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

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



Fantastic collection of resources, Khairul. My point is who are going to 
articulate all these during the discussion "AND" in the context of the 
issues raised. You need spokesmen - preferably 2 - 3 because you would 
not be given a lot of opportunities to talk. That's the other side's 
agenda. If the organisers are already biased (as some had indicated) 
that becomes a disadvantage already. If you take the experience of the 
recent MAMPU meeting, after the 1st speaker from the floor, that's me, 
the pro-group will horde the time.

The other important thing to do is to sit where the Chairman can see you 
raise your hands, not to sit at the back of the room as seen at most 
times.... How to advocate like that lah! In order for you to raise your 
hands at the first instance, so as to get psychological advantage to the 
audience, you need to have points that you need to raise and that would 
be referring to the contents that the speakers mentioned. That means you 
must take notes of those points that the speakers mentioned, otherwise 
you'll really sound out of context and irrelevant....

Molly

Khairil Yusof wrote:

>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
>
>  
>


---------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message