Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Critical of OSDL Patent Project
PatPending writes to mention a News.com article about Richard Stallman's objections to the OSDL patent project. He argues that the project may actually be 'worse than nothing', as it will undermine certain legal tactics. From the article: "'Thus, our main chance of invalidating a patent in court is to find prior art that the Patent Office has not studied,' Stallman wrote. Second, patent applicants could use the prior art uncovered by the OSDL to write patent claims that simply avoid the technologies used in the tagged software. 'The Patent Office is eager to help patent applicants do this,' Stallman wrote. Finally, he wrote, a 'laborious half measure' such as the Open Source as Prior Art project could divert attention from the real problem: that software is patentable in the first place."
Disclaimer: IAAL, but not a patent lawyer.
./ zombie mind control that have taught you to accept what this walking beard-and-glasses says without question. Read the article carefully and look what RMS just did: He was on a roll, pointing out that OSDL can undermine a future prior art-based legal defense to patent infringement. He gives some great reasons why, chief among them that judges tend to be dismissive of prior art that was already considered when a patent was granted. Worse, when the patent is granted, prior art is interpreted weakly. So far, so good!
No, RMS is right about this only if you have no interest in profiting from the things you create, ever, or in benefiting from technological innovations in general.
The one thing RMS does--his one useful function--is to appropriate good legal arguments and twist them into idealized rhetoric commensurate with his own agenda. In that respect, he's an ideal advocate and leader. But look what just happened here. Look beyond the years of
But then he goes on to decry efforts to actually make free software that already infringes upon good, valid patents more compliant. Say what? Let's not forget here that idealism is not a legal argument, and that certain free software projects of dubious legality are already in danger of having the rug pulled out from under them by legitimate patent holders. Should that happen, it would irreparably harm Stallman's movement.
I'm just baffled. Why would helping to ensure a future for free software as a legal product be all that bad, unless you really believe deep down that it's impossible to have good, free software out there that doesn't steal from others?
Then Stallman drops the bombshell: he doesn't believe a software developer should have any right to protect its intellectual property in the first place. Whoops! And with one fell statement, Stallman alienates those he is trying to appeal to. He polarizes. The IBM's, the Microsofts of the world see that it's not that Stallman wants to help them realize a tenable software patent system that works for everyone. No, he would rather no system existed at all--even though some random guy who creates an innovative way of searching XML files has just as much a right to patent his idea as Edison did the light bulb. Is this reaching across the aisle? RMS has just told us all in no uncertain terms that he doesn't believe in compromise. And we will all suffer him for it.