Re: [Patents] The politics of software over-protection -- moving forward..

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

El Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:30PM -0400, Russell McOrmond deia:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, but it looks to me you are so clever you are putting your eggs
> > in two baskets. But one is a basketball net, not a proper basket.
> 
>   I have my eggs, and you have yours -- we have each put them into
> different baskets, and believe the other one has holes in theirs.
> 
>   I'm not interested in simply opposing software patents as I don't
> believe it will work.  I could get depressed about not believing it will
> work and essentially do nothing, or I can try a different approach which I
> think will work.
> 
>   If I am wrong and a different path works, then I will be very happy.  I
> don't care how we get there, as long as we do.  If other paths don't work,
> I will be very happy that I'll be part way down an alternative path.
> 
>   I'm just one guy -- there are likely others in Canada working on this 
> issue that are taking different routes, and I may be wasting my time.  
> Then again, maybe I'm not...
> 

I apologise if I was too harsh. Of course you are entitled to pursue
different routes. It must be things are really different in each side
of the atlantic. I can't really imagine how people can accept
unlimited patentability. This is like accepting unlimited police
power, delegating tax increases to civil servants, or
whatever. Unlimited subject matter is worse than anarchy. I once said
it was a system of microdicatorships, but maybe Bercovitz (was it
him?) was more precise when it just warned an unlimited patent system
would be feudalism. Maybe without this premise I would see things
different.

> > I haven't finished your report (sorry, I know this is unfair) and I
> > don't know when I'll be able to, but it looks well meant, well informed,
> > but a bit naive.
> 
>   The report has an email address at the top, and I am looking for
> feedback of the sort you seem to be able to offer.  My experience is
> primarily in ICT policy around Free/Libre and Open Source Software, which
> has meant much more experience with software interface copyright than
> patent (which many software creators here in Canada incorrectly believe we
> don't have).  If I had managed to write a perfect paper with the amount of
> time I had to write the report, it would have been surprising to all
> concerned.
> 

I hope to be able to send something constructive some day. I just
don't know when :( . But maybe it won't be useful if our premises are 
different.

> 
>   I just came from the first-part of an AGM for a group called Fair Vote
> Canada <http://www.fairvotecanada.org>.  I can't tell from your address
> but you might be from one of those modern Industrialized countries (i.e.
> not Canada, USA or the UK) that has a democracy that knows how to count
> ...
>

I'm from Catalonia (the part in the Spanish state). Our system has
evolved from a dictatorship in a sort of seamless way to what is
called a democracy.  I guess democracy is a matter of degree. In any
case we have room for improvement, and denounces from human rights NGO.
But I can't remember counting problems. Some altered census containing 
dead people at most...
 
> *smile*
> 
>   We live in times when politicians are not at all aware of technology
> policy issues, and the average citizen is even less aware.  I deal with
> creators on the copyright question all the time who's VCR's flash 12:00
> and yet want to debate with me about lower-level technical details of how
> technology affects their rights.
>

XDDD

I don't think subject matter limits need to involve very technical discussions
though. It's more of a philosophical worldview, not technical details. TPM's
are probably different, I don't know.
 

> 
> 

-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org