The problem is, in pharma or the car industry, patent threats get met by a legal team and a well-financed company, so patent holders don't launch as many spurious lawsuits. In software, where you don't need a legal team and a six digit bank balance, many developers get shafted because they can't use the court system. Patents shouldn't exist in domains where individuals and non-commercial entities can be mass producers.
It was a reference to Windows. Despite there being a userbase of hundreds of millions, none are able to form a community and audit the software or remove the spyware and stop the collecting of personal information.
As the number of users increases, the changes that there are programmers, security auditors, or concerned businesses increases too. With proprietary software, these people can do little or nothing. With free software, anyone can audit it and anyone can contribute or publish their own fork.
And you see no connection between the software they use and their ability to control their exposure?
Some actions are publicly visible for unavoidable reasons (publishing articles). Other actions such as talking to dissidents, talking to leaks, talking to whistle blowers, collecting data, have to be done as secretly as possible.
If they use proprietary software, they just have to trust the software developers to do a good job and to not collaborate with the government. Sound smart?
Some things will be public, like press releases and public statements.
But having worked in NGOs, there are also things that are private, such as who you are in contact with, and what insider is leaking stuff to you or giving you a nod when something's worth reacting to.
I'm not saying that safe software turns countries into a wonderland, but it's one of the ingredients.
And in reply to other comments, it's not about each employee having the source, it's about the whold world having the source. When there are enough concerned users, someone might add the feature you need. With proprietary software, even when there's a billion users, it's still a pile of spyware.
I'm not criticising this move. It's the start of the right thing to do. But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
Free software web browser projects should reply by saying that they have better privacy, give away less personal / identifying information, help users avoid being mislead into clicking on ads, etc. etc.
I've never noticed whether my browser has fast, or slow, or any GPL acceleration.
You're still left with the problem of distinguishing between "minor" and "major" differences from prior art.
Dealing with something physical like a breaking system, you can make a certain quality of comparison. Not at all 100% reliable, but you can see if they look similar and if they have similar results.
Dealing with software, you're bunched. How do you decide if my method for transmitting objects between stateless compiler units is different from your method for exchanging stored values among non-volatile transformation classes? Would a search for prior art on one even find the other patent?
They're under-resourced, but increasing their resources won't solve the social and economic problem caused by the patents they grant on software. A lot of big patent holders are saying that the solution is to increase review standards, but how would that happen? How do you put clear limits on whether something described is sufficiently innovative, or sufficiently useful?
The only simple way to reduce the workload of the patent office is to cut certain fields right out of consideration. Start with software. Making the USPTO more efficient isn't our goal, but it's a happy coincidence that there's a solution to our problem that just so happens to solve a major USPTO problem.
And it's not just the USPTO. The European Patent Office has the same problems.
Reading the text, I'm worried that the European Commission will be able to argue that the current process is already complying with those demands.
There's a lot of "You can't do X unless it complies with existing EU law!" or "This better not have side effect X!" - to which the European Commission could say "Ok, we're already obliged to comply with EU law, so that changes nothing, and of course we've no intention to cause side effects, so let's continue and sign this thing.".
I'd love to see a document showing what sentences of the latest leaked draft are unavoidably shot down by this declaration.
ACTA has many bad parts, such as entrenching DRM and the deadly effects of pharmaceutical patents, but it also has terrible effects for software patents:
> Too caught up in their own experiences to see how they could team up with like-minded people around them
Are there active movements against the whole patent system or against certain other parts of the patent system? If so, it'd be great if you could mention them here:
The en.swpat.org wiki has a generalist / pluralist focus. Regardless of what I think about abolishing the whole system, I do agree it's a way to achieve the aim of the anti-swpat movement. If you've good links/papers/arguments for abolishing the whole system, they'd be very welcome.
> You think software advances more quickly, but you've never seen mechanical development unfettered by patents.
Correct. I'm lacking in knowledge of mechanical development, just as I'm lacking in knowledge in pharmaceuticals. Isn't that a good reason for me to *avoid* proposing policy for these fields?
Software is something I know well and I've spent years looking at the effects of patents on software, so I'm confident in proposing policy there: no software patents.
You say that complete abolition is easier to explain than an arbitrary line in the sand, but I think that's contradicted by events in the last ten years. In the European Union the parliament voted in September 2003 to exclude software from patentability, but the whole directive was rejected in 2005. In New Zealand and Australia, the patentability of software is being questioned right now and New Zealand looks likely to abolish them. The European Patent Office held a consultation about this last year.
We've no big victories (yet) but the idea is being entertained and we've come within an inch of victory. As for abolishing the whole patent system, I haven't heard of any parliament in the developed world even starting a legislative proposal on that.
The main problem caused by MPEG-LA is that people can't distribute video software. GNU/Linux distros have to worry about distributing software that supports H.264, and developers have to worry about adding support to their apps. Documenting this situation is my hobby horse but this "free" licence" is so limited, I can't find much to write about it. It won't make H.264 safe for standards like HTML5 either.
They promise not to sue non-commercial distributors of video (no ads allowed on the webpage). That means I'm safe to publish videos of me singing karaoke, but no one was going to sue me for that anyway. The only real case I can think of is public service television, which could put their shows online now without worry, but they'd have to be very careful about not having anything that could be called an ad on their webpage. Is that really the extent of this "free" licence that such a fuss is being made about?
Yeh, that's a funny thing. In Europe, we spent seven years building a movement and fighting software patents. In India, they were proposed, and fought over for three weeks, and discussed in the media for maybe one week, and the government retracted the software patents proposal.
The issue isn't over, but things are certainly done different over there. I discussed it with some locals there and they told me that foreign interference doesn't go down well. Not at all. Red Hat sent a letter to the Indian government saying that software patents are dumb. (Well done Red Hat! You were our only supporter!) Locals told me that Red Hat took a chance with that letter. Other companies that try too hard to pressure the government get kicked out.
The software patent battle there is still in progress there, but foreigners should be wary of their preconceptions of how lobbying is done.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, in pharma or the car industry, patent threats get met by a legal team and a well-financed company, so patent holders don't launch as many spurious lawsuits. In software, where you don't need a legal team and a six digit bank balance, many developers get shafted because they can't use the court system. Patents shouldn't exist in domains where individuals and non-commercial entities can be mass producers.
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
So everyone's trying to make a big, fast computer.
What's at stake? What does the winner win?
It was a reference to Windows. Despite there being a userbase of hundreds of millions, none are able to form a community and audit the software or remove the spyware and stop the collecting of personal information.
As the number of users increases, the changes that there are programmers, security auditors, or concerned businesses increases too. With proprietary software, these people can do little or nothing. With free software, anyone can audit it and anyone can contribute or publish their own fork.
And you see no connection between the software they use and their ability to control their exposure?
Some actions are publicly visible for unavoidable reasons (publishing articles). Other actions such as talking to dissidents, talking to leaks, talking to whistle blowers, collecting data, have to be done as secretly as possible.
If they use proprietary software, they just have to trust the software developers to do a good job and to not collaborate with the government. Sound smart?
Some things will be public, like press releases and public statements.
But having worked in NGOs, there are also things that are private, such as who you are in contact with, and what insider is leaking stuff to you or giving you a nod when something's worth reacting to.
I'm not saying that safe software turns countries into a wonderland, but it's one of the ingredients.
And in reply to other comments, it's not about each employee having the source, it's about the whold world having the source. When there are enough concerned users, someone might add the feature you need. With proprietary software, even when there's a billion users, it's still a pile of spyware.
Humorous, but pls lrn2grammar: :-p :-) :smileynose)
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/acronyms.html
It's not about submitting kernel patches. It's about seeing who's listening and being able to add security/anonymity/privacy features.
Those thugs don't just arrive randomly.
I'm not criticising this move. It's the start of the right thing to do. But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
NGO's should use free software.
...but thanks for the share price info. It's what I come to Slashdot for :-p
Free software web browser projects should reply by saying that they have better privacy, give away less personal / identifying information, help users avoid being mislead into clicking on ads, etc. etc.
I've never noticed whether my browser has fast, or slow, or any GPL acceleration.
You're still left with the problem of distinguishing between "minor" and "major" differences from prior art.
Dealing with something physical like a breaking system, you can make a certain quality of comparison. Not at all 100% reliable, but you can see if they look similar and if they have similar results.
Dealing with software, you're bunched. How do you decide if my method for transmitting objects between stateless compiler units is different from your method for exchanging stored values among non-volatile transformation classes? Would a search for prior art on one even find the other patent?
They're under-resourced, but increasing their resources won't solve the social and economic problem caused by the patents they grant on software. A lot of big patent holders are saying that the solution is to increase review standards, but how would that happen? How do you put clear limits on whether something described is sufficiently innovative, or sufficiently useful?
The only simple way to reduce the workload of the patent office is to cut certain fields right out of consideration. Start with software. Making the USPTO more efficient isn't our goal, but it's a happy coincidence that there's a solution to our problem that just so happens to solve a major USPTO problem.
And it's not just the USPTO. The European Patent Office has the same problems.
Here's all the background:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/NetApp_v._Sun_et._al._re_ZFS_(2010,_USA)
(Anyone know on problems for Btrfs? I hear others raising the question, but I haven't found anything to indicate that there's a real risk.)
When making laws about restricting the use of information, make them as narrow as possible, and broaden as necessary.
Reading the text, I'm worried that the European Commission will be able to argue that the current process is already complying with those demands.
There's a lot of "You can't do X unless it complies with existing EU law!" or "This better not have side effect X!" - to which the European Commission could say "Ok, we're already obliged to comply with EU law, so that changes nothing, and of course we've no intention to cause side effects, so let's continue and sign this thing.".
I'd love to see a document showing what sentences of the latest leaked draft are unavoidably shot down by this declaration.
> without flailing their arms and legs
That's all well and good for impressing the ladies, but how then am I supposed to scare of my competition?
ACTA has many bad parts, such as entrenching DRM and the deadly effects of pharmaceutical patents, but it also has terrible effects for software patents:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA_and_software_patents
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Criminalising_patent_infringement_is_draconian
> Too caught up in their own experiences to see how they could team up with like-minded people around them
Are there active movements against the whole patent system or against certain other parts of the patent system? If so, it'd be great if you could mention them here:
The en.swpat.org wiki has a generalist / pluralist focus. Regardless of what I think about abolishing the whole system, I do agree it's a way to achieve the aim of the anti-swpat movement. If you've good links/papers/arguments for abolishing the whole system, they'd be very welcome.
> You think software advances more quickly, but you've never seen mechanical development unfettered by patents.
Correct. I'm lacking in knowledge of mechanical development, just as I'm lacking in knowledge in pharmaceuticals. Isn't that a good reason for me to *avoid* proposing policy for these fields?
Software is something I know well and I've spent years looking at the effects of patents on software, so I'm confident in proposing policy there: no software patents.
You say that complete abolition is easier to explain than an arbitrary line in the sand, but I think that's contradicted by events in the last ten years. In the European Union the parliament voted in September 2003 to exclude software from patentability, but the whole directive was rejected in 2005. In New Zealand and Australia, the patentability of software is being questioned right now and New Zealand looks likely to abolish them. The European Patent Office held a consultation about this last year.
We've no big victories (yet) but the idea is being entertained and we've come within an inch of victory. As for abolishing the whole patent system, I haven't heard of any parliament in the developed world even starting a legislative proposal on that.
From what I've understood, "molestation" in Swedish law isn't necessarily sexual. It seems closer to what anglophone systems call "assault". FWIW.
But, as we learned yesterday, sitting down kills, so I guess there are some stand-up drinkers bumping up the average somewhere.
The main problem caused by MPEG-LA is that people can't distribute video software. GNU/Linux distros have to worry about distributing software that supports H.264, and developers have to worry about adding support to their apps. Documenting this situation is my hobby horse but this "free" licence" is so limited, I can't find much to write about it. It won't make H.264 safe for standards like HTML5 either.
They promise not to sue non-commercial distributors of video (no ads allowed on the webpage). That means I'm safe to publish videos of me singing karaoke, but no one was going to sue me for that anyway. The only real case I can think of is public service television, which could put their shows online now without worry, but they'd have to be very careful about not having anything that could be called an ad on their webpage. Is that really the extent of this "free" licence that such a fuss is being made about?
Here's the link to Red Hat's letter:
> business is done differently here.
Yeh, that's a funny thing. In Europe, we spent seven years building a movement and fighting software patents. In India, they were proposed, and fought over for three weeks, and discussed in the media for maybe one week, and the government retracted the software patents proposal.
The issue isn't over, but things are certainly done different over there. I discussed it with some locals there and they told me that foreign interference doesn't go down well. Not at all. Red Hat sent a letter to the Indian government saying that software patents are dumb. (Well done Red Hat! You were our only supporter!) Locals told me that Red Hat took a chance with that letter. Other companies that try too hard to pressure the government get kicked out.
The software patent battle there is still in progress there, but foreigners should be wary of their preconceptions of how lobbying is done.
Ok, thanks. I'm updating the pages now...