David Berry wrote:
This is an interesting argument. Although free-licensed patent-pools
are a patent version of free culture.
I don't think so - though maybe you know of some example? My reason is
associated with the argument re John Sulston: he could do what he did
(cf 'The Common Thread' IIRC) because gene patenting was so new, it was
(almost) virgin territory. In more established areas the big companies
have everything so sewn up with patents it's impossible to create an
(effectively) patent-free area through free-licensed pools: the most you
can do is to hope to use the pool to counter-sue. So all they can
provide for free culture is some shelter IF the participants have enough
money behind them to convince attackers that they can survive the
courts. So for example IBM could use such a pool to defend Linux against
Microsoft - but IBM doesn't need any free pool for this, it could do so
anyway. Anyone smaller who thinks they can take MS on in a court case
and win in the court itself needs their head examining, patent pool or
not... It's not a patent case, but what have the costs in the SCO case
been? What free-culture group could survive that?
You are here, then, arguing for the abolition of patents on the basis
of all such data put into the public domain. But as you said earlier,
I think what will actually happen is that we will just have more trade
secrets, more non-disclosure and less information. After all, Coke
keeps its recipe secret using this method very successfully. Patents
are, at least, a form of public disclosure - that is the bargain that
is made between private interest (20 year monopoly) for public good
(publication).
That's the theory yes. In practice it's not a 20 year monopoly, it's
infinite if it is still financially interesting - you get a renewal on
the basis of trivial enhancements; for example, see the history of the
74LS chip series, the most commonly used 'little' chips since the early
70s, where Texas just kept renewing the patents. The other thing is
disclosure is useless if you're locked out: Xilinx, who are the
microsoft of the FPGA world, simply buy up any company that develops any
tools which would make FPGAs open-source together with their patents,
and have done since the 80s. They have effectively barred all
development of open-source FPGAs, although there is no technical reason
at all for this. And I'm sure they will just carry on renewing those
patents too.
So given the size of these companies there really isn't much difference
in realism between calling for reform (no renewal of patents on trivial
basis, no use of patents to form cartels, etc) and saying 'no patents'.
Maybe then, counter-intuitively we need a free culture patent space?
I don't understand that sentence. Can you explain?
Cheers
Graham
On 30 Nov 2006, at 15:29, Graham Seaman wrote:
Your argument does not apply to patents, because there is no free
culture within the areas covered by patents - patents make it
impossible. Even the very limited freeness of countries like India or
Brazil to manufacture their own AIDS medicines is denied by the
system. As is the possibility of a culture of free electronic design
which can actually make it to manufacture. In the areas covered by
patents there is actually nothing to lose by taking a radical view.
The only way any elements of free culture within the patent realm can
survive is the tactic used by John Sulston et al with the human
genome - work fast enough to beat the patenters and put the result in
the public domain immediately. This is not an easily generalisable
strategy.
This is different from copyright, where the inherent ambiguities can
be manipulated to create a temporary living place for free culture
(ie. copyleft).
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
