Re: [Patents] pooling patents for progress and protection

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

El Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 12:22:27AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele deia:
> 
> Dear Xavi, Alexandre,
> 
> > I would even ask others to please delay this discussion possibly 
> > forever (if we convince our politicians not to allow software patents). 
>
A little pedantic of me, I guess, suggesting what others should discuss. 
Sorry. 
 
> political front. I rather belief that discussing the case where we would
> also have to restrain or even attack patent holders will clarify what would
> be the exact detrimental effect of accepting the current EU proposition.
>

Or induce people to think there is some escape which I don't see very feasible
and therefore accepting the swpat directive is not so damaging.
 
> 
> This reminds me of the pacifist demonstrations in Brussels against nukes
> of the years 80, while currently an increasing number of countries are 
> having 
> them. It is not by preaching pacifism in one part of the 
> [world|SW development community], that you will stop another part of the 
> [world|SW development community] to use the [nuclear technology|legal 
> means] 
> they have available. I strongly regret this, but please give me a better 
> alternative in the current world-wide scope.
>
? 

I fail to understand what pacifism has to do with this. Anyway, the reason 
new countries are showing weapons is possibly more related to the fact 
people didn't listen to pacifists than anything else. We might not have 
been here discussing this if pacifists had never acted. Who knows. 
  
> 
> Please check e.g. the Academic license 1.2
> 
>  http://opensource.org/licenses/academic.php ;.
>
I had a quick glance and didn't see much relevant to this. 
It only grants copyright and patent rights from the licensor, 
but it says nothing on other people's patents (nor can it)
 
> I believe it is possible to make a license that is practically usable for
> private, non-commercial and commercial use as Free Software (but if 
> commerce 
> or individuals want to attack other SW under that system, they will have to 
> chose:
> 
> - pay and/or cross-licensing
> - not use any SW under that system
>

I don't think so. You can't control other's patents no matter how you license 
yours, or your code copyright.
 
> I do understand that this does not help against smaller entities 
> (extortionists)
> that do not manufacture anything, but are only aiming to attack large 
> entities
> to extact money from them. But even there, at least the association could 
> help
> carry the legal cost to see the case through and have a better chance of 
> bringing
> down the patent that is used with prior art.
>

This may work or may not, but I don't see it easier than just getting the 
respective
governments to stop this nonsense. Setting up such a centralized isntitution 
and 
gettign it trusted, used and respected is a major task. 
 
> 
> I believe that self-defense is ethical if that is based in the current
> legal system and with legal means. How ethical is Microsoft in saying that
> you are freely allowed to use some patents on CIFS technology, except if
> your program is licensed under GPL/LPGP or the like ...
>

Two wrongs don't make a right. No matter how ethical you see it, but if I have
understood your scheme, you can only save free software by redefining what 
free software is. 
 
> 
> SME's loose with SW patents, I agree (although some SME's will also state
> that they need patents to defend their unique idea that they "invented"; at 
> least I know a few that make this claim and where the funding was strongly
> dependent on the availability of those patents). But Free SW SME's may gain 
> from an Association that will defend them in case they are attacked on the 
> basis of SW patents.
>

Patents are not there to ensure funding for any one person, but to ensure 
progress of the field. The incentives are there to develop innovative 
software,
and publish it, without software patents, and that is quite obvious. The fact
that patents can be used to extract money from investors than otherwise 
wouldn't
invest in a business means there is something wrong with either the investor 
or the business. 
 
> 
> I agree, but with the importance of Free SW growing and the potential damage
> from SW patents growing, eventually something like this will need to be
> organized.
>

Necessary does not imply possible, I'm afraid. But I'll leave you the benefit 
of 
doubt since I am not going deep into it. I like to fix bugs, not work around 
them,
and some legal systems have big bugs. 
 
> With patents we are forced inside a single legal cage (nearly on a 
> world-wide
> scale) and we can choose to pray in front of the hungry lions (as the early 
> Christians in Rome), or make sure we have some lions on our side, to at 
> least 
> have a chance of survival. As Free SW becomes increasingly important, this 
> can and will succeed (until the law will change again to find another method
> to challenge Free SW, but anyway). 
>

You don't have to pray to lions, just explain a few things clearly to 
politicians 
and the public. It is easier than building a a lion from the Christians 
clothes.
 
> 
> I am trying too, on a local scale and next to running a business, but I do 
> not see enough practical things happening on the field (please correct me
> if I missed some massive actions that target the politicians; I know about
> efforts to redo the petition in a format (on paper ?) that is acceptable to
> the commission of petitions).
>

What I mean is that having more people/companies/research centers doing 
lobbying 
like you can have a big impact. So convincing either politicians, or other 
companies etc. to join is worth pursuing. At least in Europe. 

I don't mean we will necessary win. I mean we would surely win if enough of us
tried hard enough in a consistent way. That is a big if, but not impossible 
at 
all. At least is more possible than getting your idea to be useful, in my 
humble 
intuition.

> 
> What do you see as a negative side-effect if some would continue to 
> explore the idea in parallel (potential defocus from the urgent action on 
> the European level is one of course) ?
>

Defocus is a big one, and another one is your are selling thin air (if at all 
possible 
your plan is not yet proven, and could give false hope to politicians and 
developers alike). 
 
> Thanks for your detailed answer,
> 
Is not as detailed as you deserve. Sorry about that. 



-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org