Hi Andy
I wish I were worthy of quoting Blaise Pascal here, but instead I will just
apologise for the rant...
I think it has a bearing on all of us too. And thus you lure
me in. But if people complain that this is getting boring,
off-topic or ill-natured then let's quit it.
(Subject changed)
All I can offer you is my opinions, I can't help you with
your misunderstandings about the nature of reality. A study of
Shannon and Bohr might help you disentangle information
from atoms.
I doubt Shannon and Bohr will help me understand why different laws should
apply to ideas about atoms and ideas about information structure though. We
are not arguing that atoms should be treated differently from information
(as goes the arguments regarding intellectual property and copyright). _All_
patents are intellectual property (designs, ideas, inventions, whatever you
want to call them) whether they apply to software algorithms, mechanical
mechanisms, chemical processes etc.
Straight up, I'm confused as to whether you support software patents
(if you want me to correct your misunderstandings) or whether
you want to help reform them, which implies that you don't.
Reforming them does not necessarily imply dismantling the patent system
completely. I could support Software patents (in some cases) and at the same
time wish to reform the system.
I don't support software patents but I don't currently oppose them either. I
definitely oppose some practices of those who use/abuse/exploit software
patents.
At the risk of falling off your pragmatic fence perhaps you
could lean over enough for me to see which way you're pitching.
I stated my position in an earlier email: I have a clear problem with
obvious and trivial patents. I stated a proposed rule of thumb about what I
think is trivial, Nigel has given some other ideas. To me, if those issues
were resolved that would go a long way to reforming the system. I want to
continue developing software. I would prefer not to have to deal with
working around trivial patents and the legal risks of potentially violating
patents I've never even heard of. On the other hand, I respect that patents
provide a means to protect significant investment in R&D and unlike your
freinds at eurolinux I don't believe that Copyright or Trade Secrets are
sufficient legal mechanisms to achieve this protection since neither can
fully protect an abstract algorithmic invention. (Perhaps we could have
something like the performing rights organisations do for songs -- if you
use my registered algorithm you pay me an algorithm royalty.. maybe not, but
you get the idea).
As for dismantling the system completely, well I am still sitting on the
fence. Not because I am unconvinced by your and other's appeals to the right
to intellectual freedom, but because Patents are an economic mechanism that
functions in the global industrial/economic domain (as I have said, a
complex system, a complex dynamic system if you will -- I don't use these
terms to shroud things as "deep" but to suggest a particular "organic"
organisational dynamic that is quite different from a top-down organised
logical system).
Patents don't principally act to restrict intellectual freedom in academia,
in research, or in my lounge room (although I expect you will come up with
examples of the ways they do), they principally act to restrict commercial
freedom -- and I think it is a complex economic question as to whether
disallowing software patents (as an isolated act) would really lead to
"progress." There are arguments both ways (you and Nigel have discussed
some of them), but I don't think it is possible to know exactly what impact
it would have on the market and the mechanisms of software production -- you
can't just take one piece of a poorly understood complex ecosystem like the
global economy and change or remove a piece of it and expect to know all of
the consequences. I'm not arguing for maintenance of the status quo, it's
just that I'm not sure that disestablishmentarianism is the way forward.
So perhaps the conversation should end here, since I am looking for economic
and/or eco/sociological arguments and you are disinterested in discussing
everything but the moral dimension (which I can't disagree with). Of course,
I will go on anyway... :-)...
Legal arguments do not interest me since that just begs the question.
The problem _is_ a legal interpretation, therefore the Law sets the
conditions for what counts as a fact. I am not interested in trying
to use either reasoned or moral arguments on that wonky playing field.
I know how that games goes, it's like arguing with creationists.
The thing is, that _is_ the playing field. All this stuff is being played
out in the complex dynamic system called the global economy. Perhaps I am
morally bankrupt, but I have little sympathy for purist philosophical and
moral arguments that are disconnected from effecting positive change in the
world as-it-is. I agree that it would be nice if "information was free" but
I don't see that happening any time soon and I'm not convinced it is
economically appropriate or viable (forget the moral arguments). Preaching
to the congregation is all well and good but what is the congregation to do
with this new moral directive? You say burn down the system... well you can
deride my pragmaticism but I can't help but feel that there is a more
effective response than calling for revolution.
That we live in a complex world is not sufficient reason for me
to abandon moral principles, or aspire to creating a less complex
and fairer world through reason. Simplicity suits me fine as
a computer scientist, it is beauty and elegance, and I am always
suspicious of those who muddy the waters to appear deep or
complicate things to make themselves necessary.
As you say I do not agree with the socio-economic argument (as you
attribute to Nigel). I think it's a worn out old straw man. I do
agree with the incompetence of the examiners, but that is secondary
to my objection to software patents on moral grounds.
Perhaps you would also like food to be free for all as well. I find no
immediate reason to oppose that idea in isolation on principled moral
grounds. But like global food distribution I don't believe you can speak of
patents in isolated moral terms. They must be considered in context, which
you seem unwilling to do, sticking to your moral position above any
consideration of the economic functioning of the real world. I'm not
defending the particular "socio-economic argument" that's been put forward
here, I think it's on shaky ground, and in general I'm not a big fan of
government regulation, but the fact remains, this whole issue is a
socio-economic one, not a moral one. Patents are a socio-economic mechanism
and need to be considered as such.
I despise argument by appeal to authority, but there is no greater
living authority on computer programs than this man and I urge
you to read this letter, and perhaps respond to it with a a little
less levity than you did to the last link I gave to help you.
My response may have been light but my opinions about that link are far from
light. It was unprofessional and completely unconvincing.
http://www.pluto.it/files/meeting1999/atti/no-patents/brevetti/docs/knuth_letter_en.html
I am familiar with that letter. I havn't tried to criticise it before, but
here goes...
Firstly, I agree with the parallel Knuth draws between mathematics and
algorithms, I consider them to be structurally the same. I see no reason why
they should be treated differently. This begs the question "why can't
mathematical structures be patented?" and then we are back to the argument
above about morality vs the structure and functioning of the economy. Aside
from an appeal to established precedent, I'm not sure the "mathematics can't
be patented so why should software" argument holds much water. I can easily
imagine an investment in the development of mathematical theory that is as
worthy of a patent as what you or I might consider a patent-worthy
non-trivial algorithm. Currently such mathematical inventions can be
protected as trade secrets but are not visible to the world _at all_.
Knuth's criticisms of legal attempts to distinguish numerical vs.
non-numerical algorithms seem reasonable.
I am unmoved by Knuth's assertions that had there been software patents when
he started TeX he wouldn't have attempted it, and that if software patents
had existed in the 1960s and 1970s none of the software he uses would exist
today. These are his personal opinions. Perhaps he wouldn't have written
software but surely others would have in spite of the environment, as is the
situation today, where all sorts of software continues to be developed in
spite of the patent environment (indeed the GNU movement has risen during a
period of software patents). The reality is that people have adapted to the
patent environment -- some participate in it and some don't.
Also, the argument that if software patents had existed in the 60s and 70s
we would not be where we are today does not have any bearing on whether
software patents are an appropriate economic mechanism today.
...
After all this I can only conclude that the only real argument is not about
software patents, but about patents in general. Whether the State should
sponsor a mechanism that grants limited monopoly to an inventor or investor.
On principle I would say no, it is not the business of the State to
intervene in the market in this way. But then some other mechanism needs to
be found to protect investment in R&D... copyright is insufficient and trade
secrets, while also being insufficient, will lead to even less progress than
patents (in my view). Or we could argue against free markets, intellectual
property, etc etc but I won't go there.
Ross
If you have no hope to correct the patent system then you must
surely abandon hope of saving rainforests. They are the same. They
are both about land grabs; the appropriation of what belongs to everybody
by a group for themselves whatever the cost to humanity at large, based
upon some perceived right backed up by violence. It is not acceptable in
the 21st century. Well, it was never acceptable, but now the stakes are
possibly
the future of the species itself. You cannot selectively fight injustices,
you must fight all injustice, which means having principles. Pragmatism
won't do. Pragmatism is _why_ we are in this shit. In my humble opinion.
Andy
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp
links
http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
