Re: [Fsfe-uk] Software patent - any action?

[Chris Lale]

Originally I wrote:
> I am drafting a letter for CEC, MEP's Political Party Leaders etc. There
> is a template letter at SWPAT.FFII but I cannot understand it. I am reasonably IT-literate, so what chance would lay people have? 


Ramanan Selvaratnam wrote:
> RMS recently in a speech noted that the following analogy seemed to work with 
> the EU beauraucrats. 
>
> ''..  However orginal  Beethoven? was, could he have produced his symphonies 
> if some of the notes he had to use were already patended?" 
> --It was asked to be reused.

I have taken this one on - I hope that it is not too much of a music 
lesson! It is becoming longer than a simple letter though, so I have 
attached it to this message. Perhaps I should post the final version on 
a website and put the link in the letter?

Again, I would be grateful for comments and corrections.

Cheers,

Chris.

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|  ___   Chris Lale   <address@hidden>                  |
| /   \                                                           |
| | <_/  My PC runs Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (http://www.debian.org). |
| \      Robust, secure and free operating system + applications. |
|  `-                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

Software patenting - an analogy

Revision 1.0, 2nd January 2003, Initial draft.

© 2003 Chris Lale (address@hidden). Permission is granted to copy, distribute 
and/or modify this document with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover 
texts and with no Back-Cover Texts under the terms of the GNU Free 
Documentation License, version 1.1 or any later version, published by the Free 
Software Foundation. A copy of the license can be found at 
http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/fdl.html

Abstract
The purpose of this article is to describe the effects of proposed software 
patenting by describing a musical analogy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source code and musical notation

Software is written in code. The code written by the programmer is called the 
source code. The source code may be translated into other forms that a piece of 
hardware (eg a computer) can understand.

The same thing happens in music. Musical notation, the equivalent to source 
code, consists of notes (crotchets, quavers etc) written on a staff of five 
parallel lines. Musical instruments are the equivalent of computer hardware. 
Sometimes, musical notation is translated into other forms (eg punched cards 
for mechanical pianolas and steam organs, tines on a revolving drum for musical 
boxes, etc).
# Scope here for discussion of "technical effect".


Algorithms and chord progressions

A programmer does not write random code. Code is structured and makes use of 
algorithms. An algorithm is a method or a series of logical steps used to solve 
a problem. Algorithms form a body of knowledge, built up over years, available 
to all programmers. This is similar to the way in which scientific laws are 
available to all scientists. Scientific laws and mathematical theorems are 
fundamental truths. So are algorithms. The progress of science and mathematics 
would have been severely damaged if anyone were able to patent these truths. It 
is difficult to imagine anyone holding a patent on Archimedes' principle or 
Pythagoras's theorem.

A composer wishing to write music with harmonies uses chord progressions. Chord 
progressions are the equivalent of algorithms. For example, a composer of 
nursery rhymes wishes to end a nursery rhyme with an air of finality. The 
composer may choose a chord progression called the "perfect cadence". (The 
perfect cadence chord progression is "V, I" meaning "the chord of 5 followed by 
the chord of 1".) For example, the last two chords in "Three blind mice" 
implement a perfect cadence.

If the person who wrote the first nursery rhyme had been able to patent the 
perfect cadence, perhaps "Three blind mice" may never have been written or 
performed. Possibly, only a few simple nursery rhymes may ever have been 
composed. Fortunately, the development of music has not been held back by 
patents.

The quantity and quality of new software, and its speed of development, would 
decline if it were possible to patent algorithms.


Development

The cadential six four" (Ic, V, I) is a development of the perfect cadence (V, 
I). The cadential six four is easily recognisable in the last three chords of 
"God save the queen". The composer who developed the cadential six four would 
still require permission from the patent holder of the perfect cadence. The 
composer may have to hand over money to the patent holder, even though the 
patent holder has taken no part in the development. Imagine every composer who 
writes a new arrangement of the national anthem having to obtain permission and 
pay money to some (possibly foreign) large, commercial enterprise.



Derived works

Of course, it may be argued that simple algorithms would not be patented. 
Patents might only be granted for complex, specialised algorithms. Even so, 
software development would be held back or prevented for just the same reasons.

Haydn wrote a piece of music called the "St Anthony chorale". Suppose that 
Haydn's rich and powerful employer (Prince Esterházy) had been granted a patent 
for the chord progressions (algorithms) in this work. Suppose also that Haydn 
subsequently moved to a new employer. Haydn could have been prevented from 
correcting, modifying or developing his own work. Other composers could have 
been prevented from using Haydn's piece as a source of inspiration. In fact, 
although this was years later, Brahms wrote a famous piece called "Variation on 
a theme of Haydn" which was based on Haydn's "St Anthony chorale".


Competition

Patenting algorithms would not only stifle software development, it would also 
place a lot of money and power in the hands of those who are already rich and 
powerful. Large companies and corporations that have done little or no work on 
the original algorithm or software may aquire huge sums. They would also be 
able to reduce competition, and even eliminate it.

Suppose that the western Christian Church had patented the plagal cadence . The 
plagal cadence is the progression of two chords (IV, I). It harmonises the 
"Amen" traditionally sung in church services and at the end of hymns. That 
might seem to be uncontroversial since composers of church music would be 
unlikely to be sued by their own Church. (Let us avoid the complication of 
disagreements between rival religious sects.) However, the patent would still 
inhibit the development of secular (non-church) music.

Imagine that the Church had never allowed the development of the plagal cadence 
(IV, I) into the twelve-bar blues. The chord progression (algorithm) for a 
basic blues is I, I, I, I, IV, IV, I, I, V, IV, I, I. Think of the thousands of 
pieces of blues, jazz, rock and pop that we may never have heard. The theme 
music of the old television series "Batman" may never have reached our screens! 
Of course, the church may selectively have allowed some "morally correct" blues 
music in order to generate an income. Even so, it is hard to imagine that we 
would have had even a fraction of the rich heritage we enjoy today.