[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ossig] FYI: MSC Patent Series: Patent 101 19/10/2005



On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 18:34 +0800, Molly Cheah wrote:

> If the anti-patent lobby wants to be effective that day, you need to 
> strategise and get organised before turning up, even in substantial 
> numbers...and you need articulate spokesmen to rebutt, put across your 
> points etc. in a systematic manner. Thumping tables, playing videos and 
> appearing angry, in disbelief... would not win the debate, or even to be 
> taken seriously.

True. You must already be prepared counter what they will put as to why
they need software patents.

See RAND/Patent arguments in the following docs:
http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/foss-open-standards-primer/comptia-comments
http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/foss-open-standards-primer/BSA_Letter_on_Open_Standards_Primer__clean_with_letterhead_.pdf
http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/foss-open-standards-primer/Microsoft_General_Comments_on_UN_APDIP_IOSN_s_Primer_on_Open_Standards%2C_Sept.pdf


Then be prepared with rebuttal on each point, here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate

And a bunch of my notes, though I have more. See research with regards
to sw patents and innovation. I don't think there is any hard evidence
to back up software patents = innovation argument. There is even Bill
Gates quote against software patents.

Organizations
http://swpat.ffii.de/gasnu/


Arguments
majority of large companies are consumers and
not vendors of software. For them, the decision
eliminates one source of lurking liability. For
those that produce software, but not as a
primary business, the directive reduces the cost
of producing software as a value-add to their
own products (diminished licensing costs, fewer
patent searches and lawyers involved). And for
large software companies, it eliminates
potential liabilities lurking in their own
products and permits adoption of "standards"
without worrying about encumberment (which means
greater interoperability, lower cost, more value
for the customer).

The only time patent coverage of software
implementations would make business sense would
be to secure a monopoly on a market segment, and
that requires enough captial to purchase patents
that impinge on your own business objectives.
Very few companies have the desire or ability to
really do that. 
- Francois Stiglitz

How SW Patents Endanger FOSS (GrokLaw)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050630121101839

EU report 80% of Software Patents owned by large corporations.
European Patents on Computer-Implemented Inventions Issued to Small and
Medium Enterprises, Daniel K.N. Johnson, Colorado College, May 2005

Microsoft

Patents Indigo Interoperability Standard
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/redirect?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/07/05/HNindigopatents_1.html

Relation to Mathematics

Apply is a mathematical operator : this is what you would refer to as
"calling a method". Defining a function is an equation

Practically all programming language semantic research is couched in the
terms of category or set theory.

When a patent claims something like the "method of drag and drop", it is
claiming that all possible symbolic forms that implement this method are
infringing. These forms, like every program you have ever written, are
mathematical. The big issue is that the form is not being claimed as in
a copyrighted work or a physical patent: it is the very concept of
solving the problem that is being claimed. Once you have spotted a
problem, you immediately control all possible solutions.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154983&cid=12993900

FOSS Patent pool by large vendors not useful with cross licensing
agreements. FOSS are not able to counter sue. 

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158939&cid=13316181


OASIS - Patent Shelter
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1591

W3C
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7373745.html

Microsoft Smiley Patent
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39210396,00.htm

How open? That's the big patent question
http://beta.news.com.com/How+open+Thats+the+big+patent
+question/2100-1014_3-5877028.html

Innovation: Opinion Jim Rapoza
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1861642,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594


Jim Bessen's Research On Innovation organization

- innovation has declined while software patents have increased
http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf

(Anti) Software Patents campaigners honoured by UK Technology Awards
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39222696,00.htm

Does software merit protection by both copyright and patent law, unlike
any other form of art? 

No other art or invention enjoys this dual privilege. Books are
copyrighted. Mechanical devices are patented. Music is copyrighted.
Chemical compounds are patented. If software is so unique that neither
copyright nor patent alone are adequate to protect it, perhaps it
requires its own novel means of protection. The concepts of copyright
and patent are more than two hundred years old and neither contemplated
the digital age.

-- Mark H. Webbink is the Deputy General Counsel of Red Hat, Inc.
http://www.linux-mag.com/content/view/2214/

Tragedy of RProxy
http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/rproxy.html

Software's game of mutually assured damage
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/30/1091080437270.html

Software and Patent Protection
http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/index.cgi/2004

This is a digitally signed message part