Slashdot Mirror
Talking Software Patents with a Politician?
agent dero asks: "I'm currently trying to land an hour or two of my local representative to the House of Representatives so I can talk about software patents, amongst other things. I'm looking for the best way to describe the pitfalls of Software Patents to somebody who hasn't the slightest clue what Open Source is, let alone how software patents will hurt it. How can a computer geek relate the evil in patenting algorithms to a non-computer geek to where it will have an effective impact?"
That's all the politicians pay attention to anyhow. All the talking in the world ain't gonna do a lick of good.
Congrats you managed (or will manage) to get some face time with a big guy in govt. Just remember the following points:
:-)
1) The guy is a busy man with lots in his mind, keep it brief and to the point at all times, in fact if you have an hour of time, present for 30 minutes and give the rest for him to either ask questions or politely take leave as he needs, prepare to present to not just your rep, but maybe his staff and other reps that might choose to join in (it's possible).
2) Impassioned emotional pleas are no good here, construct a good well founded argument and you will do awesome. Do your homework throughly before going in. Also if you happen to know a lawyer that's willing to help you, ask him to help draft your statements before going in (better still ask if he can join you in presenting to the rep).
3) Prepare oral arguments (the old fashioned Powerpoints or whatever your favorite pesentation software is will do here), as well as a brief (no more than 5 page) written argument to leave with him.
Having little knowledge in particular about open source software patents in particular other than what's on Slashdot, I'll leave the rest to you to reasearch and form up.
Try this and you might just be amazed at your reponse. I look forward to seeing your arguments drafted into a floor bill at the House
...in bed
Gee, thanks for the links to the House of Representatives and to a definition of Open Source and software patents. I would have been completely lost without these.
GMD
watch this
The basic difference between a copyright and a patent is the same as the basic difference between software and hardware- one is for ideas, the other is for physical items. Since software processes are NOT physical items, the idea of patenting them is ludicrous at best- and really stupid at worst.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
3) Prepare oral arguments (the old fashioned Powerpoints or whatever your favorite pesentation software is will do here), as well as a brief (no more than 5 page) written argument to leave with him.
I've got a better idea. Why don't you just sit down and talk with him/her face-to-face? Standing up in front of a few PowerPoint slides is going to make you look like some kind of salesman. Make sure you rehearse your 'casual conversation' before going in but don't make it look like a rehearsed speech. Please no Powerpoint slides. That will make your arguments look like some slick, over-marketed bullshit. Just sit down and TALK TO HIM/HER. Tell them what your concerns are and make sure you answer every one of the questions satisfactorially.
GMD
watch this
Planning is incredibly important. Make sure you understood and try not to use passion as much as logic. Remember that he/she may listen, understand and disagree. Remember also that what you tell him/her may possibly the first in depth information on the subject he/she may have heard and if you provide him with information that is lacking he/she could base his decision against open source on a predisposition from your 'speech'.
Of course he/she may not be as clueless re open source as you think. Be prepared to counter any questions he/she may have. He/she is not a member of the house by not paying attention to what is happening in the world.
How can a computer geek relate the evil in patenting algorithms to a non-computer geek to where it will have an effective impact?
A solid kick to the groin ought to do the trick.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
How Much?
Also, it won't come with any of those dino bones to 'test my faith' will it?
Something I learn every day: people have no dignity. If someone assigned me a task for which I was unqualified I would refuse to do that task as I could not do it well. Most other people will fumble through it and hope that they don't get caught out as they feel they should be qualified to do it. Fixing computers is the perfect example for me. People think that because I'm a programmer I should be able to change the ram or harddrive or whatever in my computer. Ya know, it's all computer stuff.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I would suggest researching some examples of software patents in the wild that have already impacted the marketplace in some important way. Any patents responsible for stopping upcoming technologies is one great situation where the evils can be pointed out, and I am sure that searching the last few months of /. stories will provide plenty of ammunition there.
Also look for places where software patents have impacted the non-software world. I cannot think of anything, but I am bad at association. Something related to e-voting would be particularly handy, but anything legally oriented (were there patents involved in that breathalyzer case recently?) should get his attention.
"Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God might be fuckin' with our heads? Anyone have trouble sleeping restfully with that thought in their heads? God's running around, burrying fossils: 'Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA. Im a prankster god. I am killing me. Ho ho ho ho."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Hicks
...but the House of Representatives got slashdotted anyway!
is not just with 'Open Source' or other trendy keywords, but it just happens to be one of the worst hit by it (as most open source projects have no commercial backing to help with legal issues or licensing etc.)
Ok, so i'll try and explain it in ways that your average local politition will be able to understand (mr g.w.bush comes to mind as an exception though..).
The main goals behind patents are to protect an inventors hard work, research and ideas from exploitation by restricting other peoples rights to duplicate/copy/rip/etc the idea.
For most industries the research process which is needed to create the idea is usually costly (both in time and money), in this context you can think of patents as allowing the inventor(s) to recouperate that initial investment and to control revenue from the invention while it's still considered 'new'.
In todays scociety the software industry is a completely different beast compared to what I would consider as the 'old stle' industry (think of the industrial revolution etc.). Thinking of ideas new software inventions isn't very hard, thousands of new products are designed every day due to the low cost of researching and designing software inventions.
Basicly the two industries are reversed, so the actual hard work and investment is in developing the product and getting it to market.
The first point that I was trying to demonstrate is that somebody could think up 10 product ideas every week and patent them (al la Microsoft & IBM), but they may not even have the technical expertise or money to create it.. generally all software ideas are useless until they have been developed.
So by patenting ideas in an invention-per-second industry, you are restricting the rest of the industry from making a product of it.. bad karma.
My personal gripe (and I'm sure most of you share the same opinion) is the US patent offices reluctance or inability to check if the patent breaks one of the simple rules set out: 'No bussiness methods or mathematical algorithms', 'Must be non-obvious to a professional from within that industry' and 'There must be no prior art' (i'm sure theres another one.. cant be assed to think of it right now).
So this means that I could for example patent a really simple theory, such as 'transfering memory from one computer to another via analogue signals across a distributed network'... and the patent office would probably approve it if it had not been patented before and the wording was sufficiently obfuscated so that only non-technical lawyers and civil servants can understand it..
So given those two pieces i've brought up, you can think of thousands of different 'inventions' in an industry where inventions alone are fairly worthless, and apply for patents with them.. and a lot of them would probably get approved due the lax standards at the patent office.
So given that our industry moves at such a fast pace (compared to something like the petroleum extraction business) and the length of the patent is relatively very long it restricts the actual development of new software (e.g. developers and companies are probably going to be scared of getting sued, or having unreasonable licensing terms pushed upon them).
Anyway.. try and extract as much drunk ranting gibberish out of it as possible, and hopefully you can use some of the arguments i've brought up.
Jus my £0.02
Here's how I would put it.
Patents exist only in order to encourage innovation. This much is essentially in the Constitution, because the right for congress to create patent and copyright laws is preceded by "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts..."
The way that patents encourage innovation is to provide an incentive to expend resources to create an invention. The incentive is the exclusive right to use that invention. Many inventions take millions of dollars to create, so the patent plays an important role for those inventions, at least with the way our society currently operates.
Here's the rub: most software inventions do not take millions of dollars to create, since the resources involved are almost always simply a guy and a computer (or pencil and paper). We've seen this many times, as fairly obvious ideas are re-invented, or old, overly generic patents are applied to unrelated inventions years later. Here, patents stifle innovation instead of promoting it. There already exists an incentive to invent, and since it is so easy to do so, patents just provide an unnecessary friction.
There are also many specific problems with software patents. The term is too long considering the pace at which the field moves. The patent office is woefully underequipped to evaluate software patent applications. Patents are often incompatible with free software, which has shown to provide a huge amount of value (for the Progress of Science and the useful Arts!), probably more than software patents ever have.
The biggest that I know of is that so many software patents are granted for stuff that existed before the patent was granted. I think I wouldn't mind software patents if they were actually restricted to original stuff. So, in my mind, the solution is to encourage the challenging of all software patent claims by anyone/everyone BEFORE they get granted.
I got the impression that the original poster is doing this on his own time, not part of his job.
P.S. Changing Ram or putting in a new harddisk is mostly a fear issue, not a knowledge issue.
One problem with software patents is that software is pretty well solid inventions, where other products are not.
If you sit down to write some software, a relatively high proportion of your effort is actually spent on design; maybe like 25%, with the other 75% on testing, documentation etc. Manufacturing is close to zero.
Compare that with a hardware product such as a vacuum cleaner. The scope for ideas is limited, because the vacuum cleaner is a well-understood product. Nearly all of a business's capacity is devoted to manufacturing; a great deal of the design team's effort goes on things like safety testing (most software can't kill anyone, but a vacuum cleaner can).
In consequence the sheer number of ideas a software designer has to generate to get a product built becomes a problem. If every one of these ideas has to be checked against every possibly-relevant patent, software development will immediately bog down in patent lawyers and there will be no innovation.
Some large organisations work around this by cross-licensing agreements, effectively agreeing among themselves not to enforce their patent rights. This actually defeats the point of patents as protection for the described inventions; those organisations are not benefiting from their inventions as such, only from the fact that they have enough patents that others feel the need to let them join the no-patent-search club.
Any organisation with an innovative product but no existing stock of patents has no way to break in. No matter how brilliant its programmers/inventors, the dead weight of patent searches it needs to undertake to get a product out without infringment will sink it.
freedom, n. Allowing people you don't like to do things you disapprove of.
Use your skills to create a corporation and then lobby your representatives.
That's the _only_ way to get enough time to convince them of any viewpoint.
If you're an average joe, however; welcome to "1984".
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
You're a programmer and you can't do a little simple part-swapping? You wouldn't happen to be a Java programmer, would you? ;)
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
> ...somebody could think up 10 product ideas every week ...
... inability to check if the patent breaks one of the
> and patent them
>
> simple rules set out:
> 'No bussiness methods or mathematical algorithms',
> 'Must be non-obvious to a professional from within that industry'
> and 'There must be no prior art'
Creating software basically involves solving a series of "mathematical problems". Many of them non-trivial. The non-obviousness test fails for software because mathematical problems usually are non-obvious until you've solved them, and then many of them become obvious. What might not be obvious to some people is obvious to others, and there's nop common knowlege of "experts in the field" that can be used to determine "non-obviousness". The finding of non-obvious solutions to problems is the programmer's routine job. Software patents allow the patenting of whatever a programmer is routinely producing. Obviously it is not the aim of patent law to grant monoploly on the outcome of routine production.
Also: software is just a description of a process in a stripped down language (compared to natural language). Any process that can be described can be described in this kind of language and implemented on a computer. This was discovered by turing in the 30's, and led to the invention of the digital computer. This means that the fact that any process is implentable by computer is already encompassed in the invention of the computer, and shouldn't be repatented by allowing patents on input (software is input to the computer. Turing's main point was that there's no need for many kinds of computers' because there is a universal computer that can receive descriptions of processes as input). At least any "innovation" by replacing an element in a gadget by a computerized element should not be allowed, since it is obvious since the time Turing published his results' before digital computers existed.
There are certain standards that contain patented algorithms. We can not comply with industry standards without infringing on these patented algorithms. Thus we are unable to compete.
You may try to invoke the Sherman Act, however, this may not work as that patent may not be seen as an attempt to monopolize but an attempt to protect work.
* Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not necessarily illegal for a company to have a monopoly or to try to achieve a monopoly position. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly position through unreasonable methods. For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification.
* Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act outlaws "unfair methods of competition" but does not define unfair. The Supreme Court has ruled that violations of the Sherman Act also are violations of Section 5, but Section 5 covers some practices that are beyond the scope of the Sherman Act. It is the FTC's job to enforce Section 5.
While some may collect royalties on software, we don't. Not that the rep would care, but we can't pay royalties on an algorithm. Thus we might be expected to stop distributing and developing code.
This brings a level of monopoly to the patent holder as we can not compete. Of course, we might be able to hack around some patented algorithm, but when it comes down to a patent suit, how can we fight it?
Unless the developer is independently wealthy, this person will fold. The cost of a defense is well into the 100s of thousands of dollars.
not every java programmer is clueless. I program primarily in Java as of late, and I built all of my (non-mac) computers. (Well, OK, I got a mobo with the CPU and RAM installed and tested on my last machine, but only because it was only an extra $9 and it included testing, which saved the hassle of getting bad RAM and having to send it back, which seems to happen to me a lot, always had bad luck with RAM for some reason).
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
You're right of course. Patents are for ideas. The parent is an ignoramus (sp?!).
o pb16_globalhealth.htm and others that you can google for yourself.
But, companies do try to patent (and often succeed) each pill and jet turbine. If they can get a patent covering ostensibly the same thing but in a different enough way to encourage the patent examiner that "in balance there's probably something new in the patent application" then you get extra years out of your invention.
Extra years = extra $$$ (Profit!!).
And terms are way too long.
In the UK we have SPC's (extra long terms for drugs companies). But drugs companies spend alot more on marketing than on R&D. Go figure. http://www.egagenerics.com/gen-phrmapatents.htm and http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/health/
The point for software patents is that compensation is good for inventors. There should be reward too. In software patents a cap on profits of 10 times the country of origins annual wage should be more than sufficient. Anything more than that hurts innovation as it encourages innovators to leave the industry and party!
I'd summarise the problems with patents as being that compensation is good to stimulate innovation. There should be reward too. However, this has grown out of all proportion and it is no longer the innovators themselves that are profiting - instead it is share holders and executives. Also there should be some hindrance to filing for non-innovative stuff.
One can argue that those that fund R&D are stimulating innovation and so should be rewarded. To a point that's perhaps true. But there's no evidence to say that a system of fat-cats increases innovation (and much to suggest it doesn't).
In software patents a cap on profits of 10 times the country of origins annual wage should be more than sufficient. Anything more than that hurts innovation as it encourages innovators to leave the industry and party!
As far as stopping patent phishing (filing everything even if it is clearly not innovative) perhaps there should be a sliding scale for patent filings. You can file say 100 applications at the basic fee level, for every additional application you pay a huge fee ($20k or so, not that much compared to patent attorney costs and the like, but enough to stop companies like HP filing a few thousand applications on the off chance that they might have something in them!). If your patent succeeds to grant and remains in force for one year then you get a refund of the additional monies paid.
* Keep it short
* Give a printed outline of your strongest arguments for future reference
* Use examples, preferably from local or well known companies/projects.
* My opinion would be that I'm not against Software Pattents, but that the current pattent system is too inpractical for actually promoting innovation.
- Compared to the speed of developements the duration is to long.
- Court battles can't be won before a pattent becomes obsolete, and are too expensive.
- Because of lack of standardization it's impossible to find if you're infringing, esp. because possible infringement extends to all tools you are using (OS, editor, desktop, etc.)
- Because of the currenty used funding system the (US)PO approves to many (trivial) pattents.
- The current system favors large corporations over the little man
- You'll find more arguments on the net, but these alone should get your point across.
* I would try to make some analogy's with how books work.
- Books are also mainly protected by copyright.
- Compare some of the current pattents with Stephen King having a pattent on Horror stories.
* The only OSS specific points I would make is:
- It's easy for closed-source compettitors to find possible infirngements, but hard the other way round.
- A lot of OSS lacks financial and juridical support to fight back.
- A lot of OSS has no financial means to obtain pattents themselves.
just my 2 cents.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Salut, It's a good thing that you want to fight for your rights by telling your local MEP how you feel about software patents. However, you should know that MEPs don't care very much about ideology, or free products. They care about economic advantages, and about getting elected (this is why they'll listen to you). They'll be on your side if you tell them how companies will suffer if their inventions are subject to patent claims, and how this is going to affect their ability to do business. Also, they will care about increasing the acceptance of the EU, so you should tell them about the legal problems with the decision. I'd recommend you to check out a little page I set up on this matter a few weeks ago, you find it on http://www.thundrix.ch/hacktivity/swpat.php Thanks for your help! Hope it works! Tonnerre
Software patents are getting really absurd because they try to patent ideas. It's like patenting brushing your teeth instead of patenting a single toothbrush. In the software world, there is no reason to patent a toothbrush - the software toothbrush is already covered by copyright, which gives more control than patents anyway.
If you allow someone to patent brushing teeth, then you actually end up stifling innovation (no power toothbrushes, no water piks, no...you get the idea), and the People (e.g., voters) get hurt. On the other hand, if a company can only patent a toothbrush (or is it a process of producing toothbrushes - patents were supposed to protect factories and such?), then other companies are free to innovate, more jobs are created, and the People both have more work and better teeth.
If the software world, 10 different companies can have the same idea and implement it 10 different ways (one will write 20 lines of C, one 2 unreadable lines of perl, one 200 lines of basic, whatever). The old idea of patents would only apply to the 20 lines of C, not to the idea - 20 lines that are already covered (as I said) by copyright.
As an extreme example of bad patents, how's "Using a computer to do work." Heh.
Anyway, good luck!
Perhaps by relating to something he might be used to... Not that this is the right example, but you could equate algorithms to choosing a path through town -- one might take into account time (rush hour?), construction, freeways / surface streets, etc... but he wouldn't allow someone to patent a specific route between his house and his job.
I'm sure you can come up with a better example, that was just one off the top of my head early after getting to work through rush hour ;)
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
Don't concentrate on Open Source. Concentrate on creativity.
Start by talking about how everything idea is built upon the ideas of others. As Isaac Newton said, I can see further because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. Tell him how the whole ideas of patents and copyrights were designed to ENCOURAGE creativity and new ideas, but they've been coopted to do the opposite. Explain to him the logical conclusion of what will happen if we don't fix that -- the US will quickly lose its leading role in technology, art, and entertainment.
You should only mention Open Source, in the context that people are creating computer programs and sharing them for free, in order to build up their own creative pool of work, in order to work around the laws that are mostly preventing such collaborative efforts. Mention that these folks are forsaking some amount of money in order to build these things and return to the model of building on the works of others, and wanting others to build upon their work. Restricting them from doing this doesn't make sense. Also mention that every large enterptrise is using this Open Source software, so promoting it helps all companies.
Concentrate on the reasoning behind the Constitution's patent/copyright clause. Explain how it requires balance, and that not only is it currently off balance, but large corporations have enough money and clout to successfully lobby for even more restrictive laws. Mention the Mickey Mouse extensions. Talk about how small companies are where most of the creativity in the world happen, but the laws are increasingly preventing them from creating.
Basically, summarize the larger issues. Read up on Lawrence Lessig's work and other such material. Try to get in as much of the larger issues so your rep can see the Big Picture.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Forget the issue of open source, that is a side issue and matters not one bit.
The issue here is the USPTO is issuing patents on software that they don't understand the ramifications of. That is all that needs to be stopped.
Clearly a better mouse trap might be patentable. But the USPTO has issued patents on functions that are obvious, in use by *everyone* and their attitude is this: "Let the courts work it out".
That sounds fine to the USPTO which is lousy with lawyers, lawyers love that stuff, legal fees and litigation. But how would you like to receive a cease and desist letter from a patent holder for something you and everyone else has done the same way for 10 years, and *THEY* have deep pockets. Sue them? Wait for them to sue you? Call a lawyer and pay a $10,000 retainer? That is the USPTO approach. Let the litigants pay their lawyers to figure it out in court. There are companies set up for this express purpose, litigating patents for stuff that is in use by lots of others that they can get the USPTO to issue to them, and they can demand licensing money from those who can't afford to litigate against them.
That's what's wrong with software patents. Patents creating expensive needless litigation over the obvious, issued by lawyers at "Law Office No. 82", who just don't have the expertise to understand the issues or the technology, or that the patent application is for something that is neither *new*, *nonobvious* or *patentable*.
If you could convince your congressman to help rein in this behavior at USPTO that would be worthwhile. Make the USPTO get the expertise somewhere to evaluate the patent applications for software in at least as thorough a manner as patents on devices. I somehow doubt it.
.
This site seems to focus on software patents in Europe, but they seem to have some information on why they are "bad": http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index. html
(disclaimer: I haven't really read much of it myself, just looked over it briefly since it was linked from the knoppix site...)
Place sig here.
... in the UK it is normal for your Member of Parliament to be available to the public one day a week for a consultation - called constituency surgeries - perhaps I should go and pester Boris!
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?