[Sussex] Breaking Patent News

[Geoffrey Teale]

On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 14:32 +0000, Angelo Servini wrote:
> Looking Good, but will this be enough to prevent the parasites
> (patenters) from killing off innovation?  I mean, it is good to have
> free software - but as you will agree, commercial software is still
> needed, especially in vertical markets where it is not feasible for OSS
> to cover.  

There is no such market.  You can have a software business built around
Free Software - in fact the markets you speak of are possibly the safest
place to do so where customisation and services are a bigger selling
point that the basic package.  

We're starting to find that customers are demanding that when they sign
a contract with a software house they get the source and the right to
modify if only as insurance against their suppliers business failing.

> In these cases the IBM promise will not stand, and companies
> that depend entirely on revenue from their software are still liable to
> attack from the patenters.  

How many software firms rely on the revenue from their software
directly?  None that I've worked for, and only a handful get the
majority of their revenue this way (Microsoft, Adobe, possibly Oracle,
JASC and the like).

How many of this small group are making anything else other than very
generic, "off the shelf" applications?  How many of those applications
provide something you can't already get from free software? 

The point is, IBM has no reason on earth to protect it's competitors,
but it's relying on a lot of software developed by the F/OSS community
and it wants to protect that community from some very big fish who may
well be planning to use their patent portfolio to hurt the F/OSS
community.  No names mentioned *WilliamHGatesTheThirdcough cough*.

> That will directly affect us as developers,
> as we will lose our jobs, and the users will be forced to pay outrageous
> prices for their software from the priveleges few; if they can afford to
> buy it in the first place.  They in turn could also go out of business.
> This is far more serious than the effect on OSS only - it could spark
> the end of the current economic stability we now enjoy.

Yes.  This is why software patents are a bad things generally speaking
and why we should fight them to the hilt.

Actually that's an overstatement.  Software Patents as a concept are not
really that much of a problem (no more so than Patents in any field) its
that they are too broad, too sweeping and have a lifespan well beyond
that of the software they would cover that is the real issue.

We are suffering because our tools came to be in age when IP was a big
issue - the screw and screwdriver would never have become the dominant
affixing solution if it had been "owned" by International Carpentry
Machines and sold only at an exorbitant cost.

> I think that the IBM move is at best a stopgap.  

To be fair to IBM, they are doing the best they can to protect groups
that are vital to their current business model in an environment where
several countries already recognise software patents.

> IMHO, We still need to
> canvas and motivate those around us to petition government officials to
> outlaw thise uncompetitive and unfair legislature.  I in fact am going
> to write to MP's about this. (Sorry BTW, I have not paid much attention
> to this until now)

Good stuff.

> Did the SLUG actually mention a few months ago that there was a standard
> letter floating about and can I use it?

Dunnoo.. certainly been discussed.  If not go to http://www.gnu.org and
look at the "Take Action" section for details of how you can support the
Free Software Foundation in Europe.


-- 
Geoffrey Teale <gteale at cmedltd.com>
Cmed Technology