[Nottingham] Patents considered harmful?

[Robert Davies]

On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:05, Martin Garton wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Robert Davies wrote:
> > I got same straight away, their position appeared the most favourable to
> > Open Source, Free software and (IMO) the commercial software development
> > industry.
>
> From Nick Clegg also?  Maybe we should have a quick show of hands to see
> which of our MEPs have been contacted much about this already, 

The way they seem to operate, is to pass issue to regional responsible member 
ie buck pass.  I think fairly crude line, requesting their parties stance, 
and explaining that the issue is important and will not be forgotten at 
election time is something that might keep the patent-philiacs on the leash.

They are going to do something though, the parties are saying very similar 
thing, I think Arlene got burned by the controversy, which caused Labour to 
spin their wheels for long time, before they answered me.  I regard her 
current document, as a damage limitation exercise.  I personally wrote to her 
to explain, how concerned I was by her factual errors and apparent ignorance, 
expressed in her Guardian article (it was equivalent to on of those 'Linux 
Zealots get real' articles that are doing the rounds currently).

> > So how do we take on what the directive's proponents are saying and
> > dismantle the statements they make?  What are the weaknesses?
>
> It seems to me that there aren't many weaknesses in what they are saying,
> because what they are saying is not very closely related to the truth of
> the directive.  My feeling is that we need to be demonstrating why the
> directive is problematic by picking example cases (eg, ones that have
> happened in the US) and testing them against the directive.  I suspect
> this will be hard work though.

So some critique, comparing what they say with the actual directive, and 
questioning the differences, would show them they are rumbled.  Perhaps an 
Open Letter from the LUG which could go on The Register, if we're able to 
make clear discrepancies.

> Incidentally, so far I have been arguing along the "software patents are
> bad for small business, and help big business to lock out smaller
> competition" line, in effect against software patents altogether. I am
> starting to wonder about limiting the argument to free software and the
> damage that will be done to it by software patents, because that seems
> easier to convince people of.

I think the response from Software development professionals, was 
over-whelming and anti, nevermind what the suits say, who have time to take 
power lunches with MPs etc.  We know how problematic patent issues could be 
in practice, though those in favour in the business are looking at the 
financial benefits of holding a patent, on something like Visicalc, rather 
than copyright, which  would have prevented Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel taking over 
the market.

> The only remaining thing then is so hope that they see free software as
> something worth saving and judging by some things that many MEPs have
> already fallen for, it won't be easy. As an example from swpat.ffii.org
> MEPs were sent a "Joint Statement of the Industry" about ways of
> "protecting opensource software" which included the requirements that:
>
> 1. whenever an interface is patented, interoperable software may not be
> published or used without a license
>
> How exactly is that going to be "protecting opensource software"?
>
> Answer: It's not, and those who wrote it are either deeply uninformed or
> highly decieptful.
>
> This is what we are up against.

How can an interface be patented?  That is a reprise of old battles, where 
protectionist companies didn't want re-implementations of their API's, trying 
to claim copyright for them.

First off we have to question the need for these patents :

1)  Software industry has been very innovative without
2)  Huge financial rewards for those first to market
3)  Competition has become dependant on freely available Open Source and Free 
software, due to unfair anti-competitive practices of large software 
suppliers.

The last thing the IT industry needs now, is cementing the position of the 
largest corporations who have been able to build portfolio's of obvious ideas 
to use as a legal weapon eg) IBM's counter-suit against SCO. 

OTOH many software concerns would enjoy the added protection a patent offers, 
as it may prevent M$'s embrace and extend tactics, a topical example would be 
the small company which won damages against M$ for infringement by IE.  How 
to explain this 'cure' is more deadly than the disease. 

The other point we have to answer, is how to allow inventions partly 
implemented in software?  I have found it impossible to work my way through 
the legalese, and fear that we'll end up being conned by politicians, IP 
lobbyists and bureaucrats who are paid full time to play the system.

The Joint Statement can perhaps be dissected, to show how protectionist it is, 
though it may be a waste of time, depending on how much influence that lobby 
has. 

What I don't get is how, something like MP3 was patentable by Fraunhofer, if 
Software Patents did not already exist here?   So that rather does prove 
Arlene's point, we have to attack this rationally and realise the Free 
software side of argument has no monopoly on correctness and logic.  If we 
don't then we'll be written off as oddballs who don't matter to mainstream 
voters.

Rob