The only thing we can hope for at this point is that a bunch of the patent holding companies get sue-happy and the whole patent system implodes.
I think it's better to hope that we here in Europe will not introduce software patents.
How does this work in other parts of the world without a patent system? Is there such a place and if so, does the absense of pattents really stifle innovation?
I don't know whether there are places without a patent system. I know that somewhere during the first half of the 20th century, the Netherlands did not have a patent system and that thanks to this Philips could become as big as it is today. Additionally, many of the current large IT companies such as IBM, Apple and Microsoft became big without any software patents.
It's hard to find any kind of algorithm that does not fall under any kind of patent of some sorts. The JPEG consortium had received pledges from all patent owners that they would not assert their patents however. Then one of those companies went broke, its patents were bought by Forgent and the rest is history, as they say.
The big ones are not much better. If you are a small company with a product, IBM, Apple, Microsoft etc will just as happily use their patents against you if you happen to annoy them enough (or if they think they can extract enough pocket change from you). And the only reason that we have this silly system of software patents that allows this kind of racketeering, is exactly because the big companies pushed the patent offices and the courts to accept these kinds of patents.
They're not the ones to pity, as it's mainly their fault we're stuck with the system as it is.
Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal.
Your perceived consistency does not make social positions any stronger. Social laws grow out of society, not out of some perceived consistency in logic.
Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net.
I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Anonymous proxies, open news servers, freebie websites... Once something is out on the Internet, you already cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Just ask the MPAA how successful they were of getting DeCSS wiped from the Internet. You may make it even more easy, but there are no fundamental changes.
Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech.
Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions.
That's the theory, yes. But you can't be so naive to think that whatever you say has no consequences at all. Just like yelling fire --even though it may not be pure speech-- also has consequences, and is banned for those consequences; you are claiming that the consequences can never be so bad that it can be used as justification to prohibit some kind of speech. Fine, that may be your opinion. But calling everyone who thinks that is not the case "a hypocrite" is not very convincing to support your stance.
The line for me is exactly how article 30 of the UDHR described it. You can have your free speech, as long as you do not try to use it to limit other people's basic rights. You can of course keep arguing out of the void that there is some ultimate principle somewhere out there that states that allowing all free speech is always more consistent than not (regardless of how this may be inconsistent with your goal of getting a well functioning society and of how you can argue based on the past in which ways exactly this can happen), and that regardless what kind of arguments I bring in,
you will not accept any kind of limitation to that because you do not accept that social laws with a reason can overrule this ultimate principle of truth, but then please say so.
This is getting very tiring and totally unproductive as far as I'm concerned, since you discard all arguments with "everything is an opinion". I have news for you: that's exactly how societies come to their rules, and that is exactly the justification that is needed. Rules are made by society according to a society's opinion. You may not find this consistent, logical, pure or basic in anyway, but that's per definition what a society is: "The relationship of men to one another when associated in any way; companionship; fellowship; company".
The rules that govern those relations are consequentially made by society as well. You may not like those rules, but if you try to impose other rules thinking that you know it better, then you get situations like Mao in China etc. I do not know of any place in the world where rules were imposed on society with the result that society suddenly functioned a whole lot better. Even in the French revolution, it was society that chose the new rules.
So society can change, and so can the rules. It's indeed even possible that one day the UDHR will be gone. But until you give any social reason as to why the rules in that declaration are somehow harming society as a whole, I don't think you have any ground to discard them as "merely opinions of no value". Simply saying "They are not basic rights. Peri
Two points for figuring that.be stands for Belgium. And I suppose you are from that country where Brinkhorst is trying all he can to not do what the Parliament asked him to do regarding the software patents vote?
Sorry, I think I missed what your point was. Or mine for that matter.
Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'.
Nevertheless they called it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and for good reason.
But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today.
Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation). I'm not sure how this validates your point in anyway, or makes my opinion hypocrite as you've tried to make me say two or three times already in this discussion.
The laws that rule a society are per definition conventions that are agreed upon. And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent. I really don't understand why you seem to think this perceived consistency is pretty much the most important thing and why all the rest is hypocrite. I'm not even convinced that the banning of hate speech as it is done in e.g. de Universal Declaration of Human Rights is somehow inconsistent with at the same time guaranteeing freedom of opinion and expression in the first place.
Social sciences simply don't work with pure logic, strict consistency etc. There are a bunch of people who argue and then get a general consensus, based on historic background etc (as I remarked in one of my first messages afaik). You cannot approach it from a purely rational point, because then you are arguing in the void and based on false premises (namely that social law is or should be created out of nothing based on some consistent rules of logic).
You start from society, make some rules and only then try to get them consistent while still meaning the same thing (and if you can do that: wow, fantastic, great!). Forcing society into a different ruleset simply because you want consistent rules (and before you reply with the same thing again: no, I do not think that consistency per definition leads to different rules) because you are convinced that will make a better new world for all without any backup for that: no, thank you.
Changing the world or society does not work like that.
I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll asume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement.
Strange, I just tried it again and it works fine here. Anyway, here's article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
And here's article 30:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
It does not say anything about hate speech, it just forbids the use of any rights granted by the declaration to be used for attempts to destroy other people's rights stemming from that declaration.
Following your reasoning, the project I'm working on (Freenet) has the potential of 'sacrificing' society, where I see it as a great oportunity for society to renew itself and become something better.
I guess you mean the fact that it can be used to a
I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before.
You can easily find out who I am by searching for my real name. And the country I live in can also be found from my email address. Whether we mailed or not, I don't know.
I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too
Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative.
So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right.
As I said, this is not merely about my opinion. And article 30 of the above mentioned declaration nicely illustrates how racism and other hate speech goes against it, even though it also demands freedom of opinion and expression. And yet this document is quite consistent: it aims for protecting people, and therefore includes a clause for preventing abuse of one provision to get around another one. Both article 19 and article 30 are consistent with that goal, regardless of how one article may impose exceptions on the other.
Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other.
I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post.
I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent;
the two are not mutually exclusive.
Not in all cases, but I place more value on being good for society/economy than on being consistent. If you can combine the two: more power to you. But one should never sacrifice society in favour of consistency.
If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent.
Maybe all laws are bad and you are right. Before I accept that, I would like to see your proposal for a new law system that is entirely consistent without any exceptions whatsoever, and under which a free society could flourish. Certainly, the current laws are not perfect. But I do not believe all problems can be solved by having only consistent laws, nor am I sure that society as a whole would suddenly be that much better of if we only had purely consistent laws. I mean, theoretically it sounds nice, but I'm not sure how it would work out in practice.
If it's at all possible, you'll probably end up with a lot more laws than we now have, each for their extremely limited field without exceptions, so that the system would probably become a lot more complex as it is now. And special cases you didn't think of will probably always pop up, so you'll almost endlessly keep refactoring your laws.
Just like in programing you should not refactor endlessly, you have to draw a line somewhere: now it's been simplified enough, what still doesn't fit will be handled by special cases.
The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech.
Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is. Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it.
As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.
No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech.
No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food,...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that.
That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system.:-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtfull to be in accordance with justice.
It simply depends what you want to be consistent with. You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law. We only have laws because there is a society and to keep that society functioning.
You can have great theoretical ideas of how to make an idealised "clean and pure" juridical system, but society does not work that way. Humans are not perfectly predictable or without exceptions, so the law can't be that way either... unless you are in a totalitarian system, where people are supposed to adapt to the needs of the law/those in power, instead of that the laws are adapted to the needs of society.
Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just.
This again depends on what you consider just (another quite subjective term). Some people find it just that rich people pay along to help cater for the poorer, others think this is very unjust.
So, in a way, making laws consistent is (or at least should be) a goal, and your fear that they will become absurd because of that is unvalid, because it's not the consistency that makes it absurd, but the (content of) the/some laws itself.
Law can also become absurd as a consequence of striving for consistency without taking into account why exactly there was/is an inconsistency in the first place. Although this is by no means always the case, it's quite possible that there was a very good reason for an inconsistency.
Consistency is not the highway to heaven. It's a good (and important) guide when making laws, but e.g. the whole debate about the directive on software patents in Europe (where they also want to treat "inventions in all fields of technology" in a consistent way) shows that if you treat it as a goal of its own, you miss a whole lot of other important stuff.
Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden.
"Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them.
As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.
So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?
Because hate speech is something entirely different.
Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all. It's not even meant for those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech.
It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with opinions, it's much more fundamental that that.
If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then?
If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you. They'll brand you a terrorist, dangerous to the public/state, whatever. It's very naive to think that absolute free speech will somehow protect you from that, just like thinking that the right bear arms can protect you from the government.
And I hope you will not try to take this argument to absurdum and claim that you can use this argument to justify all kinds of limitations to public freedom, because that's not true and not what I mean. I simply mean that you cannot use this argument to justify allowing hate speech, because it's bogus. On the one hand it won't help you one bit against an extremist government, and on the other hand you get hate speech on top of it.
And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need. If you think the need for absolute free speech is more valuable to society as a whole than the fact that hate speech can be free spread, then you keep hate speech legal. Otherwise you don't. In Europe (most?) governments chose for the latter option, in the US they chose the former.
We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent.
Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law. Why? Because there are also fundamental differences with other mammals. The same thing can be argued about hate speech and other speech.
I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws.
I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history. No single human can be purely objective.
Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries.
Consistency should not be a goal on its own, or you get totalitarian situations. And I don't know whether it's more fair.
As they say: your rights end where someone else's rights begin.
IMHO, inciting people to ignore this rule as far as certain groups of people are concerned can be seen as a first step to abandon that rule (at least in practice; in theory, that rule may still hold, but what use is it if it's largely ignored?), just like others argue that banning this kind of speech is (a first step towards)/(the same as) banning all free speech.
It's all a matter of trade-offs, and which trade-off you are more likely to accept depends a lot on history I think. I know I much prefer the European to the US system, but maybe unconsciously that is because my grandfather was captured as soldier and put on a train to a concentration camp? (although he managed to escape from the train, fortunately, or I wouldn't be here)
Like the grandparent poster said, why would the 'littke guy' want to share their discovery if, in all likelihood, a corporation with more capital and marketing clout could take that idea, leverage it for profit, and leave the little guy with nothing to show for his hard work. There needs to be a system that lets the little guy profit from their work.
With a patent system, the big company uses its patent portfolio to get access to the little guy's patent for free (and may even ask for extra money on top of that, if the little company infringes on many patents of the large one. What you are quoting is a myth, the patent system just doesn't work like that, and especially not in the software development sector.
Copyright and not patents protect the small developer's work: when he brings his product to market, there is no danger that suddenly another company will forbid him to sell his product because he supposedly infringes on one or other patent of theirs.
However there needs to be a real tangible incentive for innovation (REAL innovation, not the bullshit that makes up a good part of Amazon.com's business model), with protections in place to prevent abuse of the system.
Competition is what drives innovation in the ICT sector, not patents. Robert Barr, head of IP at Cisco, thinks so anyway, and even argues that patents have done nothing to stimulate innovation at Cisco. This was also a conclusion of the study conducted by the FTC, for which that hearing was held.
In Australia, you cannot patent artistic creations, mathematical models, plans, schemes or other purely mental processes. This rules out software and half of the other get rick quick patents that US companies apply for.
Funny, the post above your claims exactly the reverse. Are you sure it isn"t a bit like in Europe? Here, those exclusions you mention are also in our patent law, and even computer programs themseves are explicitly excluded from patentabilty. And yet we have over 30,000 software patents already. How? Because a computer running a computer program is considered to be something different from a computer program/mathematical method/business mathod as such.
The story also overlooks the basic principle whereby you need to register or file for a patent in each country you want it to be valid in. In short, if a US company has not filed for a patent in Australia, their US Patent isn't worth crap there.
That's true, but large US multinationals probably have plenty of money to burn on AUS patents, just like they have for EU patents. 75% of the already granted (but as of yet largely unenforceable) EU software patents are owned by US and Japanese companies.
Now, anyone who knows control theory knows that this is just a simple proportional controller. The exact same control system could be patented, under a different pattent, if it was done electronically. That is, if the control was done by putting a speed sensor on the train feeding into an electronics board which controlled the valve system through a proportional gain which can be set by, say, a potentiometer in the control box. This would produce the exact same result as the flyball governor because it is the exact same control system, but done in electronics instead of mechanics.
You are basing your reasoning on the current "technical contribution" and "technical effect" doctrine/case law of the EPO. This "technical effect" should/must not have anything to do with patentability, because then indeed pretty much everything you can imagine because patentable subject matter. After all, if something does not have one effect or the other in the "real world", we would not be able to perceive it (since we are still purely physical beings, even our thoughts are physical processes).
I subscribe to the examination guidelines of the EPO as they were into force until more or less 1985. In that case, the invention in the flyball governor case is how you have to construct this flyball governor in order for it to regulate the speed of the train, i.e. the invention is your insight in how a particular combination of natural forces can be used to achieve the desired effect (i.e., a new application of the forces of nature).
In case of controller logic (either implemented in electronics or software is irrelevant, because as you noted they are functionally equivalent), a potentiometer etc, there is probably no new insight in application of natural forces. The controller logic or computer was already known, and known to be able to execute any particular kind of logic (that's how they were designed!). I assume all the components you use are already known at the time this (hypothetical in this discussion) construction is made, as are their combinations.
Unless you start meddling with the EPO's "technical contribution in the inventive step/further technical effect" stuff (which is a mess and which was purely introduced in anticipation of the scrapping of software from the exclusions of patentability, as they mention themselves; see the last red box), the only thing which is could be new and non-obvious, is the "logic/mathematics/rules of organisation". However, those are not patentable subject matter, so there is no patentable invention.
To say it in the words of the EPO:
A computer program may take various forms, e.g. an algorithm, a flow-chart or a series of coded instructions which can be recorded on a tape or other machine-readable record-medium, and can be regarded as a particular case of either a mathematical method (see above) or a presentation or information (see below). If the contribution to the known art resides solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims.
For example, a claim to a computer characterised by having the particular program stored in its memory or to a process for operating a computer under control of the program would be as objectionable as a claim to the program per se or the program when recorded on magnetic tape.
Even though it dates from 1978, the only outdated part in this text, is the mention of "magnetic tape".
Now, if it was done in software, i.e., ValveSetting = Gain*(TrainSpeed - SetTrainSpeed), the result would also be the same, just the "medium" of implementation would be different. So, why would the mechanical and electrical implementations be patentable but not the software implementation?
Patentability should simply not depend on "the effect" as you describe it. Patentability shou
Some takes my idea and runs with it and pays me for using my invention.
"Idea" and "invention" are not synonyms. After a lot of research and development, an idea may result in one or more inventions (and many ideas may be used to get to one invention). But they are by no means the same thing.
That seems fair doesn't it? This is probably the closest thing I can come to to software patents. This isn't some tangible product like a pot that drains your spaghetti. It's a formula to mix some chemicals under certain conditions.
All these kinds of analogies are flawed for one simple reason: patent law is not based on some inherent moral rights to an idea or even to an invention. It's a purely economical law, designed to stimulate innovation. If it doesn't do that in a certain field, it makes no sense to introduce them there. Patents do not stimulate innovation in the software field, and are even detrimental to innovation there.
What I don't get is how most software developers don't put a value to their ideas.
They probably understand that the fact that they can write any piece of software without worrying whether someone else might have had the same idea is a lot more valuable. An author of a book (even if it's a technical manual on how some chemical reaction works or on how a patented engine works) also doesn't have to worry about that, nor does a mathematician.
I agree that software patents aren't the problem. In fact, I'm unaware of any actual patents on software. There are patents on methods or algorithms that are implemented in software, but that's justifiable. For example, if I made a control systems algorithm that I implemented mechanically or electronically it would certainly be patentable, so why shouldn't it be patentable if I implement it in software?
At least in Europe, patents on electronics (in the sense of chip designs) are *not* patentable. They're also not copyrightable, but they fall under a separate "sui generis" (one of its own kind) protection. The reason is that those are not deemed to be creative enough for copyright protection and not inventive enough for patent protection.
Next, in case of a mechanical construction, you do not get a patent on "X implemented in a mechanical way", but on "a mechanical construction which works like this and this (and which thus does X)". I.e. you generally do not get a patent on what the construction does, but how the construction is built. And that's logical, because that's the only way there is to protect your construction work from copying.
In case of software, the way you constructed your program to do X is already protected by copyright. The patent is generally simply on "doing X in software".
Finally (and most importantly), there is no inherent "inventor's right". This is in stark contrast with copyright, where there is an inherent moral right of the creator on his creation. Patent law is a purely economical law. You should allow patents in a field if there are serious indications it will encourage innovation there and benefit society as a whole, and otherwise you shouldn't.
Case in point: there are tons of studies which show that software patents are unnecessary to stimulate innovation in the software field (the main driving force is competition there), and even detrimental. There's only one economical study I know of that claims software patents are generally beneficial.
What seems to be the problem is the defacto removal of patent restrictions regarding obviousness and prior art, along with the patent duration. Very obvious things are getting patented in software. It's like patenting a plastic doll because it now has a new hat
That's just a symptom of the fact that patents were never intended to cover logical/abstract/mathematical reasoning.
But my biggest concern with this Munich thing is why the concern over Linux specifically? Patent violations are just as, or more, likely in proprietary software.
Here I completely I agree with you.
In other words, the reasoning behind slowing Linux implementation in Munich makes no sense to me.
It's a (political) campaign to bring the problems of software patents under the attention of the German government, which voted in favor of software patents at the last Council meeting. Nothing more, nothing less.
The large cost of upgrading is not the hardware cost, it's the migration cost. If your new hardware can emulate exactly the same environment where you came from, this cost can be reduced immensely.
Yes it makes it stiffles the market for open source software
Not particularly for open source software, but for independent developers and small companies (a lot of open source developers are in that case, but certainly not all of them; just think of IBM).
but it gives the person that came up with the idea a fair shot of making money out of it.
And prohibit a lot of authors to make money from their own individual creations.
The problem isn't software patents.
The problem actually is software patents. Although other kinds of patents have their problems too, there are tons of studies that show a lot of problems with software patents in particular. Patents are simply unfit for allowing monopolising abstract ideas/advances, because they were never designed for that purpose.
To slightly adapt the old adage: when your preferred tool is a hammer, you try to make everything into a nail.
The problem is that some software patents are just rediculous and they should be given to someone that at least tries to implement the idea.
s/some/most. Yes, I do have read software patents. A lot of them.
Most of the patent litigation that gets reported on slashdot is usually the other way around, heck most of it is just the potential of a patent to be used in a bad way, but there are cases where the little guy that poured his heart and soul into something was able to prevent a bigger company from ripping him off.
A few cases of a little guy winning is not enough to justify a system that has tons of negative effects for the economy and society as a whole.
Granted, if you're just someone who doesn't innovate, just copies other ideas, then you don't want software patents.
Oh please. First of all, if someone manages to monopolise a mere idea, he's the one stealing from everyone else (which is in fact the case with most software patents). Secondly, whether or not you copy is completely irrelevant as far as patents are concerned.
Copyright protects you from plagiarising (and that's a lot more than just literal bit-by-bit copying), patents are also enforceable if someone else came up with exactly the same thing entirely on his own. And, surprise, this happens an awful lot in software development. That's not just my opinion, that's what the National Research Council wrote (search for "But there is little or no market in software components") in its book titled "The Digital Dilemma - Intellectual Property in the Information Age".
Even from that point of view it's still irrelevant as far as the case in Munich is concerned. This is not some ploy by SCO, Microsoft or any other anti-FLOSS company or organisation. These are genuine concerns directed at the government, urging them to oppose software patents at the European level. FLOSS is simply used here as some example of the damaging effects of software patents.
Many companies (IBM for instance) have technical bulletin libraries for exactly this purpose; if they can't justify the cost of the patent process for a particular idea, then they publish the idea to record a date for prior art 'discussions'
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe them, otherwise why would they actively lobby in favor of software patents in Europe?
It's hard to find any kind of algorithm that does not fall under any kind of patent of some sorts. The JPEG consortium had received pledges from all patent owners that they would not assert their patents however. Then one of those companies went broke, its patents were bought by Forgent and the rest is history, as they say.
The big ones are not much better. If you are a small company with a product, IBM, Apple, Microsoft etc will just as happily use their patents against you if you happen to annoy them enough (or if they think they can extract enough pocket change from you). And the only reason that we have this silly system of software patents that allows this kind of racketeering, is exactly because the big companies pushed the patent offices and the courts to accept these kinds of patents.
They're not the ones to pity, as it's mainly their fault we're stuck with the system as it is.
Your perceived consistency does not make social positions any stronger. Social laws grow out of society, not out of some perceived consistency in logic.
I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Anonymous proxies, open news servers, freebie websites... Once something is out on the Internet, you already cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Just ask the MPAA how successful they were of getting DeCSS wiped from the Internet. You may make it even more easy, but there are no fundamental changes.
That's the theory, yes. But you can't be so naive to think that whatever you say has no consequences at all. Just like yelling fire --even though it may not be pure speech-- also has consequences, and is banned for those consequences; you are claiming that the consequences can never be so bad that it can be used as justification to prohibit some kind of speech. Fine, that may be your opinion. But calling everyone who thinks that is not the case "a hypocrite" is not very convincing to support your stance.
The line for me is exactly how article 30 of the UDHR described it. You can have your free speech, as long as you do not try to use it to limit other people's basic rights. You can of course keep arguing out of the void that there is some ultimate principle somewhere out there that states that allowing all free speech is always more consistent than not (regardless of how this may be inconsistent with your goal of getting a well functioning society and of how you can argue based on the past in which ways exactly this can happen), and that regardless what kind of arguments I bring in, you will not accept any kind of limitation to that because you do not accept that social laws with a reason can overrule this ultimate principle of truth, but then please say so.
This is getting very tiring and totally unproductive as far as I'm concerned, since you discard all arguments with "everything is an opinion". I have news for you: that's exactly how societies come to their rules, and that is exactly the justification that is needed. Rules are made by society according to a society's opinion. You may not find this consistent, logical, pure or basic in anyway, but that's per definition what a society is: "The relationship of men to one another when associated in any way; companionship; fellowship; company".
The rules that govern those relations are consequentially made by society as well. You may not like those rules, but if you try to impose other rules thinking that you know it better, then you get situations like Mao in China etc. I do not know of any place in the world where rules were imposed on society with the result that society suddenly functioned a whole lot better. Even in the French revolution, it was society that chose the new rules.
So society can change, and so can the rules. It's indeed even possible that one day the UDHR will be gone. But until you give any social reason as to why the rules in that declaration are somehow harming society as a whole, I don't think you have any ground to discard them as "merely opinions of no value". Simply saying "They are not basic rights. Peri
Two points for figuring that .be stands for Belgium. And I suppose you are from that country where Brinkhorst is trying all he can to not do what the Parliament asked him to do regarding the software patents vote?
Sorry, I think I missed what your point was. Or mine for that matter.
Nevertheless they called it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and for good reason.
Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation). I'm not sure how this validates your point in anyway, or makes my opinion hypocrite as you've tried to make me say two or three times already in this discussion.
The laws that rule a society are per definition conventions that are agreed upon. And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent. I really don't understand why you seem to think this perceived consistency is pretty much the most important thing and why all the rest is hypocrite. I'm not even convinced that the banning of hate speech as it is done in e.g. de Universal Declaration of Human Rights is somehow inconsistent with at the same time guaranteeing freedom of opinion and expression in the first place.
Social sciences simply don't work with pure logic, strict consistency etc. There are a bunch of people who argue and then get a general consensus, based on historic background etc (as I remarked in one of my first messages afaik). You cannot approach it from a purely rational point, because then you are arguing in the void and based on false premises (namely that social law is or should be created out of nothing based on some consistent rules of logic).
You start from society, make some rules and only then try to get them consistent while still meaning the same thing (and if you can do that: wow, fantastic, great!). Forcing society into a different ruleset simply because you want consistent rules (and before you reply with the same thing again: no, I do not think that consistency per definition leads to different rules) because you are convinced that will make a better new world for all without any backup for that: no, thank you.
Changing the world or society does not work like that.
Strange, I just tried it again and it works fine here. Anyway, here's article 19:
And here's article 30:
It does not say anything about hate speech, it just forbids the use of any rights granted by the declaration to be used for attempts to destroy other people's rights stemming from that declaration.
I guess you mean the fact that it can be used to a
If it's at all possible, you'll probably end up with a lot more laws than we now have, each for their extremely limited field without exceptions, so that the system would probably become a lot more complex as it is now. And special cases you didn't think of will probably always pop up, so you'll almost endlessly keep refactoring your laws.
Just like in programing you should not refactor endlessly, you have to draw a line somewhere: now it's been simplified enough, what still doesn't fit will be handled by special cases.
You can have great theoretical ideas of how to make an idealised "clean and pure" juridical system, but society does not work that way. Humans are not perfectly predictable or without exceptions, so the law can't be that way either... unless you are in a totalitarian system, where people are supposed to adapt to the needs of the law/those in power, instead of that the laws are adapted to the needs of society.
This again depends on what you consider just (another quite subjective term). Some people find it just that rich people pay along to help cater for the poorer, others think this is very unjust. Law can also become absurd as a consequence of striving for consistency without taking into account why exactly there was/is an inconsistency in the first place. Although this is by no means always the case, it's quite possible that there was a very good reason for an inconsistency.Consistency is not the highway to heaven. It's a good (and important) guide when making laws, but e.g. the whole debate about the directive on software patents in Europe (where they also want to treat "inventions in all fields of technology" in a consistent way) shows that if you treat it as a goal of its own, you miss a whole lot of other important stuff.
And I hope you will not try to take this argument to absurdum and claim that you can use this argument to justify all kinds of limitations to public freedom, because that's not true and not what I mean. I simply mean that you cannot use this argument to justify allowing hate speech, because it's bogus. On the one hand it won't help you one bit against an extremist government, and on the other hand you get hate speech on top of it.
And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need. If you think the need for absolute free speech is more valuable to society as a whole than the fact that hate speech can be free spread, then you keep hate speech legal. Otherwise you don't. In Europe (most?) governments chose for the latter option, in the US they chose the former.
As they say: your rights end where someone else's rights begin. IMHO, inciting people to ignore this rule as far as certain groups of people are concerned can be seen as a first step to abandon that rule (at least in practice; in theory, that rule may still hold, but what use is it if it's largely ignored?), just like others argue that banning this kind of speech is (a first step towards)/(the same as) banning all free speech.
It's all a matter of trade-offs, and which trade-off you are more likely to accept depends a lot on history I think. I know I much prefer the European to the US system, but maybe unconsciously that is because my grandfather was captured as soldier and put on a train to a concentration camp? (although he managed to escape from the train, fortunately, or I wouldn't be here)
Copyright and not patents protect the small developer's work: when he brings his product to market, there is no danger that suddenly another company will forbid him to sell his product because he supposedly infringes on one or other patent of theirs.
Competition is what drives innovation in the ICT sector, not patents. Robert Barr, head of IP at Cisco, thinks so anyway, and even argues that patents have done nothing to stimulate innovation at Cisco. This was also a conclusion of the study conducted by the FTC, for which that hearing was held.It's also impossible, because the TRIPs agreement requires all patents to last equally long (but it doesn't require patents on software).
Reverse engineering is still explicitly allowed in Europe.
You are basing your reasoning on the current "technical contribution" and "technical effect" doctrine/case law of the EPO. This "technical effect" should/must not have anything to do with patentability, because then indeed pretty much everything you can imagine because patentable subject matter. After all, if something does not have one effect or the other in the "real world", we would not be able to perceive it (since we are still purely physical beings, even our thoughts are physical processes).
I subscribe to the examination guidelines of the EPO as they were into force until more or less 1985. In that case, the invention in the flyball governor case is how you have to construct this flyball governor in order for it to regulate the speed of the train, i.e. the invention is your insight in how a particular combination of natural forces can be used to achieve the desired effect (i.e., a new application of the forces of nature).
In case of controller logic (either implemented in electronics or software is irrelevant, because as you noted they are functionally equivalent), a potentiometer etc, there is probably no new insight in application of natural forces. The controller logic or computer was already known, and known to be able to execute any particular kind of logic (that's how they were designed!). I assume all the components you use are already known at the time this (hypothetical in this discussion) construction is made, as are their combinations.
Unless you start meddling with the EPO's "technical contribution in the inventive step/further technical effect" stuff (which is a mess and which was purely introduced in anticipation of the scrapping of software from the exclusions of patentability, as they mention themselves; see the last red box), the only thing which is could be new and non-obvious, is the "logic/mathematics/rules of organisation". However, those are not patentable subject matter, so there is no patentable invention.
To say it in the words of the EPO:
Even though it dates from 1978, the only outdated part in this text, is the mention of "magnetic tape".
Patentability should simply not depend on "the effect" as you describe it. Patentability shou
Next, in case of a mechanical construction, you do not get a patent on "X implemented in a mechanical way", but on "a mechanical construction which works like this and this (and which thus does X)". I.e. you generally do not get a patent on what the construction does, but how the construction is built. And that's logical, because that's the only way there is to protect your construction work from copying.
In case of software, the way you constructed your program to do X is already protected by copyright. The patent is generally simply on "doing X in software".
Finally (and most importantly), there is no inherent "inventor's right". This is in stark contrast with copyright, where there is an inherent moral right of the creator on his creation. Patent law is a purely economical law. You should allow patents in a field if there are serious indications it will encourage innovation there and benefit society as a whole, and otherwise you shouldn't.
Case in point: there are tons of studies which show that software patents are unnecessary to stimulate innovation in the software field (the main driving force is competition there), and even detrimental. There's only one economical study I know of that claims software patents are generally beneficial.
That's just a symptom of the fact that patents were never intended to cover logical/abstract/mathematical reasoning. Here I completely I agree with you. It's a (political) campaign to bring the problems of software patents under the attention of the German government, which voted in favor of software patents at the last Council meeting. Nothing more, nothing less.The large cost of upgrading is not the hardware cost, it's the migration cost. If your new hardware can emulate exactly the same environment where you came from, this cost can be reduced immensely.
To slightly adapt the old adage: when your preferred tool is a hammer, you try to make everything into a nail.
s/some/most. Yes, I do have read software patents. A lot of them. A few cases of a little guy winning is not enough to justify a system that has tons of negative effects for the economy and society as a whole. Oh please. First of all, if someone manages to monopolise a mere idea, he's the one stealing from everyone else (which is in fact the case with most software patents). Secondly, whether or not you copy is completely irrelevant as far as patents are concerned.Copyright protects you from plagiarising (and that's a lot more than just literal bit-by-bit copying), patents are also enforceable if someone else came up with exactly the same thing entirely on his own. And, surprise, this happens an awful lot in software development. That's not just my opinion, that's what the National Research Council wrote (search for "But there is little or no market in software components") in its book titled "The Digital Dilemma - Intellectual Property in the Information Age".
Even from that point of view it's still irrelevant as far as the case in Munich is concerned. This is not some ploy by SCO, Microsoft or any other anti-FLOSS company or organisation. These are genuine concerns directed at the government, urging them to oppose software patents at the European level. FLOSS is simply used here as some example of the damaging effects of software patents.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do at all with SCO. SCO is attacking Linux on the the copyright front, this is purely about software patents.