Re: [Patents] Re: IBM, Microsoft, BEA Snub W3C

[Hamdija Hodzic <hamdija.hodzic@ijs.si>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Xavi Drudis Ferran" <xdrudis@tinet.org>
To: "Russell McOrmond" <russell@flora.ca>
Cc: "Patent forum" <patents@aful.org>; "Xavi Drudis Ferran"
<xdrudis@tinet.org>; "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>;
<seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Patents] Re: IBM, Microsoft, BEA Snub W3C


> El Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:41:24AM -0400, Russell McOrmond deia:
> > (Removing long CC list of mailing lists I am not a member of, leaving
just
> > the individuals and the patent forum)
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> >
> > > Protesting against those who have economical interest in destroying
> > > their market (by monopolising it) and no obligation to listen to
> > > protesters is wasting time compared with protesting to elected
> > > legislators and publicizing the issues.
> >
> >   Protesting isn't the type of pressure I was thinking of.  While
protests
> > may be good in the short term at raising awareness that there is a
> > conflict, we need to be fully engaged in suggesting positive policy
> > alternatives to have any long-term affect at all.
> >
>
> Indeed. Maybe "protest" was not the best word.
>
> >   We are dealing with some interesting political issues here including
one
> > of timing.  We need to promote FLOSS quickly within governments so that
> > any policy that is anti-FLOSS will get noticed by government FLOSS
> > participants.  Here I don't just mean governments as simple users but
> > governments running, studying, adapting, redistributing and generally
> > exercising as government bodies all the freedoms of Free Software.
> >
>
> Yes. Sometimes I think computer professionals should do a better job
> of explaining what software is to the general public. People in general
> seem to ignore very basic facts about the nature of software. Government
> might not react until there is enough public awareness. But yes, all
> efforts to help accept free software in governments are good.
>
> > > >   It should be remembered that this is not the only standard that is
part
> > > > of OASIS, with the Open Office technical committee being very
important to
> > > > our community.
> > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office
> > >
> > > An important note, yes. But again, this proves that pressure should go
to
> > > governemnts, not unaccountable standard bodies. Does anyone knoe why
OASIS
> > > was chosen?. Maybe we do need some more open standard bodies, if the
W3C
> > > is too web-centric, but we can't hope to avoid RAND bodies.
> >
> >   Anything relating to business interactions makes more sense in OASIS
> > than in W3C.  "OASIS and the United Nations jointly sponsor ebXML, a
> > global framework for e-business data exchange."  It would be useful for
> > anyone involved in this discussion to read the ABOUT for OASIS:
> >   http://www.oasis-open.org/who/
> >
>
> I have now. I'm still a bit unclear. But it's something.
>
> >
> >   Some people are assuming bad intentions based on the choice of
standards
> > body, but there may not be any.  There is a problem with software
patents
> > in any standard, but choosing the right standards group for the right
> > standard is not a negative thing.
> >
>
> Well, I didn't mean to assume bad intentions, I just meant to ask why it
was choosen.
>
> >
> >   I will next week be giving a presentation on "Office productivity for
> > government" in a government track to try to accomplish exactly what you
> > are suggesting http://www.flora.ca/rwl2003/ .  This is not a ;'protest',
> > but an educational opportunity for government bureaucrats to learn some
of
> > the full policy implications of their software choices.  Thinking of
> > software as simply something that governments 'use' is entirely
> > inappropriate given that most governments are already the largest single
> > producers of software within a given country, although this is currently
> > primarily software that is only used in-house.
> >
>
> Yes. Sorry about using "protest". I just mean any effort aimed at
explaining/convincing.
>
> > > Well, a patent is not much better just because you use it defensively:
> > > a- it can be used offensively later when budgets go low or anything
> >
> >   This is why the non-revocable RF license. This IBM representative
didn't
> > get this either.  He kept asking me to quote any time IBM aggressively
> > defended a patent, and I told him that this was not relevant.  A
> > benevolent dictator is still a dictator, and can not be supported.
> >
>
> IBM aggressive?. I believed Reback when he told it:
> http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
>
> But RF policies only ensure a limited use of the patent, and
> standards are still under threat from corporations not participating
> in the stadard. E.g. the JPEG fiasco.
>
> What I mean is that having RF in standard setting bodies is good, even
> necessary, but the fundamental problem to solve is another, the very
> existence of software patents.
>
> >
> >   We may all believe that software patents are illegitimate, but a
> > (questionably corrupt) reality in many parts of the world.  We can all
> > argue that this is a case of extreme special interests managing to
> > convince some lower-courts that this was an enforcement issue (copyright
> > is not 100% enforceable, so therefore stronger protection was needed)
> > rather than being an economic one (determining the optimum level of
> > protection required for different classes of software in the context of
> > all relevant public policy), but this argument isn't going to help us in
> > day-to-day operations of our businesses.
> >
>
> Come on. This is like saying that we all know government officials of
> country X are corrupt, so instead of asking for an end of corruption
> we should ask for black money not raising beyond inflation, because that
> is easier to be won and would help our businesses since we would get an
> upper bound on how much to spend in black money.
>
> >   RF licenses may not be as good as abolishing software patent, but we
may
> > not get all governments to recognize the economic issues in the short
> > term.  There are some rather convincing lobbiests on the other side who
> > have most governments convinced this is an infringement enforcement
issue.
> >
>
> If so, then we need more education.
>
> >   While not always popular in the software community as a whole, as a
Free
> > Software creator I am focused on the following path:
> >
>
> Did I sound as attacking you personally?. You don't have to justify or
> present credentials. I thank you for your work, and look forward to learn
from it.
>
> >
> >   c) Get governments to recognize the need to have a Fair Use (fair
> > dealings in Canada) regime for patent law.  Given Free Software is a
> > market failure for patents (we can not just license patents except in
the
> > case of very specialized RF licenses) it would follow that Free Software
> > should qualify under a Fair Use exception.  This possibility is now in
> > front of Industry Canada as it was featured in a report on software
> > patents that I did for ICT branch
> > <http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/software-patent2003.shtml> (update
to
> > be released soon with some important corrections)
> >
>
> This sounds unfair for non-free software, which is also a market
> failure for patents.
>
> >   d) Continue to work as "the good guys" in helping the rest of the
> > software industry deal with software patents.  While a Fair Use
exception
> > would deal with the immediate problems of our community, and some
members
> > are only concerned about Free Software, there are many members who
> > recognize that software patents create considerable problems for any
> > non-incumbent monopoly software creator.
> >
>
> Still unfair. Why should the rest of software business have to deal with
> software patents?
>
> >
> >   Just remember that IBM is large and diverse enough to almost be
> > considered its own country - the left hand may be trying to cut off the
> > right, and the head may not even be aware of this yet.  The same is true
> > of a number of countries such as the USA which is both a strong
supporter
> > of FLOSS at some levels, and opposing FLOSS at others (interface
> > copyright/DMCA, software patent, lack of anti-trust enforcement).  It is
> > our job to try to wake these bodies up to their own internal
> > policy-inconsistency problems.
> >
>
> I believe it is more likely in governments than in IBM. But I don't
> unsderstand IBM anyway.
>
>
>
> --
> Xavi Drudis Ferran
> xdrudis@tinet.org
>