> Ah, I see. But then I don't really agree with the logic. I agree that there > aren't really any free software companies that support software patents. > But they aren't the ones who will be opposing this -- it will be the > proprietary software companies who don't want free software companies to > have an edge on them.
Understood. However then the policy makers would need to make a concious decision - do I hurt small businesses and take away the rights of individuals working in the public interest to aide big business? If the government has any morals, they won't. It should be an easy win. But you're right - we absolutely cannot count on it. :) I still think it's an easier argument. If this is that difficult, abolishing software patents entirely would seem almost impossible. Yet we have hope for that (as we should). > The argument could be made (and I don't, of course, agree with it, just > playing Devil's Advocate): > > "Patent law is to encourage innovation. Innovation costs money. Right there. We can clearly prove that innovation does not cost money, with countless examples. How much money did Vim cost to make? This also implies that patents can only hurt free software, since it is frequently at a clear disadvantage. Perhaps it is corporations with their patents that are holding back innovation - the ability to improve upon an idea or to interoperate with software to perform an innovative function. I absolutely believe is often the case. > We invest > money in research under the condition that we can make money from our > invention, without competition, for 20 years. Haha. Yeah. Don't make me cry. :) > We cannot allow these > hobbyists to rip off our ideas and then compete with us at zero cost. That > will mean we have no incentive to invest money in further research." From the ABC website: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1097642.htm "The cost of an Australian standard patent including attorney fees is usually between $5000-$8000. Annual maintenance fees are payable from its fifth year. Over a 20-year term these will add a further $8,000 to the cost." So if a company can afford to buy patents, they can likely also afford more developers. Would they argue that a few developers (potentially non-free, working in their spare time as a hobby) is serious competition for them? > Then, > add in the argument that free software is not just hobbyists, but also > includes commercial competitors (like Android). You basically have the full > strength argument for why the patent system is needed in the first place. How much money does Google make from Android? Actually, I read that Microsoft makes the most money from it. From patents. :) Sorry. Not buying your argument. > I am sure they will not see any distinction > between commercial entities using free software licenses and commercial > entities producing proprietary software. One important different (not necessarily for us, but for policy makers) is that the software typically isn't being 'sold' if it's free software. It's only serving to help sell something else, if it's selling anything at all. It's in the public interest as it provides essential freedoms for all, whereas proprietary software only benefits one company (or occasionally one person) financially. Those are some pretty big distinctions IMO. > Any argument > against the patent system can be applied equally to free or proprietary > software. That's what I've been trying to show my disagreement over. I don't think we can convince each other easily. :) > It doesn't make sense in my mind to say "patents should not apply > to free software," any more than it would make sense to say "parking meters > should not apply to cars that have been custom built by the driver." Either > you think parking meters are a good thing and should apply to anyone who > parks in a spot, or you think parking meters are bad and everyone should be > able to park for free. It has nothing to do with the conditions under which > the car was built. Still not looking at the big picture. Parking meters don't apply to bicycles. Why not? Bicycles are vehicles too. But they don't have a huge up-front expense and are easily obtainable by all - including kids. Because the barrier to entry is so low, and the value they provide (being safer, and the only common vehicle allowed on the road that's available to non-adults), it doesn't make sense to put parking meters at bike stands. If I make a computer program and release it as free software, it doesn't make sense for the patent system to apply to me because I can't afford time/money to start a company and patent things. That too would be crazy. If making an analogy to software patents, I'd say you have a parking meter at every public bike rack, and we're the ones arguing that this isn't fair - some people can't afford to use them. Then you have car owners saying "hell no, we're paying taxes and we're all driving vehicles here - they need that meter". :) That's the closest analogy I can think of, although I admit it's not perfect. We don't necessarily want the parking meter scheme abolished completely as we do patents. > Well I'm not trying to defend patent holders. I want to get rid of patents. > I'm saying that a) free and proprietary software authors have equally much > to gain by removing patents Not true - depends on the proprietary software, as I pointed out in my previous e-mail. > b) I doubt you will find it any easier to > convince lawmakers to get rid of patents in free software as you will to > convince them to get rid of patents entirely. Still haven't seen any clear arguments demonstrating this IMO. However, it also hasn't been demonstrated that it should matter - and that we can't argue both points at the same time. > Yes, there are lots of harms to free software authors by having software > patents. But they are just as harmful to proprietary software authors. If that were true, you would see free software authors licensing patents. Funny that doesn't typically happen. :) > A > startup who wants to build a photo-sharing platform (and doesn't > necessarily want to make the source public, because they want a competitive > advantage) may be sued by a troll who has a patent on photo sharing, and go > out of business. The net result is we don't have any photo sharing (since > the troll isn't actually providing a service, just suing). That's bad for > innovation, and bad for the industry. Those cases are just as important as > free software cases, in my view. You're still forgetting my argument that free software should be in the public interest. It's difficult, or perhaps impossible to make the same claims about proprietary software. So it's not just as important, but I agree it's still quite important. > Of course, this is a free software discussion group, so perhaps the > argument to that is "why should we care about someone who isn't releasing > their source code?" "Why don't we just look after our own people?" Fair > enough, but I'm saying that if you want to fight against X, the best thing > you can do is gather up as many people who will be threatened by X and all > fight together, even if you disagree with those people about other things. I would normally agree, but in this case by arguing alongside with proprietary software, we expand the scope of what we're fighting for and take on additional problems associated with representing it. I'm certainly not saying that we should give up on software patents in general, however I continue to believe that putting forward an argument specifically for free software to be considered 'in the public interest' would be easier than abolishing software patents entirely forever. > Nobody would ever win a battle against X if all of the various interest > groups who oppose X all decided to start their own little campaign to > protect their interest group from X and did not care about any of the other > interest groups. United we stand, yada yada yada. Free software supporters can argue for both. I can't see why not. > To show how silly and divisive that logic is, say that there is a web app > community, and they get fed up with getting sued all the time for violating > every little one click or embeddable object patent. So they team up to > fight software patents. And we, in the free software community, say "yes! > We need to get rid of software patents!" But then, these web app authors go > to the government and say: > "We need to put an end to patent trolls suing us for web content. So we > propose a law which says that patents cannot be used against web > technologies. After all, the web is a source of rich innovation and it is > being harmed by patents." That actually might fall under free software banner, since the code is sent to the client web browser in human-readable form (or easily made to do so anyway). Anyway I see your point, but I disagree any example you could care to name could truly be considered 'in the public interest' like free software could. > Wouldn't it have been better if the free software community, the web > developers community, and any other community that had an interest in > fighting patents, all got together and made a global argument over why > patents are bad, rather than each trying to secure small patent exemptions > for their special interest? I still see any patent exception as a stop-gap measure. A step on the long road to victory. As for if this is best or not, we need to ask a legal expert I think. Regards, Adam
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
