Slashdot Mirror
Letter To Abolish Software Patents In Australia
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."
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.-
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?