Whoops, that should have been to ilug at linux.ie, not linux at ilug.ie...
On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:08:22 +0100 (IST)
brendan at brendanhalpin2.staff8.ul.ie (Brendan Halpin) wrote:
> I understand proposals to allow the patenting of software
> discoveries in the EU are still on the agenda. I am writing to you
> to express my disquiet with this development, and to ask you to
> oppose it.
>> Patents for software are unnecessary and harmful. They are
> unnecessary because even without them innovation and profitability
> proceed at an enviable rate.
>> They are harmful to innovation, to the market and to civil society
> for a number of reasons. First, innovation: In software, invention
> plays a much greater role than in other domains, and independent
> reinvention is extremely common. Patents thus put an unreasonable
> burden on software research and development, in a way that is not
> true of material research and development.
> Second, the market: It is essential for competition and innovation
> that the market be open, but software patents put more power in the
> hands of established players, power that economic rationality
> dictates will be used to inhibit the emergence of competitors. As
> you are aware, the software market contains a fascinating mix of
> big corporations striving to exert maximum control inhibited only
> by the emergence of new firms fuelled by new technologies; software
> patents push this delicate balance in the direction of oligopoly.
This would be exacerbated by the long lifetime of patents which, due to the unparalled pace of developement in the industry, can far exceed the usefullness of the invention itself.
> On a pragmatic note, this imbalance will tend to favour certain
> very American firms, at the expense of the European software
> industry.
>> Third, civil society: software patents are detrimental to openness
> in civil society. They undermine \textbf{open standards} and
> \textbf{open source software}, two factors contributing strongly to
> the power of the consumer to control his/her own data. I was
> delighted to read of your colleague, Mary Hannafin's, recent
> endorsement of the importance of open standards, which allow
> individuals, organisations and even governments a vital degree of
> independence from software vendors. A standard, however specified,
> cannot be open if its operation is subject to patent, as the World
> Wide Web Consortium acknowledges. \footnote{See
> \url{http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/}. The
> W3C copes with the problem of US software patents by insisting on
> royalty-free and non-discriminatory licensing if patents impinge
> on their standards. This is very difficult to achieve and is a
> problem it is better not to create.}
You may also want to refer to http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/hd_070803.html
Quotes include "Patents don't stimulate innovation... competition has been the major stimulus of innovation". Also of note is Cisco's stance that they feel they *have* to patent their inventions not as a revenue source, but as a defence mechanism against more aggressive companies patent policies.
> Open source software is even more effective in giving power to
> individuals, though more of more specialised effect than open
> standards.
> Nonetheless, it is of incredible importance, and much of the
> development of the Internet, and of phenomena such as
> Google, is posited on it.
Your grammar fairy took a nap here...
I'm also wondering as to whether this is straying a little off the point - both open and closed source software may equally infringe on patents.
Also patents are not about granting freedoms to the end-user, they are about protecting a genuine inventor in the marketplace.
Regardless, better read as:
Software patents may also have a profound effect on open-source software development which has been fundamental to the development of the internet.
> It is hugely important both to individual
> freedom, and to the speed and breadth of innovation. And to the
> market, as firms such as IBM have acknowledged in recent years --
> this form of intellectual ``non-property'' is extremely potent in
> the mix with established conventionally proprietory software.
Better read as:
... Open source software is of huge importance to individual freedom, to the speed and breadth of innovation, and to competition within the marketplace. Firms such as IBM have acknowledged this in recent years -- this form of intellectual ``non-property'' is extremely potent in the mix with conventional proprietary software.
> As stands, the key limitation on open source software is copyright,
> and that works very well indeed.
Makes you sound like you're against copyright too. Again, straying off the point a little. Perhaps:
Open source software both furthers innovation and empowers the end-user, while explicity protecting the copyright of the author.
> Software patents, however, create
> a huge impediment to writing open source software, introducing
> civil liability in a non-commercial activity, with potentially
> disastrous effects on civil society.
> I would therefore ask you to use all your influence to oppose this
> development, particularly during Ireland's EU presidency.
Otherwise, good letter.
-fr.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.linux.ie/pipermail/ilug/attachments/20040512/c7f23f21/attachment.pgp
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
