[Patents] PLEASE DO NOT SEND THIS E-LETTER ANYMORE

[orre@nada.kth.se (Roland Orre)]

On Fri, 4 May 2001, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> It is this hoard of barbarians, against which we are being forced to
> defend the freedom to write software.  The only way is to keep them out.
> Once you have software patents, there is no way you can mitigate their
> nefarious effects, because any of the necessary measures would require far
> too much intelligence and goodwill, both of which do not seem to be even
> remotely available for this kind of purpose in the world of "law
> professionals".

Roland:
One thing with these kind of stupid reactions is that they further
encourage our fight for a world without software patents.

Our motives are different. Greg Aharonian has acknowledged that
his motives may be egoistic and claimed that Pilch's motives could
be egoistic as he is engaged in the free software business and
is paid from that.

My experience with people working with open source software is
that their motives to fight for a free world without software
patents may be both egostic as well as altruistic but far away
from being economical in the first hand even though they are well
paid by working with free software, but they realize the potentials.

My own very egoistic motives for fighting against software patents
are several, but as software patents are based upon contradictive
assumptions I just simply don't want to live in that kind of world
which the software patents will result in. It will be an unstable
world which is not so technically developed as I wish. Where
commerce is based upon "wrong" things and where the essential
software is not free (i.e. open), which means that the average person
will have less knowledge about software, when the classical
industrial economical principles are applied upon areas where
they doesn't work very well, because software is different.

>From each person's egoistic viewpont a world based upon open free
software has the potential to give an enchanting development for
all people, not only those engaged in software, which most people
within computer science have realized many years ago. An insight
which is unfortunately still lacking within  many other people.
And I don't blame them, because it's somewhat of that old story
about paradigms and such. It's easy to detect after it has happened
but before you understand what will come, it may be better to
stick to the old scheme that you know well.

To Greg and others whose economy are based upon software patents
and who are obviously worried if they still would be able to pay
their bills after a formal decision to deny  software patents.
I say, don't worry! Changes take time.
There will likely be many patent trials to fight for a long time
also after a change. I would say, you may not recommend your children
to specialize in legal patent actions regarding software patents, but
I would see no need to worry about your own situation if I were you.
I imagine that those patents granted would still be valid
also after the change.

There will certainly be no less trials concerning software
copyrights than has been on software patents. And many rules
for software patents are probably applicable to copyrights as
well.

Maybe it's time to not focus so very much upon the somewhat
esoteric questions about what is software and hardware
as that problem can be rather easily solved (I'll be back...)

Maybe it would be easier for us if we instead would try to
inform about the benefits for all. The problem with that
is of course that people consider such future benefits to
be rather speculative and thus nothing to rely on, nothing
to give up what they believe in most.

Many people are stuck in the traditional economical view
about industrial production and have not really realized
that software is so different.

It has been clearly shown that the economical model for
software based upon open source (free speach + free lunch)
where among the best software professionals are paid
to develop open source software and where manuals,
distribution and support are charged separately
works perfectly well.
This business model is so much more clear and actually
easier for people to understand, than the old view where
development, support and distribution is in some magical
way included in the price. People want to know what they
pay for. In the open source business this is clear.

It is clear that the software patents threathens the
open source software and some may argue that the open source
threathens other commercial software incentives.
No, not at all. The essential thing is that you copyright your
software. Then you can live with that protection for 50 years
if you  want. You don't need to release your source if you don't
want to, which software patents requires. We don't need to
worry about cheaters because software patents will cause many to
become criminals instead of using the expensive patent system. A
system which enhances criminality or merely enforces it, which has
been seen regarding software patents, such a system is not healthy
and will unconditionally fail, but why prolong the pain?

Sorry, this become somewhat longer than I thought. I just wanted to
make a quick reply to Pilch...

        Best regards
        Roland

'What is a human being, then?'
'A seed.'
'A... seed?'
'An acorn that is unafraid to destroy itself in growing into a tree'