Re: [Australia-public-discuss] Video/audio from patents talk and committee hearing

[Adam Bolte]

> But going down the free vs proprietary route is quite different. And I
> would say a potentially huge distraction.  What exactly does free mean
> anyway...  Please leave it off the agenda.

With Software Patents, you have proponents who make proprietary software, and
you have opponents that make proprietary software and free software.

With Free Software Patents, you don't have any proponents from any business or
company that focuses on free software. Right? Am I wrong?

So the way I see it, the big opposition is going to have a much harder time
arguing for free software patents - frequently written by individuals - not
businesses, who often have no funds to defend themselves, and are generally
unable to make use of the patent system anyway!

It's as if I write a recipe book, and donate it to the public library for all
to use and make use of as they best see fit. Then some corporation comes along
and demands the book be burnt, and the author pay a large sum in compensation
because the steps for a recipe in that book are similar to what someone else
came up with in a book they probably never published.

It's such a clear case of hurting the public ('against the public interest'),
that I just can't see how you'd have such a hard time winning if the focus was
narrowed to this initially.

Possibly you could even argue both cases at the same time. Software patents
are incredibly bad and hurt the industry and thus also the customers who rely
on these companies, but software patents on free software just hurts everyone.

In the US, I think DMCA initially didn't have many exceptions, but then they
got one for jailbreaking mobile phones. Then they're trying to spread that
exception to other areas because it's easy to make analogies. I know DMCA
isn't the same as patents, but my point is that getting software patents
excluded from some areas could be a foot in the door to help eliminate it
everywhere else.

So for me, the distraction appears (to my also non-expert opinion) to be that
we are focusing on the bigger long-term battle and ignoring/sacrificing the
easy win that will make a lot of people happy.

Adam

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:18:24AM +1000, anthony berglas wrote:
> With regards to TRIPS, I don't think anyone allows patents of Maths.  Or
> song writing techniques.  Or, until recently, business methods.  So there
> is clearly some ability to limit the applicability of patentable matter.
>  And Europe clearly excludes "Software as such", and this was tested in
> their parliament.
> 
> But going down the free vs proprietary route is quite different. And I
> would say a potentially huge distraction.  What exactly does free mean
> anyway...  Please leave it off the agenda.
> 
> Anthony
> 
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ciarán O'Riordan <address@hidden>wrote:
> 
> >
> > Three things about a free software exception:
> >
> > 1. It would pretty much mean recognising software as being patentable.
> >   (This might be the biggest problem.)
> >
> > 2. It would require putting a definition of free software in a law.
> >   (If this gets messy or botched, point #1 will hit us in the face.)
> >
> > 3. Australia has to comply with TRIPS:
> >
> > I think the two relevant parts of TRIPS are article 27:
> >
> >  "...patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without
> >   discrimination as to [...] the field of technology..."
> >
> > And article 30:
> >
> >  "Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights
> >   conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not
> >   unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do
> >   not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent
> >   owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties."
> >
> > http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm#5
> >
> > So, would an "if you respect people's freedom" exception be allowed?
> >
> > The only attempt I know of at using this rule is the "curing epidemic"
> > exception that some African countries with AIDS epidemics and no money
> > thought of implementing.  They were told 'No'.  (A new worldwide treaty
> > had to be negotiated.)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > +32 485 118 029 (<-NEW),
> > http://ciaran.compsoc.com
> >
> > Please help build the software patents wiki:
> >                     http://en.swpat.org
> >               http://www.EndSoftwarePatents.org
> >
> > Donate: http://endsoftwarepatents.org/donate
> > List: http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Australia-public-discuss mailing list
> > address@hidden
> >
> > https://lists.endsoftwarepatents.org/mailman/listinfo/australia-public-discuss
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Dr Anthony Berglas, address@hidden       Mobile: +61 4 4838 8874
> Just because it is possible to push twigs along the ground with ones nose
> does not necessarily mean that that is the best way to collect firewood.

> _______________________________________________
> Australia-public-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.endsoftwarepatents.org/mailman/listinfo/australia-public-discuss

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature