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