedback loop. Country A passes the same thing as country B - but just a bit stricter. country B adds those in - but just a bit more. Repeat cycle along with blame the other country. Never mind that neither one *has* to pass a shitty law because someone else did. As long as they can passably blame someone else and get thier money they do not care.
I really wish a major country would stand up and say "screw you". I figure it will take a major economic or sociatal event to wake people up. As long as it doesn't impact them much few will care.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
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.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but here in Europe software patents threaten to become law here too. Although the European people were against them and the European Parliament (sp?) had them watered down in a way it would hardly effect the industry here, the European Commission (most probably bought by M$ and the likes) has decided to propose an even worse variation of the original proposal for law here. Most times if the EC proposes a law, it has become a hammer-piece. .
As a European (Dutch) i keep asking myself what part of the EU government is supposed to be democratic
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
Copyright is another kettle of fish. Australia conceded a lot of ground to US interests there. Read my last post from my posting history.
Run a mail order firm and let the US postal service do the infringing ;).
You can then pat yourself in the back for helping americans in fighting the rule of their oppressive government, and be thankfull that you're living in China, the land of the free developers ;).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
In Australia, you cannot patent artistic creations, mathematical models, plans, schemes or other purely mental processes. This rules out software and half of the other get rick quick patents that US companies apply for. The only protection available for these things is Copyright and computer programs falls within this area, as do other things like double-clicking the left mouse button to make something to happen.
The story also overlooks the basic principle whereby you need to register or file for a patent in each country you want it to be valid in. In short, if a US company has not filed for a patent in Australia, their US Patent isn't worth crap there. The same scenario exists for Australian companies who require patent protection in foreign lands.
Patents are not global, they are local.
If there were some magical retrospetive patent treaty which happened overnight,somehow I think there would be a much higher proportion of Australians lining up to sue US companies for Patent violations, than the other way around. It costs an absolute fortune to apply for a US patent from Australia. Most people and/or small busineses would not have the resources to do this. This means that once the patent application is lodged in Australia, it can be picked up and used by foreign companies without fear of retribution.
The PBS schemes and other issues of the FTA in Australia have been beaten about so much, yet this issue seems to have gone under the radar in terms of newspapers and public discussion. Even labor has not tried to push this issue and has not even mentioned it. Clearly the FTA has some benefits but this DMCA stuff it enough to turn you off it. Why doesn't labor demand ammendments on this issue as well so as not to destroy any innovation in this country?
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.
I'm fairly certain that the current amendment put forth by the Labor Fence-Sitters Club is specifically about the pharmaceutical side of patent law, and has been designed to specifically stop drug companies from using patent applications to prevent generic alternatives being produced or marketed. I don't think it will have any effect anywhere else, as it will be very much a targeted piece of legislation. As it happens, Labor still hasn't even drawn up this amendment yet, so we will see what happens there.
More generally, no-one in Australia seems to have noticed the changes to copyright and patent law that have been attached to the FTA; the SMH/Age article this morning is really the first mention of broader problems that we might be importing for ourselves...
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Have you priced a transit link to the US ?
Not recently, but costs have plummeted since the Southern Cross Cable came online. And retail bandwidth charges have hardly moved.
But it's certainly true that international phone calls are quite a bit cheaper than long distance calls within Australia. At least one company tried routing their Australian traffic via L.A. before Telstra put a stop to it.
Of the big 4, Telstra are evil and Optus are incompetent. AAPT seem to be mostly reasonable. I haven't dealt with either Ozemail or MCI for years, so I have no idea what they're like now.
I've worked in the Telco and ISP industry in Australia for nearly ten years now, and whenever you start to wonder why something is so expensive, I can guarantee that most of the money is ending up in Telstra's pockets. They are incredibly inefficient, and still manage to make immense profits. They do this by ripping off everyone else.
That is what the US government says about the terrorists.
But it would be more accurate to say that the US government hates other countries' freedoms. That's why they use military and economic muscle and deception to coerce other countries into passing legislation that removes freedoms from the citizens.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Of course, no big ISP wants to give away free transit bandwidth to a small ISP, and I was not meaning interconnection for flat-fee transit bandwidth.
Singtel Optus did it in WAIX, and everybody flushed 15GB a day (or month? It was a big number) to Sigapore. They cut it because they were paying the huge transit bill (how hard is it to just not advertise those networks to a IX at all?).
It's not that the Big ISP's shouldn't peer with smaller ones that should really be paying transit costs, But that the "Big 4" refuse to peer with the other Tier-1 ISP's down here. ISP's have been going to the ACCC about it, funny since it was a ACCC decision in 1998 which forced the 4 to peer.
What hurts over here is when we have content on one of the big 4 networks, in the same city, but you have to pay a fortune for it. ISP's have been paying per the MB for stuff like the ABC broadband archive, PlanetMirror and AARNet (especially it's mirror). The ABC recently agreed to peer with PIPE in Sydney (after having fibre terminated there a long time ago, both free of charge in the hope it will peer). It should ease performance issues with the ABC's link with AAPT (causing everybodys streams to drop out in peak times at the moment). Some of the 'in the press' articles at PIPE networks provide some insight into the state of peering in Australia.
The open source community has large source code repositories at hand which can be dated due to releases of Linux distributions etc.
Can't we use these to sue the big players and convert the whole patent thing to their own disadvantage?
It's the intellectual property owners versus intellectual property creators.
They've been working on toughening the laws worldwide in little steps, and then using international treaties to "level the playing field" so they can winch it up again in another corner. I don't know how long this has been going on, really... the Berne Convention, reasonable as it seems, may have been the trigger that started the whole process.
I hate to put it in these terms, but we're going to need to look to the union movement to solve this. It's the owning class, this time the owneres and managers of big companies with patent and copyright portfolios, versus the people who are actually creating the wealth they're accumulating.
... to solve the software patent problems will require giving the patent greedy what they want to the point of it being obviously stagnating and of no use to them. While not allowing them any way out but to dump the whole thing.
For that is what they can understand. It is apparenytly beyond them to understand any scientific proof to the contrary of what they want.
Perhaps this is just the beginning, and enough countries will wake up and toss the WTO off the face of the earth.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There is a deeper evil in US corporate behaviour that needs to be stopped. A small shoe company in Australia making generic sheep skin boots was taken over and first thing the US owners did is try to stop all others from making this style of boot, and only buy their expensive variety.
a il.asp?c lass=news&subclass=local&category=general%20news&s tory_id=282021&y=2004&m=1
See article for the "microsoft of shoes"
http://bluemountains.yourguide.com.au/det
Using bogus patents for Monopoly.
This is the flip side to vigorous corporations or valid protection of genuine creativity.
What country can one escape to for freedom?
In this case...
FTA = Fuck the Aussies.
The Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 caused a collapse of international trade with the US. The result was a world-wide depression.
I think that John Howard's government has been one of the worst things that has ever happened to Australian sovreignty. Even senior former diplomats and military personel have signed a petition accusing him of selling out Australia's independence to the USA, something which he consistently denies, but which is plenty obvious to a lot of people both in and outside of Australia.
First his undying support for the USA in Iraq against all advice, then his signing of the FTA, which will probably not improve Australia's economic position as much as it improves the USA's economic position, and which is one step of the way to making Australia economically dependent on the USA.
I hope the little bastard gets his arse kicked in the coming elections, whereupon he can go visit his former cronies Bush and Blair and reminisce about their glorious pasts as nation builders and great leaders in an old age home for the mentally unstable.
The USA has successfully crippled Australian competition before it really got serious.
Now if we could just get India to adopt similar provisions we could stop them dead in their tracks by patenting "offshoring".
Fact is, an ameican living at US poverty level has a comparable lifestyle to that of an average member of the EU. Of course the welfare safety net isn't as strong in the US, but it isn't non-existant either. The University and Healthcare systems are among the best in the world, not always cheep, but good. It's only a "tad" more per head for the wealthest countries in the EU. Where a "tad" = a couple thousand dollars. Of course the US isn't perfect, with the stupid DMCA and whatnot, but just because the US doesn't want a welfare and medical system that looks just like YOURS doesn't make them inferior either.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Most of the complaints I here about educational quality is regarding k12 education; where in order to get the free educaion, you have to go to the school the government tells you to go to. What I would personally love to see in US k12 education would be much more like US universities. Schools would be governed by a board elected by the parents of the attending students and run by the principal and his/her staff. Most states have a per student funding formula for k12 schools, all they would need to do is make that funding follow the student to any school they choose.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
First thing, the free trade agreement does not mean that US patents acquire legal force in Australia. All over the world you have to get a separate patent in each country to get patent rights in that particular country. Only way Australian software product can infringe on an American patent is when they export that software to America. Otherwise, American patents will have zero value in Australian courts, unless an Australian counterpart patent is also obtained earlier. Slashdot publishes bizarre patent news without verifying even the basics. This is as stupid as someone going to Sears to buy craftsman tools to write an assembly language program since it will have to be "assembled".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In software, assume that everything is already patented. You can't build anything, no matter how new it is, without infringing someone's patent. patents and linux, tim bray
via this link I read an article on patents and linux.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
What is amazing is John Howard's ability to manipulate the public into wanting what he (his party) wants.
For example: (here is the OT bit) Australia wanted to become a republic, the liberal party did not. A referrendum was held and Australia voted against the republic, even though they wanted it. How was it done? The liberal party did not give the Australian public the choice of a republic or not, but rather they gave a choice of "Their republic model"* or none. As nobody wanted their model, the republic was voted down.
*(even more OT) Their republic model was that the public vote for a party and the party decides AFTER THE ELECTION who will lead the country.
Sorry to be so OT, but I think that people need to see the control that John Howard has. If you want to know more, look up how he made the Australian public want GST when they did not want it.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
But that the "Big 4" refuse to peer with the other Tier-1 ISP's down here.
I still don't think you understand what peering is.
It is a prerequisite that both parties who are going to enter a peering agreement consider the other to be a peer (in the true sense of the word, an equal).
As much as the other ISPs think they are peers (equals, remember) with the big guys, they aren't. The big guys don't consider them peers, so they won't peer with them.
It appears to me that you haven't read that Interconnection and Peering article I posted. It covers what peering is, and the issues entailed, quite well. You'll then understand why the big ISPs are ignoring the little ones.
ISP's have been going to the ACCC about it, funny since it was a ACCC decision in 1998 which forced the 4 to peer.
I could be wrong, however, from memory, Ozemail was one of the proponents behind this ruling.
Ask yourself why the current enquiry into this is taking so long (at least a year now). Maybe there isn't really an issue, just that the smaller ISPs have a different agenda to what they are saying in the press.
So how could the smaller ISPs become peers of the large ones? Well, if they all got together and agreed to aggregate their networks, they might have a network that is equal enough to one of the large ISPs networks. Then the large ISPs might be interested in peering. Of course, that is unlikely to happen, as I'd very much doubt the small ISPs would get together like this, because, after all, they would be helping out their competitors, the other smaller ISPs.
Some of the 'in the press' articles at PIPE networks provide some insight into the state of peering in Australia.
And what business are PIPE networks in ? Wouldn't it be in their interests to portray the peering situation in Australia to be a certain way, which will increase their business ? Do you think they'll ever be a press release from PIPE saying they are happy with the peering arrangements of the large ISPs (who are their competitors after all) ? I'd doubt it, that wouldn't be in their interests.
You can't get independent news from any corporate entity. There is always a PR spin on it, which furthers the interests of the corporate entity.
In fact, this is why I care about it. I don't like the fact that the smaller ISPs are hiding their agenda for cheaper bandwidth from their upstream suppliers behind the "they won't peer with us" story. The public are being told only half the truth.
BTW, want another example of the public being tricked. ARIA (the Australian Recording Industry Association) complain all about music copyright breaches, how the artists are getting ripped of etc. All sounds good. Hang on, are they the "Australian Music Artists Association", or are they the "Australian Recording Industry Association". Oh, so they don't directly represent the artists, they actually represent the record companies ! They pretend they represent the artists, and I think a lot of artists believe it. However, their agenda is driven by what is firstly good for the record company members, not the artists.
From their web page (http://www.aria.com.au/)
Our members range from major record labels to small independents - ARIA works to protect their interests, acts as an industry advocate, compiles the weekly ARIA charts, and promotes initiatives to support local music.
If you had to attribute any of that statement to directly representing the interests of the artists, it could only be the promotes initiatives to support local music part. Even then, those initiatives would be ones that the record companies have a chance of making money off of.
The first step in determining the real truth behind a statement is to determine the possible motives and agenda of the entity making that statement.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
And to think I was once thinking about immigrating to there.
evil is as evil does
the party decides AFTER THE ELECTION who will lead the country
The really sad thing about this was that it wan't anything to do with leading the country - it was about opening fetes. The president had absolutely nothing more than ceremonial responsibilities. Who cares? The republican movement made out that it was a terrible model for no real reason, and so it was defeated.
Graham
Graham
Oh, and by the way, I noticed you have adopted the American spelling of ARSE.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem