Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman on EU Software Patents
schreibmaschine writes "Richard Stallman writes in The Guardian that the defeat of the EU directive has bought time, but that the pro-patent forces will regroup and try again."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
He was totally cool in that hackers movie.
SPIKE SENT!
An amazingly focussed article by RMS. He stayed on the patent topic without deviating into a free-software diatribe, and seems to have a handle on the EU situation at large.
The only problem is... I don't. I RTFA, but I still lack the background on how this all works, between ministers, and parliaments, and councils, what a "directive" is, and who listens to who. Could one of our EU slashdotters enlighten?
...that the EU has bigger concerns right now than adjudicating Stallman versus patents...
I think it's time we kiss software patents goodbye. How can we pretend to have a true capitalist market when you can somehow monopolize ideas like this? If someone can produce it cheaper (or produce an even better product), why should you have exclusivity?
Software patents make no sense.
Why cant we work on finding a good middle ground. The people who are for pattents wont care what Stallman says because he is just too Wacked out on the issue to be useful. As far the the Pro-Pattent People are conserned they are protecting their own rights and IP. What needs is some good descussion on the topic and see what both sides are willing to give up. Otherwise nothing will happen.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Well, 'duh'.
Loads of companies have shown us that it doesn't matter how thick the brick wall is, they'll still run at it full-pelt until it falls down.
Smegma.
I agree. This is a big "duh" thing. We all knew this.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Does he even do anything anymore except "advocate free software"? Did he ever do anything except pop up occasionally to remind everybody "HEY!! LOOK AT ME! I STARTED THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION! LOL"
I think that software patents are a good idea, but I understand that having them can limit what software developers can do. So feel that software patents should exist but only last for a short period of time ( 6 months to a year). This will allow for the original developer to make money but then after while the patent can fall in to public domain. Allowing others to implement it into there software.
"Some governments ceded to threats from mega-corporations. Danish newspapers reported in 2004 that Microsoft had threatened to move a recently acquired company out of Denmark if the government did not put its hand up for patents. Earlier this year, after we had thanked the Polish government for rejecting patents, it bowed to four European mega-corps that threatened to move a laboratory out of the country where they spent perhaps $15m (£8.5m) a year."
So lets go after the lobby money. Nobody in Europe wants the same distortions of politics we see in the USA, so lets seek to get laws in place that make it a crime to influence political decisions in inappropriate ways. Threats, hiring direct or indirect of politicians and family, forced disclosure of payments to lobbyists etc..
The unelected European commission and the national governments that cannot stand up to business pressure should have no role in forming EU directives. Instead, every directive should start in the European parliament. If approved there, it should go for ratification by an "upper house" representing the people of Europe by means of referendums. These might be arranged in many ways; one would be for each directive to require the approval of a majority of the electorate in countries whose combined populations add up to two-thirds of the EU. Referendums would discourage the EU from adopting directives over things that could well be left to individual countries to decide.
.. I suggest he has a quick glance at an encyclopedia sometime and check's out the distribution of people around Europe. The numbers aren't evenly spread across all the countries.
Much as I respect RMS's ideas about freedom for software developers, that has got to be the most stupid idea in the world. He is seriously suggesting that "one would be for each directive to require the approval of a majority of the electorate in countries whose combined populations add up to two-thirds of the EU"
Doing what he suggests would give the populations of the UK, France, and Germany massively more power than the populations of places like Sweden and Finland.. And it's these smaller countries that are the ones who have been successful in their opposition to software patents thus far.
What's more, a referendum on software patents would be of so little interest to 99% of the population they wouldn't bother to cast a ballot. It would be a horribly expensive exercise and would guarantee to fail to return a valid, representative result.
I suggest RMS goes back to his campaign to put "GNU" in front of everything. That's actually less stupid than what he's suggesting here.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Well, he is writing in the Guardian, a newspaper, not slashdot, the church of FOSS. Slashdotters may all know this, but the general public don't. The average man on the street has no idea what software patents are, let alone why they are bad. It's a good thing for RMS to be countering the ignorance that Evil Software Corps are exploiting.
Stallman -- as he usually does -- wrote a well-opinioned piece, but it's money that influences politicians. Stallman doesn't have any, and the FSF not nearly enough to stop M$ or others.
The patent system will change when enough big companies get tired of it, like IBM's recent call for patent reform. IBM has the money to push these kinds of issues. Stallman does not.
because it's been unreachable for at least hours...
In the meantime, please use nosoftwarepatents.com instead, where you will find more information on the issue.
The European commission is given to serving business interests and worse; a few years ago its entire leadership was forced to resign for corruption.
Nixon moved to Poland?
Do you honestly think that psychopathic corporate interests would willingly agree to 6 months to a year? Even if it started that way, their foot would be in the door, and soon enough, the patents would last for 5 years, then 10, then the lifetime of the corporation.
Freedom is more important than money. It really is. I'm not kidding. You can't tell a corp. to "take just a little bit" of our freedom. The corp. won't listen.
I don't mean to start a holy war here, but isn't the EU kind of doing this the wrong way? I mean I'm running a lawyer at home on GrokLaw for like 5 minutes and here its like 10. Whatever, dude.
That commie punk needs a haircut.
Europeans are fortunate that French and Dutch voters conclusively rejected the proposed EU constitution. The document explicitly prioritised the interests of business over the public. It slightly increased the power of the parliament while greatly increasing the power of the council of ministers: in other words, it would have made the union less democratic. The rejection provides an opportunity to consider something better. I have a proposal. - RMS is bringing up an interesting point here. Had the EU constitution passed, the resulting government body would have been able to impose regulations on formerly sovereign contries and the process would have been far less democratic than it is now. The United Europe government would probably be even worse than the US government in such issues. Viva la France?
You can't handle the truth.
Stallman exemplifies that old adage that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance or something to that effect.
For all the BS he often gets from the newly-lobotomized Microsoft "ain't that bad" and "Apple's so cool that we must lick its DRM" crowd, he has much respect for consistently fighting the good fight, which is something that is rare to find in these funny times when people gloat about not believing or standing up for anything.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
Which would be a win for the "no software patents" side. Software can already be copyrighted, a new type of engine (a physical invention) can't. So why does software need copyright and patents?
What magical quality of software allows it to be patentable when you can't patent a novel?
Right now they have methods in the EU to protect "Intellectual property". Its called copyright. If your invention is so obvious that someone can replicate it just from hearing a description of it, then it doesn't deserve a patent.
I might add that patents were originally made so that the plans to construct a new invention wouldn't be hidden by the inventor, and thus society would benefit after the monoploy expired. How many of the people that have software patents have provided even psuedo code? You wouldn't get a patent on a physcial device by giving a rough description of it.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
The FSF isn't exactly a paragon of democracy, either. Even though Stallman claims to be supporting freedom, the way he does it is more akin to a dictatorship (and the FSF is a great example of how a bureaucratic state-in-state does not really function too well -- it's been 20 years now, but the GNU OS is still not in sight (Stallman's putting GNU in front of Linux does not count as creating a working GNU operating system)). This was clearly illustrated by the first version of Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", directed against Stallman's way of running things.
You've got to ask yourself, is it really freedom Stallman's after, or is it some sort of a bizarre society of anonymous zombies, all working for free (free as in 'no beer') under his command.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Let's see, directives are binding regulations passed that must be adopted by all member states within the period specified in the directive. The adoption of the directive often involves changes to national law to make sure that it is legally congruent with the EU directive.
In terms of the institutional make-up of the EU, it is a complex topic (I wrote a couple of chapters for a recent book on this).
Traditionally, it used to be that the commission proposes, the council decides, and the parliament advises.
In the last four years, the parliament has been vying for greater decision making power as it is truly the only directly elected body out of the three. Thus, it now enjoys certain co-decision making power on certain issues.
If you want a better answer, Slasdot really isn't the place.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
In unrelated news, Batman's defeat of Joker has bought time, but that the villanous forces will regroup and try again.
+1 funny, -2 overrated. Life isn't fair.
Some governments ceded to threats from mega-corporations. Danish newspapers reported in 2004 that Microsoft had threatened to move a recently acquired company out of Denmark if the government did not put its hand up for patents.
Yes, the danish newspaper "Borsen" reported this, and then retracted the story. It simply wasn't true.
How have software patents helped the United States? Do we see lots of bright individuals and small software companies getting rich on their duly won patents? Or perhaps do we see large software corporations filing hundreds of patents per day, getting ready to crush any one who writes a program that people like? Which situation do you think is happening?
The patent system was originally created to promote the avancement of "Science and the Useful Arts" (technology) by providing limited copyrights for the developer, and then releasing the knowledge and technology to the people.
Do you think that corporations are going to be willing to give up these patents to release the "discovery" to the people? Corporations, by their very nature have no reason to do such a thing. Profit for shareholders is their only motive by design. NOT the advancement of society.
Everyone, please at least read about alternatives and try to see the bigger picture before choosing the status quo.
On the one hand, Microsoft is trying to convince the Europeans that software patents are a good idea. On the other hand, they are trying to patent idiotic things over here; like the smiley. They are making the job of the anti-patent forces much easier.
Also, there is a story over on Groklaw about European laws criminalizing various ip offences. It seems that such a law would have made it possible for SCO to file suits against Linux users and threaten them with jail. It seems that we have a really serious war on. If we lose, we could all suffer big time.
Great Rovian (as in Karl Rove) strategy. Propose something so out of whack with common sense that by claiming to be willing to go for the common ground, you end up getting what you really wanted anyway because the ground has shifted so much towards your position that the middle point really only reflects your interests.
No sir,software patents stifle innovation and serve no useful social purpose and thus must be defeated.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
What the hell does non-monogamy have to do with software patents? Did I miss a memo?
in french..
"Viva la France" is a mixture of spanish and french
Well lets say that these companies have a rational decision for wanting ip patents, and that they truly believe they have a right to such.
"You beat my sister, I want to kill you"
then
"How bout you just break my kneecaps" seems like a fairly good comprimise.
So what were the 8 sentences that Nutzwerk wanted FFII banned from saying?
No one is forced at gun-point to follow anything RMS says. Not so for the EU.
Every time the patent issue comes up on slashdot, people rant about how little sense it all makes. Perhaps instead of trying to make sense of the patents, we should simply acknowledge the fact that people generally act primarily out of self interest. Companies are the same, amplified tenfold because they have no "conscience" as an individual does.
Politicians have always been influenced by business. Business has the money, and politicians are human. Therefore until we have some kind of semi-godlike being who is separate from day-to-day worldly needs and desires (e.g. money, sex, power, etc) then we're going to have laws which benefit business, at the expense of the individual. It is indeed ironic that at the collective level we are all behaving in this way, and yet at the individual level we are all hurt by it. We claim to be "advanced", but we certainly do not really act like it.
I have been interested lately in how ideas seem to spread in a community like viruses. Groups of people do have a kind of ability to collectively develop ideas - the audience at a play all decides to give a standing ovation as one, and the clapping stops all at once too. This also operates at a larger scale - look at fads. Blogging has been around since day one in terms of people being able to update web pages with their daily diary, but for some reason it only really took off as an idea relatively recently.
Once an idea has spread among a certain critical mass of people, then it reaches the "tipping point" and effectively becomes epidemic, or pandemic. I see ideas spread like this, and some are more viral than others - religion is a good example, because part of its DNA is a desire to spread itself to other people (hosts?). I saw in New Scientist recently a good discussion of this - it was talking about War, and how it becomes inevitable after a certain point, because it (the idea) has simply spread too far. So the article talked about the possibility of "innoculating" certain key people in the population (i.e. influential individuals) against the idea, to stop it spreading. It may sound strange, but these ideas do spread, and perhaps if the people in charge already had seen arguments and evidence to contradict the idea, then the idea wouldn't take hold.
The order in which people hear stuff is important, because as we all know, it's very hard to change someone's mind once they've reached a conclusion in their head. We see arguments all the time where people aren't really debating the points, but rather simply defending their own preconceived conclusions, sometimes in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary. See the defence of the current war in Iraq, which was started because Iraq was supposed to be an imminent thread to America. But after it became apparent that there were in fact no WMDs, many people who supported the war initially did not change their minds - rather, they simply changed their rationale to continue to support their previous stance (now, apparently, it was all about "freeing the Iraqi people"). People will contort themselves in all sorts of ways rather than change ideas. In other words, the idea that got in there first has a huge advantage. Hence the concept of innoculation.
So, what we really need here is not more laws or different regulations, but different ideas to take hold in the population at large. It won't work by simply changing systems, we need to change ideas about how we want to live. The crucial new idea that we really need might be this: Think about the good to the world, instead of just the good to myself or my little tribe (family, company, city, sports team, country, race). This would take care of a lot of stuff, including patents, global warming, famine, deforestation, endangered species, polution, and war.
But don't hold your breath. It's just an idea, after all.
I disagree with RMS in saying that the way to prevent software patent for being enforced in Europe is to have individual sovereignty of countries over their patent laws. The votes in the Council have proved that individual countries easily cave in to corporate interest. The best hope to durably keep software patents from Europe is to have them explicitely banned by EU directive.
A small but prosperous country like Denmark caved in to corporate pressure. A country with not much vested interest in existing technology like Poland caved in. Bigger countries all are home to big corporate patent huggers like Alcatel and Thomson in France, Siemens and Infineon in Germany, Philips in the Netherlands, etc...
Only at the EU level can the conflicting national interests be conciliated and the pressure from non-EU powers be resisted.
Except that the FSF has a public charter and a public record of its actions. It only continues to survive because enough people value the very important work that it does.
For not having done anything, I am looking forward to *your* replacement of the wonderful GNU utilities.
Stop the character assassination. It's ugly, distasteful and shows that you have run out of arguments.
Attack the argument which RMS is making(software patents bad), not the man!
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
but only if the various patent offices actually RTFPA (Read the Fscking Patent Application) instead of simply granting any idea that happens to be remotely related to computers, regardless of how trivial and obvious.
"Would you expect a company that makes it money by having patents to stay in a country that refuse to enact laws which protect its primary business model."
Companies always hate competition, its in the nature of companies. But if any country ever lets them have a monopoly in exchange for a short term gain then they lose in the long run.
"I am all for patents personally as they do foster innovation."
Competition fosters innovation. Competitive markets are the fastest moving and software grew huge during NON patent times.
"and most consumer market patents are the sole reason a company will bother to produce a product."
If they don't make new stuff they go out of business and they don't eat. Welcome to my world.
Look, I now it sucks, you develop your new idea and a couple of year later you have to develop YET ANOTHER NEW IDEA and a few years later YET ANOTHER. Those damn fucking competitors! Why can't I make just 1 new thing and block my competitors and coast for the rest of my life.
"If business are expected to give up their right to software patents"
Nobody has a right to a monopoly.
He sure did, he used to be known as teh creator of vi.
Nonsense. European law is already binding on "formerly sovereign" member states (and has been since 1963). The EU constitution actually would have shifted more power towards the European Parliament, which would have made a fiasco like the patent thing less likely.
I think that the defeat of the constitution was a huge mistake. It kind of dooms Europe to less relevance on the world stage and years of stagnation.
I second the "how about you just break my kneecaps" take on this.
Patents (as applied to software) are about maximizing the benefits of greed.
Sometimes there is no middle ground.
In the American media, you sometimes hear "fair and balanced" bruited about. When your opponents are thugs or oligarchs (hmm, sounds like pro-software patent people...), the middle ground is still a place where no ethical person can stand.
"How bout you just break my kneecaps" is not an acceptable middle ground.
You're also free to start your own non-profit association for the advancement and development of open-source/free/whatever operating systems. The FSF and RMS can't do anything to stop you. However, I doubt the EU would take kindly to setting up a competing organization.
I thought it was EMACS?
Yes, god forbid that your own son be confronted with the notion that someone out there has values different to the ones you hold.
" I really don't believe that people will innovate just for the fun it. "
No they innovate to sell and they need to sell to eat.
"The people who wrote it were not doing it for fame or glory, they are doing it for money."
Yes money. This is what it comes down to, its why I make new things BECAUSE I HAVE FUCKING BILLS TO PAY AND NOBODY WILL PAY ME FOR THE SAME CRAP OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
This is why companies make things too. They have made software things for years without software patents, so software patents aren't the cause of the innovation!
I am so sick of this protectionist crap. If Nokia can't compete then it should go out of business, if Ericcson can't compete then let the fuckers die, if Microsoft can't compete then they should go out of business.
People still want phones, networks and operating systems and if they die then a new company will spring up to take their place. Its harsh I know but mollycoddling them doesn't help.
Even if you give them a cosy closed European market where 'smiley patents' are the norm, they just won't be able to compete out in the big bad world.
I support patents on tangible goods, and on software patents I think they could work at something short, like 2-3 years. That way you can really get a market for your product. 5 years is a little long since 5 year old software is really rather old.
The question that I have and would really like a thought-out reply is: "What freedom have they taken from you by patenting something (ignoring the obvious bad-patents like one-click, etc.)?"
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Have you actually read the FA? I suspect not. Mr. Stallman argues very convincibly in a major UK newspaper for our case. That in itself can be put down as a major success for the free software movement.
I don't know if Mr. Stallman is an unwashed, fanatic, commie, terrorist, GNU/Linux hippie as a lot of people imply, but what I do know - from reading some of his essays and articles - that this guy is brilliantly smart and has a lot to say. From what I read he is convinced of his mission, but he usually doesn't come over as an unwashed, fanatic, commie, terrorist, GNU/Linux hippie. So why do you consider him whacked-out? because he has convictions, stands by them and fights for them?
As far the the Pro-Pattent People are conserned they are protecting their own rights and IP.
Hell! That's exactly the fucking point, which the FSF and a whole bunch of activists and even (shudder!) some profit minded companies try to fight. Software patents are about patenting algorithms, or more generally about patenting mathematics. This is just plain, pure, undiluted bullshit!
I give you the benefit of the doubt, since English doesn't seem to be your native language, so it's very well possible that you couldn't bring your point over. Otherwise I'd declare you an idiot and a troll
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
When they put on a show, and it's a hit
No one tries to censor it
Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong.
And when a book is selling at it's best
It isn't stopped; it's not suppressed.
Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong.
Whenever they're dry
For brandy or rye,
To get it, they don't have to give up their right eye.
And when we brag about our liberty
And they laugh at you and you and you and me
Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong.
True, but you can't really compare the two. The FSF isn't a governing body. If you live in (say) Belgium you will be forced-- eventually at gunpoint-- to obey the government's rules. No one anywhere is forced to "do things the FSF way". All are free to eschew GNU software and write their own work-alikes.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Hail Richard Stallman!
Everytime I goto sleep, I pray to the holy gnu!
The interests served by patents are not the public or business in general, but a handful of giant corporations who wish to use armadas of patents to cover for their inefficiency and sloth and prevent other, more nimble businesses from competing with them.
The Golden Rule still applies
...until the rabble (that's us, folks) get fed up with it and decide to topple the entire system, society and all. Which typically happens shortly after such notions as yours become commonly accepted.
This despicable, toxic, and inaccurate meme needs to die the death it so richly deserves, before it becomes a self-fulfilling expectation that takes all of society down into the toilet from which it was spawned.
Those who have the gold make the rules.
Historical examples include the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, the Bolschevik Revolution, and others.
At the end of the day, the people can and do excersize final veto power of the almighty [insert favorite currency here]. The Europeans are fortunate enough to have a functioning democratic system of sorts, and a politically involved electorate that keeps money from becoming the sole determinator of public policy. The United States, unfortunately, does not, and is probably as a result much closer to a societal reboot through violent uprising and discontent.
I once said I hoped to never live to see the day--not only because such scenerios are horrible in and of themselves, but because, as horrible as they are, the excesses of the ruling elite are generally just as bad when they precipitate such action from the people.
I no longer have hope that such a day won't come while I'm still alive (assuming I live a normal, reasonably expected lifespan). Now I merely hope to be elsewhere when it does.
Not that it will happen because of patents, or copyright abuses, or any number of other architectures of control we've come to accept over the centuries. Though they certainly play a part in adding fuel to the fire through the impoverishment of all of us they create, the catalyst will almost certainly be something else (probably something none of us are thinking about at the moment). Could be as simple as hunger after a Monsanto seed shipment fails and our sterile crops leave us with no seed corn, and no crops, the following year (and ensuing mass starvation), or it could be as complex as religious, social, and political manueverings that topple a separation of church and state and leave one sect in power abusing all the others (along with those of us who believe in "none of the above") and fomenting a violent backlash to their abuses. Who knows?
What is clear is that the cynical dismissal of our democratic institutions, as encouraged, even insisted upon, by the stupid notion that money is the sole, or even the dominant, factor in public policy in a normal, healthy democracy such as we once had, is the foundation of such a scenerio, where the people stop participating in or even believing in their civil society and let things rot until the only possible scenerios left all result in oppression and violent uprisings, successful or not, against said oppression.
The US is perilously close to such a state right now--perhaps even past the point of no return (though I sincerely hope not). There is absolutely no good reason to export the stupid memes we've bought into, that have brought us to this place, to those who thus far have been wise enough to actually be engaged in politics and make a difference.
Oh, and in case you forgot, it wasn't money that determined the outcome of the European Software Patent debate. It was political involvement by activists and the people, and the side with much, much less power, money, and influence ultimately won, through sheer logic, lobbying, and activism. So much for your "golden rule."
America may be too far gone for recovery, but Europe clearly is not.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Whoever runs FFII was dumb Dumb DUMB to ignore a summons. If you can't afford a lawyer, bring a friendly indie journalist if you want, but absolutely do NOT skip a court date. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for the two sweetest words in the English language, even if you're in Germany.
Today we salute you, Mr. Free-Software-Advocate Guy.
After all, he was excellent as the Trainman in The Matrix Revolutions!
Because the European countries have evolved seperately over the last couple of thousand years they all have different legal systems, and that situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. As a result it is not possible to pass exactly the same law in every country and this is where directives come in.
A directive is a specification of a new law. That specification must then be implemented in each member state's legal framework. It's a bit like a C coder, a LISP coder and a COBOL coder all implementing a spec in their respective languages - the code will be completely different but the user shouldn't be able to tell the difference.
But they're not taking any freedom from you are they?
Let's say that XYZ Corp. has been filing 10 patent applications per week (a modest number, to be sure) since they learned that they could do so.
Let's also say that because of the patent office's absolute lack of clue about software, and their willingness to grant patents which feature language that is so general in nature, and written in a way that most people simply cannot understand (including the patent officers), that XYZ Corp. gets the patent for something like "passing XML finacial data from one program to another over a network".
Suddenly, there are hundreds of people who may have even started their programming project before the patent was filed, who stand to be sued because of the patent. I would hazard that facing the possibility of massive lawsuits would force the person/business to stop development and distribution of their independently developed product which just happens to pass financial data in XML format over a network.
Yes, I'd say that was a lack of freedom due to software patents.
Is freedom the ability to take someone's hard work and make money off of it.
No, that's theft and breach of copyright. A different issue from software patents.
But what is happening isn't theft of someone else's code, it is that multiple people are developing software using similar ideas. And since those ideas are patented, the corporation that holds the patent stifles the advancement of society because people are too afraid to program.
Yes, that's a bit melodramatic, but not unlikely to happen.
The question that I have and would really like a thought-out reply is: "What freedom have they taken from you by patenting something (ignoring the obvious bad-patents like one-click, etc.)?"
Why ignore the "bad-patents"? You make it seem like there are only one or two! You don't think the proliferation of "bad-patents" will continue?
The answer to your question is that society has lost the freedom to develop software without having to worry that when the program is finished and distributed, that the developer won't get clobbered by XYZ Corp. for patent infringement.
Society advances when people can build on the ideas of those who came before them. What could we build if each time we started, we were forced to create something the likes of which had never been seen before?
If you replace "EU directive" and "pro-patents" by "terrorists" and "terrorist" you will end up with quite an interesting statment...
Well, if you don't take that little time to research this matter (really, it's not that hard or complicated and it's not a closely guarded secret, either) then whose fault is it?
Real life is overrated.
I think you're missing the point a bit though.
Having a public charter and public records means the organization is transparent. While transparency is important to democracy, it does not make the FSF in itself democratic.
I'm an FSF contributor. Do I have any say in how the FSF is directed? No I don't. Now I'm fine with that fact, but it can't be said to be a democratic organisation.
What is more irritating is that the FSF, or rather it's benevolent dictator RMS. Does, despite this, concern itself with polical and technical details of the software contributed to it. Such as features he may feel undermines his goals ("And now it would be better now if you take these changes off your web site, and don't mention that they exist.", and dictating what programming language they should be written in ("RMS stated that the use of C++ was unacceptable for the GNU Project").
I find this unfair, undemocratic, and antithetical to the main idea of collaborative free software development: That influence on a project is gained through making contributions to it. Not by bystanders arbitrarily dictating what's "GNU" and what's not.
So in 1984 the UK developed Oftel, and Oftel came up with the notion of Significant Market Power (SMP). This comes into effect at 25% of the market. This has now been adopted into EU law.
Being an SMP enforces obligations on those companies. One of those is that standard technologies must be patent free. There is also stuff about profit margin squeeze.
If kicking and screaming, we get dragged into software patents, I personally would like to see:
1. The term of patent reduced to say 3 years.
2. A new competition body, similar to Ofcom. Lets call it PatentCom.
3. Reduced market share to define Significant Market Power, like Telecoms.
The cost of this would be high, as instead of just 1 industry, the PatentCom would have to police every software domain.
With a full time regulator and some framework of access and fines there may be some protection both ways.
Consumer, industry and smaller industry.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
I remember when, during the Seattle WTO meeting of a few years back, there were so many demonstrations and even violent disruptions. At the time I thought, "What a bunch of radical extremists."
Now I'm not so sure.
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
Since the pace of innovation and adoption of innovation is much faster, it seems reasonable that the lifetime of patents should be shortened accordingly. Unfortunately, this isn't reflected in current agreements like TRIPS. But shorter terms for software patents would be a good step in the right direction.
If patent law is changed to allow for shorter software patents, would corporations push to keep extending the patent terms? Maybe. But that isn't a reason to choose the current system with 20 year patents over the possibility of a much shorter patent term.
And don't forget that corporations also have some interest in limiting patent terms, since it gives them the ability to eventually use competitor's innovations free from licensing fees or (especially) the threat of litigation.
The basic idea of patents -- Reward people to innovate and then funnel their innovations into the public domain -- isn't what is broken. What we have is just a flawed implementation.
And even if you think that the real solution is elimination of software patents altogether, shorter term patents would be a step in the right direction (and is more politically achievable).
You are right, *God* forbid such a thing !!!
No, I'm not really going to use the overhyped T word for something as petty as business, but you get the point. Denmark and Poland represent a potential market of millions of people. If some megacorp wants to storm off and sulk about the business regs there, I'm betting there'll be plenty of home-grown, small, innovative companies willing to support the market in their place, meeting their requirements under business regs and probably doing a lot more for the local economy as well.
The correct response from both the Danish and Polish governments was, "Bye, then."
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
But the middle ground between "I want more patents" and "You have enough" is "a few more patents".
Not actually a compromise, is it.
And if my position is "We should remove all patents/copyrights/etc"?
We did without them for a bloody long time and did OK. Content cartes say that without copyright, there would be no art. Lets check it. We can always reinstate it if it fails.
See, a reasoned argument for *removing* patents.
Now, the middle ground is "keep the ones we have".
Lastly, read Bill's 10th Anniversary Calvin and Hobbes. He tried negotiating, but they didn't value what he wanted, and he wasn't interested in their needs. There was no middle ground.
Sometimes that happens.
Hence why I put up the kneecapping/capping.
You have only one vote in a representative democracy, and usually it comes down to voting for one of two parties, so it is a yes or no.
This means your vote will often be decided by just one issue - all the other "minor" issues can be resolved by the politicians at their whim. Software patents failed the first round in Europe because it came to the attention of lawmakers ^^ that some people did not think it was a minor issue. It also helped that it turned out that the eurocracy was unable to formulate rules for software patents that were unequivocal. Lawmakers hate to pass laws which have bugs, they enjoy control.
Siemens was always good at patents, and they understand fully well their power and when they can be abused or ignored. However, I believe until told otherwise that Siemens actually did good research in their history.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
"Stallman's putting GNU in front of Linux does not count as creating a working GNU operating system"
Your point about the Hurd is valid, but belittling GNU like that is merely trolling. What use is a kernel alone? Linux would be nowhere without GNU.
Linux could, of course, work with BSD utilities, but that would be completely pointless. My OpenBSD firewall already works perfectly even without the glory that is Linux, after all...
My Sig: SEGV
My thoughts are that if several companies are developing software with "similar ideas" then perhaps that patent is fairly obvious and should not be granted. I was not commenting on the difference between good and bad, only on the freedom and length of time. Twenty-two years for a software patent can really lock people out because of the fast paced development cycles we are experiencing. What someone might have patented twenty-two years ago is probably not going to be used much today. But what was patented only two years ago is probably still relevant. So no freedom loss, just a delay.
I agree that we advance by using the advancements from those who came before. And I think that the length of time patents are at now is a little ridiculous. But at a much shorter time-frame there is nothing wrong with this.
Now if you want to talk bad software patents that's another cookie altogether. I don't have any good ideas on that one, but getting rid of patents outright I don't believe is a good solution.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that software is NOT patentable.
Just like how it wasn't until the early 1990's that the catholic church exonerated Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun.
only when the truth becomes so popular will the fools give it up. Simply because it is losing them followers.
The simplicity of which proves Software is not patentable but still IP protectable via copyright, is so obvious that the only reason anyone even thinks to question it, is because you have people able to take the very essence of software and language (abstraction - which clearly stated as not patentable) and make a contridictary but good sounding arguement WITH IT for what ever they want to convince you of.
Its called FRAUD!
Just like the church was a fraud against Galileo's honesty.
On the flip side of this arguement, neither side of the software community wants to admit the obvious, as that would be like the roman numeral accountants admiting the hindu-arabic decimal system with it nothingness that can't possibly have value (zero place holder), not only does have value even a child can out do them in their roman numeral math, with it.
So the battle of software patents is a seamingly endless and tiring fraud.
Even Richard Stallman knows it!!!
for software will only be genuinely free with it is easy enought to creat that anyone can and typically does.... just like math is today.
*yawn*
*changes channel*
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:nWFSAHGeqewJ: www.ffii.org&hl=en
I find it funny they can take a site down, and it only takes me a few seconds to get a cached version from somewhere.
Can you give an example of a good software patent? Software is just a bunch of instructions (machine code) to a fancy calculator. It's just a certain way of using someone else's invention. It's like trying to patent a certain method for putting toast in a toaster, or a certain way to steer a car, or a certain method for getting AIBO to beg for food. It's logic and mathematics and language. None of which the 'inventor' of the latest and greatest bubblesort algorithm created.
Although you cannot justify software patents merely by trying to include them in the same class as meatspace inventions due to their abstract informational nature, short term (one year) software patents may be justifiable as a way to get software producers to actually release their code into the public domain. Much of the best commercial code is kept a tightly held secret. If such a system could be devised it might be in the public interest. I'm not even sure if we should use the term 'patent' though. It tends to invite abuse.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
it to be called the GNU/EU.
In some ways, I'm gald that the FSF isn't democratic, but is rather transparent, and has a charter. If I send them money, I know what it is going to promote.
The FSF isn't a political party, and knowing exactly what you're supporting can be a lot more important than the detailed internal structure of that enitity. Besides, I don't want to support average opinion when I give to the FSF, but rather my own values. Why should I have this diluted? If the organisation is democratic, this dilution is inevitable by the very nature of democracy. Far better to promote freedom in a purer way, and possibly have the organisation receive less money than support less-than-freedom that is democratic.
In short: Why should I support someone else's values? Far better, surely, to support my own!
Wikileaks, no DNS
Good point, I was just stating that sometimes a compromise is nessesary, weither you want one or not. Personally I feel there is no compromise to be had when it comes to extending already existing outragous protections. But possibly some compromise could be made on a world scale. Lets say we strickly enforce copyright in the countries that have no enforcement now. But we reduce all copyright to 10 years. Wonder if the media companies that are losing a lot of money in asia and russia, would consider this a good deal? Yes I know patents are a different story, just an example.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899
Slashdot = Sarcasm
What use is a kernel alone? Linux would be nowhere without GNU
IF the GNU wasn't around, we would have some other license..most likely public domain. I don't think the GNU itself had anything to do with the success of linux.
It would be better for innovation if patents were "an inalienable right" which could not be signed away in a contract, or, at least, could not be sold before they exist.
Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
While I agree that software patents are a bad idea, and I'd even go further by saying that algorithms should not be patentable either. How are we ever going to stop the mega-corps from trying to lock up fundemental ideas and charge royalties for using them?
We either need to have it explicitly stated that non-physical inventions are simlpy non-patentable, which to be honest I think is unlikely to ever happen or stick if it does, or we need to lower the barrier to entry.
In the same way that OSS tends to be more inovative and quicker on its feet that closed source, would it not hold that if anyone could apply for patents easilly thereby lower the barrier to entry, that you'd get an Open patent movement?
At the moment it costs upwards of 500 euros to get an application in, not to mention legal fees and whatnot.
Why not simply do an Open Patent setup, where people can submit their ideas to for little to no cost, with the provision that if it's granted it's put into the public domain. This will at the very least elliminitate stupid and obvious prior-art patents that get everyones back-up (one-click ordering, reminders, inserting whitespace, insert your fav MS or Amazon patent here)
If DMOZ and wikipedia can get volunteers to do their content management why can something like this not be volunteer based?
Now the first argument against this would probably be that an independant voluntary patent body would have zero authority, and you'd be right too, but as far as I can understand at least with it you can prove prior art, and who knows maybe somewhere along the line it would become as authorative as wikipedia is.
I've heard it quoted that patents and copyright are only as viable as it is to enforce them, compuserver gif's are a prime example of this, they patented the format of gif, but since everyone and their dog uses it how are they ever going to enforce licensing?
I really believe that innovation could only be saved if the people that do the innovation claim it first. If we can't beat the legislatosaurs, we beat them at their own game, patent everything ourselves and slap it in the public domain, once there ideas would safe from the grubby clutches of all these vulturous mega-corporates.
Since I know little of the legal authority actually granted to patent offices I may be completely in the wrong here, but what does everyone else think?
I have to do much prior art patent searching at work, and point 4 shows some sort of misunderstanding that would afect everything else you've said.
Once you've read enough patents, you realise that all software patents are about concepts and ideas. "A method and apparatus for doing FOO" is not a tangible "invention" like a steam engine is, since software is more abstract. A software patent covers all possible ways of implementing an idea (eg. read an MS one about storing heirachical data in a relational DB the other day), and it's considered sufficient description of the workings of some parts of your "invention" to say "insert a software module that does X", which astronomically increases the scope of the patent.
Do you search thousands of patents, consult lawyers and pay cross licencing fees whenever you write any code to make sure you don't infringe one of the plethora of very broad software patents that cover almost anything people have done in the last few decades? Stop stealing other peoples' IP, you IP stealer, stealing all the time!
If you think patents are evil enough that you're willing to violently reorganize society to get rid of them, then you need to talk to your psychiatrist about adjusting your medication.
Learn to read.
I never advocated violently reorganizing society, nor did I say patents would be a reason for it (in fact, I stated the opposite).
What I stated was that the architectures of control, designed to strip the average person of their ability to compete on a level playing field with established players, i.e. patents and copyrights, are a symptom of a greater problem, that of corporate (moneyed) control of our government, and that such memes as "the Golden Rule" actively foster such a situation. I further stated that such a situation, where the people are disempowered, creates an unstable situation where the only possible means of change is reduced to one of violence. At that point, it is not a question of if, it is a question of when, violent revolution will come, and what the catalyst will be.
Get over your misguided patriotism. You have nothing to be "proud" about for happening to be born on a particular piece of land, and your worship of your country is misguided. Try looking at the broader, historical picture, and the path the current corrupt regime has placed us on.
In other words, open your eyes, and stop trying to put up straw man arguments that have nothing to do with anything I have said, such as my "being willing to violently reorganize society to get rid of [patents]" when I have clearly and unequivocably stated the opposite.
Expressing concern and fear of a trend and its future consiquences is not, and never has been, the same as advocating such an event. Quite the opposite, as grade school reading comprehension courses, which you appear to need remedial help in, would clarify.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
No one is debating that if you invent a physical object you should have exclusive copyright protection to sell it. A patent on an idea however is not the same, you arent inventing anything, you are trying to own the thought itself.
If I write code and its great, the code should not be somethnig I can patent because its like me writin a poem and patenting the sentences. Suddenly the entire language could become illegal once everyone patents every useful sentence. How do you speak when theres no words left to use?
I don't know if you're serious or not, but you may want to take a look at the man-pages of some of your programs...
"Bash is Copyright (C) 1989-2004 by the Free Software Foundation, Inc."
"Emacs was written by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation."
"gcc, g++ - GNU project C and C++ Compiler (gcc-3.2.1)"
My Sig: SEGV
Bash is Copyright (C) 1989-2004 by the Free Software Foundation, Inc."
"Emacs was written by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation."
"gcc, g++ - GNU project C and C++ Compiler (gcc-3.2.1)"
yeah, I know.
Stallman did not invent c or c++, merely a compiler. If I create a program that was compiled with gnu/c, it does not mean that stallman had anything to do with it. It would be like giving credit to the guy who cut down the tree for creating my house...which is completly ridiculous.
Stallman is a nutjob radical that is hurting the open source community more than helping.