1 |
On Wednesday 27 August 2003 10:35 pm, Matt Chorman wrote: |
2 |
> It's amazing to me that any open-source developer would agree with software |
3 |
> patents. |
4 |
|
5 |
The current software patent system you have over there in America has been a |
6 |
source of much merriment on this side of the pond over the last few years ;-) |
7 |
At least, it was until the beaurocrats over here decided it was a good idea |
8 |
to install something similar :( |
9 |
|
10 |
Personally, I believe that some form of IPR protection is morally right, no |
11 |
matter what the field of endeavour. Unfortunately, no-one seems to have |
12 |
invented a creditable form of IPR protection which would seem fair in the |
13 |
computing world. |
14 |
|
15 |
Let's say that HP *did* actually invent remote access to another computer. |
16 |
(Two disclaimers: first, I've worked for HP in the past, and second I have no |
17 |
idea whether the patent in question is creditable or not) Why shouldn't they |
18 |
be entitled to protect their IPR, and to earn revenue from it? Never mind |
19 |
the details, it's a simple yes or no question of morals. |
20 |
|
21 |
Now let's look at the music industry as a parallel. Songs aren't patented (at |
22 |
least, I've never heard of one that is :), but they are copyrighted. The |
23 |
performance is copyrighted. The original music is also copyrighted, often |
24 |
seperately. So, if you wanted to use a sample of Hendrix on your own song, |
25 |
you'd need permission from whoever holds the copyright to the actual |
26 |
*performance* that you've sampled. But, if you want to publish your own |
27 |
performance of a Hendrix song, you need permission from whoever owns the |
28 |
copyright to Hendrix's original music. |
29 |
|
30 |
> While you're at it, look up 6,611,268. Then look up all patents where the |
31 |
> Assignee is Microsoft or HP. Then think about the implications of the SCO |
32 |
> lawsuit and what these companies can do if the courts don't reject SCO's |
33 |
> argument. There is a major differnese between software patents and |
34 |
> copyrights. Copyright=good. Software patent=bad. |
35 |
|
36 |
The *system* you've got is bad. It is without any sense of balance. But |
37 |
remember: it's your system, put in place by your government. And its the |
38 |
citizens who put the government in place (well, it used to work that way once |
39 |
;) |
40 |
|
41 |
Protection for IPR itself isn't a bad concept. It's been a key part of the |
42 |
commerce-based way of life in the West since before 1449 AD. Stopping the |
43 |
current software process patenting nonsense is good and worthy. But the need |
44 |
*is* there, as well as the moral right, and this is where campaigners such as |
45 |
yourself always fail to convince me. |
46 |
|
47 |
Propose and demonstrate a creditable alternative legal framework for IPR |
48 |
protection, and you'll have my vote. |
49 |
|
50 |
But until then ... |
51 |
|
52 |
Best regards, |
53 |
Stu |
54 |
-- |
55 |
Stuart Herbert stuart@g.o |
56 |
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ |
57 |
Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/ |
58 |
Come and meet me in March 2004 http://www.phparch.com/cruise/ |
59 |
|
60 |
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
61 |
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C |
62 |
-- |