Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Letter To Abolish Software Patents In Australia

Posted by kdawson on from the five-hundred-nerds-can't-be-wrong dept.

Ben Sturmfels writes "Over 500 members of the Australian software industry have have signed an open letter urging their government to abolish software patents. Signatories include free software luminaries Andrew Tridgell and Jonathan Oxer. In 2008 the Australian government began a Review of Patentable Subject Matter. While we missed the 2009 public consultation period, we hope to influence the government's response to the Review, due in February 2011. The letter will be presented to Minister Kim Carr in early August."

28 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. I don't understand this.. by h7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know the Australian rationale but I wonder when Americans discuss the need for patents and copyrights. Why do content creators want to abolish patents? America is rich today because of patents and copyrights. If every second guy could rip off a great idea, we'd have nothing left to offer. We cannot compete on prices. The innovation and creativity of Americans is what has made US powerful. Why would you want to create a law that will affect your livelihood in the future? The rest of the world is just waiting for something like this to happen. I don't get it.

    1. Re:I don't understand this.. by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know the Australian rationale but I wonder when Americans discuss the need for patents and copyrights. Why do content creators want to abolish patents? America is rich today because of patents and copyrights. If every second guy could rip off a great idea, we'd have nothing left to offer. We cannot compete on prices. The innovation and creativity of Americans is what has made US powerful...

      That's funny. I always though one of the reasons that America was rich today was because when they were developing, they did not respect patents and copyrights, specifically foreign copyrights, such as books from Europe. They just copied and reproduced the content they wanted at will. Oh, and slaves. You can get rich pretty easily when you don't have to pay for the stuff you need/want.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    2. Re:I don't understand this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's because software patents really break the patent system. Maybe you just want to watch the FSFs Patent Absurdity movie. I'm tired to explain everything again here, and the movie makes the point pretty clear.

    3. Re:I don't understand this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are lots of ways to protect ideas aside from copyright and especially patents (such as trade secrets, and natural monopolies). Having patent lawyers is not always a justifiable cost, but necessary to defend against other companies patent lawyers but in some cases all sides might benefit from laws preventing patents in their areas (especially smaller companies). This might not hold true for all areas/industries though.

    4. Re:I don't understand this.. by thoughtfulbloke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it prevents new cultural creations as it makes them totally dependent on the patent holders willingness to provide their particular patent. Effectively it creates blocks on economic activity, as people are not going to provide their patents for others who will disrupt their business models, or alternatively it imposes a patent troll tax on doing business (this depends on if the patent holder is an entrenched market player, or a leech). Given the economic costs, and the high rate of change of software, it is better for the economy as a whole (but not current individual patent holders) for the abolition of software patents.

      It will be interesting to see if the Australian government leans towards the U.S. model (with the U.S./Australian Free Trade Agreement) or New Zealand no-software patents model (with the Closer Economic Relations agreements between the countries). I suspect that mainly hinges on who wins the upcoming Australian election.

    5. Re:I don't understand this.. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Informative
      The US became the dominant world force in copyright when it had significantly weaker copyright laws than basically all of Europe. We still lack things like 'moral rights' and have some of the most expansive fair use rights in the world (at least before the DMCA, anyway). As for software, there are several issues. The first is that the functional element and the written element are virtually the same. Variable names, outputs strings, and source code comments are about the only non-functional elements. If you had a specific patent claim held to the same degree of scrutiny as say a pharmaceutical, it would have hundreds of claims for even an elementary program or portion thereof. However, most patents are very broad, and thus prevent alternatives that function in a largely different way, but are similar enough to fall into the patent. Another issue is that compatibility is incredibly important in software, and patents get in the way of compatibility. You can have software that is technically superior to your competitor, but if your competitor's product is already in widespread usage and your product isn't compatible, you will probably lose. A final issue is that the field of software has a lot of problems with competition, and software patents give an even bigger advantage to billion dollar companies over startups. Also, you seem to not understand the nature of copyright and patent laws in the US. The constitution clause that allows for patents states that

      The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

      Not only do patents and copyright exist for the benefit of the public, they are simply a means to the end, not an ends to themselves. If we can conclude that some other incentive already in place does the job well enough, we could just end our patent and copyright systems. International treaties make it a bit more complicated than that, but it's not as if the US has a problem with acting unilaterally. As for why Australia would want to do that, they generally don't really have large, established firms, so Australian software companies (and users) are going to be on the losing end of the system with software patents in place.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:I don't understand this.. by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The innovation and creativity of Americans is what has made US powerful. Why would you want to create a law that will affect your livelihood in the future?

      Because of the business ethos of those who were made rich and powerful with American innovation and creativity. Much of which came from public sources such as American universities and the NASA program which are now under funded so those same businessmen can get taxpayer money to pay for their mistakes.

      They aren't thinking beyond the next quarter, screw the future if there is profit to be made now.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:I don't understand this.. by nonguru · · Score: 2

      My understanding is that it relates to the area of sw patents in particular, not an entire system. But on that subject, I'm sure every other slashdotter here can relate a story on how the patent system can be, and is, abused based on legal (mis)interpretations of prior art or discovery, or simple incompetence of the Patent Office (often due to an overload of spurious patents). True innovation is sometimes NOT rewarded. And copyright in terms of length is a joke - 80 years post-death of the artist. Do you get it now?

    8. Re:I don't understand this.. by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's about balance. Patent protection provides an incentive to produce something new, but makes it a lot harder to improve an existing invention since you need to patent holders approval to actually produce the improved invention.

      Looking at the evidence, it seems very few companies make money licencing patented software, and usuallly simply use their patents protectively, using a patent sharing agreement which effectively bars small players from the market. Without patents it seems quite clear that innovation in software would not be harmed since there is still an incentive to innovate since the short time to market of software still gives the innovator a competitive edge.

    9. Re:I don't understand this.. by c0lo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do content creators want to abolish patents?

      Because for content creation, copyright should be more than enough already? What, the free and the brave started to feel the pinch of fear?
      (and yes, software is a copyrightable content, as - by itself - it doesn't transform the machine it's running on, much less transform it in a useful way).

      We cannot compete on prices.

      1. Then invent some other means to compete. For example: a head-start is usually enough to get ahead of the competitions.
        Also, there exists something like trade secrets - if staying rich is what you want, this should be enough for you, just don't be a hypocrite to say "I'll publish my discovery for the benefit of the human race advancement"
      2. And what about me that find rewards in writing open-source and don't give a ... of prices. Why your right to feel happy of being rich would trump mine - for creating something useful used by many. Assuming that I discover something that parts of this humanity might benefit, implementing it in open-source will give everybody an easy access to use the discovery immediately.
        (if this sounds too commie/pinky to you, here's my opinion: I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN on what you call it - as a content creator it is my right to do as I please with my content - the content didn't kill anyone)
      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    10. Re:I don't understand this.. by dov_0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't ripping other people off how much software development works anyway? How many media players are there that look and feel like iTunes for instance? When IE8 came out it just looked like a sleazy commercial version of Firefox. How many people are there who got rich on the ideas of others? Bill Gates is a prime example.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    11. Re:I don't understand this.. by Mick+R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With patents on software abolished. there is still protection for software developers. It's called copyright. Patents were only ever intended to cover PHYSICAL developments, not written works. A better situation is where code can be reused so long as you credit the original source. The current system of patents prevents anyone from further developing software beyond the original patent holder's capabilities, effectively stifling innovation. Innovation comes in small steps, building on the work of others. It's how science has worked since the beginning. Patents on intellectual (imaginary?) property forces innovation to either stop dead or to operate in quantum leaps. The latter happens very rarely, while incremental innovation can be continuous. Software patents don't protect livelihoods, they strangle them in favour of large patent trolls.

    12. Re:I don't understand this.. by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a thing called creative commons.. in fact, the film itself is under a creative commons license.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    13. Re:I don't understand this.. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not at all. America is rich because while there was liberty for individuals to develop its vast resources in a much more efficient way than any kind of government planning ever could, there was also for the most part the rule of law. As for slavery, that's really not worth discussing. There was slavery for thousands of years in Africa so why isn't it rich? Slave owning, agricultural south was also much poorer than non slave owning capitalist, industrialized north.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    14. Re:I don't understand this.. by dargaud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Effectively it creates blocks on economic activity

      One famous example are toll roads. During the roman empire there were no toll roads and commerce flourished within the empire. After its collapse and the feudal states, every little road or bridge had a toll booth. It stopped commerce as long distance transportation of goods was simply too expensive. There's one good example of that in Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle: the most powerful king of Europe (Louis XIV) could purchase excellent wood for shipbuilding... but he couldn't afford to pay the tolls to carry it from the forests to the shipyards.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    15. Re:I don't understand this.. by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're confusing copyright and patents.

      By having software patents and effectively an innovation tax on an innovation process that very much builds on what came before it actually makes development more expensive in countries with software patents than without.

      The software patent situation in the USA has degraded to the point where companies exist to effectively tax those that innovate in software without doing any innovation themselves. It's uncompetitive compared to those countries without the software patent tax.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
    16. Re:I don't understand this.. by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Informative

      > There was slavery for thousands of years in Africa so why isn't it rich?

      It WAS rich at the time -at least those who owned the slaves were. It's not rich NOW because every inch of it's wealth was stolen by Europe under the guise of bringing "God and civilization to the barbarians" through a system of mass exploitation and annexation you may have heard of before, it was called colonization.

      Ever seen Apocalypse Now? Go read the original book: Heart of Darkness, and while you're at it pick up a copy of "Things fall appart" by Chinua Achebe and then speak of how poor Africa was BEFORE Europe showed up. Hint: it wasn't.

      Colonization didn't end all that long ago - the last African country to gain independence was Eritrea and that was only in 1999. The vast majority were independent before the 80's of course -and left as rogue states without much governance at all, ripped apart by years of wars against illegitimate occupation forces (yeah I know that wasn't how the occupiers describe it - the people who chased them out must have been very happy with their "benefactors" to do so right ?) and left in the hands of warlords and dictators who happily continued the patterns of exploitation they learned from their colonial masters - bad cycle stars and is almost impossible to break.

      These days indeed the country that makes by far the most money out of exploiting Africa's potential for wealth is the U.S.A. The 4th largest oil reserves in the world belong to Nigeria - yet it's also got the second most worthless currency in the world - all the oil fields are owned by British and American companies... who is surprised ? The largest mining company in Sub-Saharan-Africa is even CALLED Anglo-American corporation.
      Your own farmers get PAID to destroy crops rather than compete fairly with African farmers (where the climate would probably mean we could outfarm you a thousand times over... yet we starve while you burn crops)...

      Sorry - you are just plain wrong.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:I don't understand this.. by ciderbrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeap, that's about it. Local access to cheap energy to power R&D/production/war. Then sail off and take things that you do not have in your own area. Every country in Europe has had it’s renaissance at some point. It's a CIV game with no save point.

  2. Re:brb by Lotana · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait until this is actually approved and put into effect. My guess is that you will die of old age first.

  3. "Members"? by Petersko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Over 500 members of the Australian software industry"? Unless the Australian Software Industry is some specific body, what we really have here is 500 random programmer nerds who "signed" an internet petition.

    The names of 500 (in all likelihood) nobodies on a petition with the sweeping goal of abolishing software patents?

    Dead before it starts.

    Man, even the petition page looks amateurish. Sorry to be so negative, but there's no chance of success here.

    1. Re:"Members"? by pieterh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are several problems with this letter. It suggests that only free software does not use patents, so it sets itself up for being labelled a typical anti-capitalist rant from long haired hippies who hate property in all its forms.

      They should have noted that Microsoft Windows, Office, Excel, PowerPoint became world dominant without a single patent being filed. That there are clear economic studies that show that software patents cause innovation to stop (Bessen et al), that the original premise behind patents was to reduce competition, and that the only provable value in a patent (any patent) is the documentation of knowledge in return for that toxic temporary monopoly. The reason software patents fail so badly is that we don't need patents to explain how software technology works.

      All patents are toxic to their industries but at least we can reconstruct steam engines using the patent archive. That cost 20 years of progress during the industrial revolution.

      There is never going to be anyone who 100 years from now reconstructs how to build a multithreaded web server from the patent archive. This is the fraud, and that is the reason software patents must be killed.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:"Members"? by Hairy1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And yet in New Zealand we won despite starting with a similar grass roots movement, starting with the NZOSS, and finally encompassing a number of influential companies and computer organisations. We were calm, rational, and presented the a persuasive case that software patents damage the IT sector, and polls that clearly showed that patents were not supported by a large majority of the IT industry. Our strength isn't just in their numbers but in a compelling case that software patents are holding the industry to ransom. The Australian IT industry has every chance of creating change, but it could be a long hard road to success. There are organisations in Australia which will no doubt have this on their radar, and will be moving to provide more support for a software patent exclusion.

      The following YouTube video was produced from the NZOSS submission to the New Zealand Government for their review into the Patent Bill.

      NZOSS Patent Submission
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-3H0t-Jgdo

  4. NZ was smart enough to do this... by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 3, Informative

    NZ was smart enough to do this... lets hope AU will, too!

    Disclaimer: I'm an Aussie living in NZ.

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
  5. Patently Obvious... by muphin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually own several IP's of several software technologies. The only reason I registered these was to secure my work (from someone stealing it then suing me, the creator), I am actually FOR the removal of software patents, this removal will stop the fear of being sued over something so trivial and encourage creativity and innovation, something the world is so desperate in need of.

    I am so ashamed of countries that extend the copyrights far beyond whats reasonable just to ensure they can keep making money off it.
    I Just signed the letter and will pass it on, I hope you do the same.

    --
    It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
    1. Re:Patently Obvious... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am actually FOR the removal of software patents, this removal will stop the fear of being sued over something so trivial and encourage creativity and innovation, something the world is so desperate in need of.

      Maybe in case of trivial innovation but in case of difficult and expensive innovation it will reward the copier and punish the innovator. It will also discourage the investors from investing into innovators and encourage them to wait until some poor fool puts in all the work, invents a new technology, and then simply reverse engineer it and mass produce it, leaving him in the dust. Patents are a complex issue and I'm not necessarily in favor of the system as it is but it is funny to read all the naive posts here from people who fail to see both sides of equation.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Patently Obvious... by bit01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe in case of trivial innovation but in case of difficult and expensive innovation it will reward the copier and punish the innovator.

      No punishment involved, just additional value to society. Copying increases net value because things don't have to be reinvented.

      The innovator still has first mover advantage and there are very few software advances, if any, that are of a sufficiently large quantum to justify any reward larger than that. Software is soft and it changes gradually. No protection is needed for big investments in big advancement because there aren't any. There are big investments in developing big software packages but that's not the same thing and is covered by copyright in any case.

      Patents are a complex issue and I'm not necessarily in favor of the system as it is but it is funny to read all the naive posts here from people who fail to see both sides of equation.

      Both sides? The onus is on every patent proponent, not patent opponent, to justify at every step this massive interference in the citizen's business by the government. The default position that patents have value in every possible technical area is bogus.

      ---

      It's valuable because it's standard, not standard because it is valuable.

  6. Re:Timing? by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Go for the Greens? I don't think so.. Not as long as they harbor people like this..

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  7. Simply put Politics, and Software by realxmp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Firstly you need to understand that there is a limit to how far the rest of the world will protect US Copyrights and Patents and that limit is "until there's nothing in it for them". At the moment the US's only big incentive is access to their markets and free trade agreements, this doesn't always work. You can already see the effects of this in Africa where the Pharma industry has had to make big concessions to stop African governments simply ignoring their patents, you can't trade if you're dead. A more interesting example is Asia where you have rampant piracy. The reason why the US has to turn a blind eye here is simply that they NEED Asia for cheap goods for their own economy. You need to be reasonable about IP or it really will become imaginary, this game only works as long as everyone follows the rules. If it gets too biased in your favour, then they simply won't play.

    Secondly you need to look at why software patents are different. There are two big problems that software patents create here because of how different they are to normally patentable innovations. One of the big problems is because of the sheer speed of progress and time to market compared to pharma and physical inventions. Pharma innovations normally have a considerable time to market because of the testing they need to undergo, as a reward they get a monopoly for a few short years, whilst competitors are encouraged to find the alternatives which usually exist. Physical inventions likewise have the advantage of a large number of alternative ways of doing things. The problem with software and algorithms in particular is that quite often there isn't an alternative that allows you to perform the same task and maintain compatibility etc. And this is leaving aside the problem of ill-trained examiners, patently obvious subject matter and the problems of patent pools.