* Re: [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules
@ 2003-08-28 1:44 99% ` Stuart Herbert
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Stuart Herbert @ 2003-08-28 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: matt, gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3184 bytes --]
On Wednesday 27 August 2003 10:35 pm, Matt Chorman wrote:
> It's amazing to me that any open-source developer would agree with software
> patents.
The current software patent system you have over there in America has been a
source of much merriment on this side of the pond over the last few years ;-)
At least, it was until the beaurocrats over here decided it was a good idea
to install something similar :(
Personally, I believe that some form of IPR protection is morally right, no
matter what the field of endeavour. Unfortunately, no-one seems to have
invented a creditable form of IPR protection which would seem fair in the
computing world.
Let's say that HP *did* actually invent remote access to another computer.
(Two disclaimers: first, I've worked for HP in the past, and second I have no
idea whether the patent in question is creditable or not) Why shouldn't they
be entitled to protect their IPR, and to earn revenue from it? Never mind
the details, it's a simple yes or no question of morals.
Now let's look at the music industry as a parallel. Songs aren't patented (at
least, I've never heard of one that is :), but they are copyrighted. The
performance is copyrighted. The original music is also copyrighted, often
seperately. So, if you wanted to use a sample of Hendrix on your own song,
you'd need permission from whoever holds the copyright to the actual
*performance* that you've sampled. But, if you want to publish your own
performance of a Hendrix song, you need permission from whoever owns the
copyright to Hendrix's original music.
> While you're at it, look up 6,611,268. Then look up all patents where the
> Assignee is Microsoft or HP. Then think about the implications of the SCO
> lawsuit and what these companies can do if the courts don't reject SCO's
> argument. There is a major differnese between software patents and
> copyrights. Copyright=good. Software patent=bad.
The *system* you've got is bad. It is without any sense of balance. But
remember: it's your system, put in place by your government. And its the
citizens who put the government in place (well, it used to work that way once
;)
Protection for IPR itself isn't a bad concept. It's been a key part of the
commerce-based way of life in the West since before 1449 AD. Stopping the
current software process patenting nonsense is good and worthy. But the need
*is* there, as well as the moral right, and this is where campaigners such as
yourself always fail to convince me.
Propose and demonstrate a creditable alternative legal framework for IPR
protection, and you'll have my vote.
But until then ...
Best regards,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/
Come and meet me in March 2004 http://www.phparch.com/cruise/
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2003-08-27 20:33 [gentoo-dev] European Patentability rules Philippe Lafoucrière
2003-08-27 21:13 ` Markus Nigbur
2003-08-27 21:35 ` Matt Chorman
2003-08-28 1:44 99% ` Stuart Herbert
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox