FYI -- in case you didn't follow the news last week: It seems that software patents are back on the agenda.
[ http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/software_patents_they_re_back ]
Software patents: They're back!
freedom bits
greve
Sunday 22 January 2006
"I'll be back" has generally made it into history either as a promise or threat by a mediocre actor and/or even more mediocre gouvernator. But while the Terminator needed 7 years for a first reappearance, and another 12 for its second, the "Terminator of European Economy" (Mr Charly McCreevy) only needed months to bring software patents back on the agenda, as we learned last week.
While IBM senior vice president John Kelly compared software patents to nuclear weapons in his April 2005 statement to the New York Times
"This is like disarmament. You're not going to give away all your missiles as a first step."
the European Commission is happily pushing for the economic equivalent of Terminator's SkyNet. (In case you are new to the subject, you can read in this series of open letters how software patents affect various areas of economy and politics)
Yesterday, German publisher Heise featured another article about the reappearance of software patents on the agenda, in which Günther Schmalz, head of SAP's software department, is quoted saying "It starts again."
And just as the first Terminator went down after a long and desperate struggle involving all sorts of fireworks, Mr Schmalz is being reported saying that software patents were buried
due to the better lobbying of the opposition, said the SAP manager. They met the members of the EU parliament far more often and hit the parliament's nerve with their demonstrations.
but just like the second Terminator was more fearful and dangerous than the first
the patent proponent expressed hope that his camp will be better prepared this time than during the last struggle.
So they're coming back, and they are prepared. But so are we, and like Linda Hamilton did not stop coaching her son for the next meeting with another Terminator, we did not let down our guar. We were always aware they would be back.
Günther Schmalz is also quoted in the following way:
Schmalz justifies SAP's commitment for a EU-wide regulation with SAP seeing patents as the only way to ensure returns on its development investment. Copyright is no solution, he continues, as the actual writing of code only makes up about 20% of the development of software. "Those who drive innovation need patents", Schmalz stresses. "Those who don't imitate."
This puzzled me for a second in the same way that the logic of proponents of "intelligent" design sometimes surprises me with its circular logic, or in the way a person on an airplane trying to open the door in mid-flight would puzzle me. I have tried to understand how it is possible that the head of SAP's software development could make such a nonsensical statement about software development. Here are my theories:
* Mr Schmalz believes that software developers are essentially glorified typists, and that whenever no key is being pressed, no programming is done. This would imply a disturbingly limited understanding of what software developers actually do.
* Mr Schmalz does not consider testing, bug-fixing and other tasks to be part of programming. If programmers have to work according to that maxime, it could explain the quality of some of SAP's software, I guess.
* Mr Schmalz thinks that it is the act of typing that constitutes Copyright, which would be an amazingly naive view of Copyright law. It would also mean that the Copyright of a book would be with the typist if the literary author "merely" dictated it.
* And finally my favorite: SAP is such a great employer that programmers only have to work 20% of their time and spend the rest reading the papers, getting massages, doing sports and watching TV.
In any case this statement makes it seem like Mr Schulz does not know much about software development or law. A peculiar combination for a head of software development. But then: SAP hasn't really developed anything innovative in years. And no, I don't dare to predict the causality in this case. Bill Gates however seemed to know much more about software development when he said in an internal Microsoft memo that was published by Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars (1994):
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today. [...] A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
But maybe Mr Schmalz was misquoted and he actually said that: "Those who drive away innovation need patents."
Misinformation has at all times been part of the pro-software patent campaign. Remember the term "computer-implemented invention"? People tried to say this directive was about allowing patents on washing machines, braking systems, battery chargers. How many washing machines did SAP sell last year? Or the year before? Why would a pure software company take an interest in this directive if it weren't about software?
Truth is that this debate is only about software patents, about monopolies on logic blocks, ideas and applied mathematics. Those who would like to see these fundamental building blocks monopolised in their hands are back. We beat them once, and we can do it again.
Because even though the second Terminator was so much quicker, stronger and more well-prepared, we all remember the end of the second movie.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
Hi Georg,
Thanks as always for the great perspective on things. I am just writing to point out that the article you cite below quoting SAP's Schmalz is in fact from Intellectual Property Watch, and was apparently picked up by Heise (about which we are of course pleased). I just wanted credit for making the trip to the PFF event in Prague!
For the full article and some reaction, please see Intellectual Property Watch, www.ip-watch.org. Look under EU Developments.
Thanks, William New Editor-in-Chief, Intellectual Property Watch
-----Original Message----- From: discussion-bounces@fsfeurope.org [mailto:discussion-bounces@fsfeurope.org] On Behalf Of Georg C. F. Greve Sent: dimanche, 22. janvier 2006 14:14 To: discussion@fsfeurope.org Subject: Software patents: They're back!
FYI -- in case you didn't follow the news last week: It seems that software patents are back on the agenda.
[ http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/software_patents_they_re_back ]
Software patents: They're back!
freedom bits
greve
Sunday 22 January 2006
"I'll be back" has generally made it into history either as a promise or threat by a mediocre actor and/or even more mediocre gouvernator. But while the Terminator needed 7 years for a first reappearance, and another 12 for its second, the "Terminator of European Economy" (Mr Charly McCreevy) only needed months to bring software patents back on the agenda, as we learned last week.
While IBM senior vice president John Kelly compared software patents to nuclear weapons in his April 2005 statement to the New York Times
"This is like disarmament. You're not going to give away all your missiles as a first step."
the European Commission is happily pushing for the economic equivalent of Terminator's SkyNet. (In case you are new to the subject, you can read in this series of open letters how software patents affect various areas of economy and politics)
Yesterday, German publisher Heise featured another article about the reappearance of software patents on the agenda, in which Günther Schmalz, head of SAP's software department, is quoted saying "It starts again."
And just as the first Terminator went down after a long and desperate struggle involving all sorts of fireworks, Mr Schmalz is being reported saying that software patents were buried
due to the better lobbying of the opposition, said the SAP manager. They met the members of the EU parliament far more often and hit the parliament's nerve with their demonstrations.
but just like the second Terminator was more fearful and dangerous than the first
the patent proponent expressed hope that his camp will be better prepared this time than during the last struggle.
So they're coming back, and they are prepared. But so are we, and like Linda Hamilton did not stop coaching her son for the next meeting with another Terminator, we did not let down our guar. We were always aware they would be back.
Günther Schmalz is also quoted in the following way:
Schmalz justifies SAP's commitment for a EU-wide regulation with SAP seeing patents as the only way to ensure returns on its development investment. Copyright is no solution, he continues, as the actual writing of code only makes up about 20% of the development of software. "Those who drive innovation need patents", Schmalz stresses. "Those who don't imitate."
This puzzled me for a second in the same way that the logic of proponents of "intelligent" design sometimes surprises me with its circular logic, or in the way a person on an airplane trying to open the door in mid-flight would puzzle me. I have tried to understand how it is possible that the head of SAP's software development could make such a nonsensical statement about software development. Here are my theories:
* Mr Schmalz believes that software developers are essentially glorified typists, and that whenever no key is being pressed, no programming is done. This would imply a disturbingly limited understanding of what software developers actually do.
* Mr Schmalz does not consider testing, bug-fixing and other tasks to be part of programming. If programmers have to work according to that maxime, it could explain the quality of some of SAP's software, I guess.
* Mr Schmalz thinks that it is the act of typing that constitutes Copyright, which would be an amazingly naive view of Copyright law. It would also mean that the Copyright of a book would be with the typist if the literary author "merely" dictated it.
* And finally my favorite: SAP is such a great employer that programmers only have to work 20% of their time and spend the rest reading the papers, getting massages, doing sports and watching TV.
In any case this statement makes it seem like Mr Schulz does not know much about software development or law. A peculiar combination for a head of software development. But then: SAP hasn't really developed anything innovative in years. And no, I don't dare to predict the causality in this case. Bill Gates however seemed to know much more about software development when he said in an internal Microsoft memo that was published by Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars (1994):
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today. [...] A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
But maybe Mr Schmalz was misquoted and he actually said that: "Those who drive away innovation need patents."
Misinformation has at all times been part of the pro-software patent campaign. Remember the term "computer-implemented invention"? People tried to say this directive was about allowing patents on washing machines, braking systems, battery chargers. How many washing machines did SAP sell last year? Or the year before? Why would a pure software company take an interest in this directive if it weren't about software?
Truth is that this debate is only about software patents, about monopolies on logic blocks, ideas and applied mathematics. Those who would like to see these fundamental building blocks monopolised in their hands are back. We beat them once, and we can do it again.
Because even though the second Terminator was so much quicker, stronger and more well-prepared, we all remember the end of the second movie.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
Dear William,
|| On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:36:03 +0100 || "William New" wnew@ip-watch.ch wrote:
wn> Thanks as always for the great perspective on things. I am just wn> writing to point out that the article you cite below quoting wn> SAP's Schmalz is in fact from Intellectual Property Watch, and wn> was apparently picked up by Heise (about which we are of course wn> pleased). I just wanted credit for making the trip to the PFF wn> event in Prague!
And you certainly deserve credit for that one, I can imagine that it was challenging at times. My apologies for not including you immediately, I added the original source to the article last night.
Regards, Georg
At Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:13:52 +0100, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Günther Schmalz is also quoted in the following way:
Schmalz justifies SAP's commitment for a EU-wide regulation with SAP seeing patents as the only way to ensure returns on its development investment. Copyright is no solution, he continues, as the actual writing of code only makes up about 20% of the development of software. "Those who drive innovation need patents", Schmalz stresses. "Those who don't imitate."
<SNIP>
* Mr Schmalz does not consider testing, bug-fixing and other tasks to be part of programming. If programmers have to work according to that maxime, it could explain the quality of some of SAP's software, I guess.
No, it's very easy. There are many ways to present facts. What he doing is presenting the facts the way that people who have never programmed think only 20% of the development is covered with copyright. But of course development is more than writing code. I don't need to explain the testing, bugfixing, writing documentation, etc. that constitutes software development. But the results of that is also covered by copyright.
What he leaves out if how much time is spent on coming up with the "inventions" which are subsequently patented. And of course he leaves that out, because it isn't even measurable because it's so small. I doubt you could quantify it above 0.1% if you wanted to.
Jeroen Dekkers
|| On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:01:18 +0100 || Jeroen Dekkers jeroen@vrijschrift.org wrote:
jd> But the results of that is also covered by copyright.
Exactly -- that is one fundamental confusion here.
Another is that copyright and patents overlap: Unless SAP plans to have a "great idea", patent it, and then _not_ put it in software for sale, there will always be overlap.
Regards, Georg
On Sunday 22 January 2006 14:13, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Yesterday, German publisher Heise featured another article about the reappearance of software patents on the agenda, in which Günther Schmalz, head of SAP's software department, is quoted saying "It starts again."
according to Heise.de he is the head of the patent department.
Be sure this guy knows very well what he is talking about. But the company pays him to lie - and he does.
regards JJ
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 20:19 +0100, Joachim Jakobs wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 14:13, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Yesterday, German publisher Heise featured another article about the reappearance of software patents on the agenda, in which Günther Schmalz, head of SAP's software department, is quoted saying "It starts again."
according to Heise.de he is the head of the patent department.
Be sure this guy knows very well what he is talking about. But the company pays him to lie - and he does.
I'd not be so sure.
I've seen legal people working in the patenting field that didn't understand anything about software development and were genuinely convinced that patents are good even for software in the same way they are for real physical products. Unfortunately they do not understand the difference between a dishwasher and a word processor, so they use their knowledge and, as they see no difference in the product, they do not see why there should be any difference in the way the products are "protected".
If you attend any course on the matter of innovation that's made with legal people as target, you will see that there is a sort of mantra being repeated about how important are patents for innovation. There is no speculation at all on whether it is true ore not or whether the matter is so simple or is more complex and need a course in economy matters to explain it in detail. It is taught as a dogma without proof, much in the same way in primary school they tell you negative numbers do not exists. They will tell you later on, but this often doesn't happen in the case of innovation vs. monopoly in the legal field.
We should really teach legal people to distinguish between one thing and another, only after that you will be able to discriminate between an ignorant and a liar. Lay man must also understand that legal matters, do matter to them, they are the rules of the game. There may be specialist of the rules, but you have to contribute in making, obeying and adapting them over time, or you are out of the game sooner or later. Rules that cannot be understood cannot be obeyed.
Simo.
Hi Simo,
I am happy to see you believing in the good of human beings!
On Sunday 22 January 2006 22:08, simo wrote:
I'd not be so sure.
I've seen legal people working in the patenting field that didn't understand anything about software development and were genuinely convinced that patents are good even for software in the same way they are for real physical products.
In the interview Mr. Schmalz explained that "innovators" would need swpats. Do you really believe that this guy (top manager of a global software vendor!) does not know that a software patent monopolises an idea only - without any solution/implementation? that an "inventor" instead can be kicked out of the market if the patent holder sues him (although he can claim for prior art)? I cannot imagine that SAP hires such an idiot for such a job.
Furthermore - supposing you were right - you go to SAP and explain Mr. Schmalz for hours and hours the bad thing of swpats.... and you are lucky to convince him - he accepts: "Well Simo .... I have been mistaken. Now I know better!" What do you expect him to do? To go to SAPs' board of directors and ask them to kick him as he is needless henceforth?
Sorry ... that does not really sound convincing to me...
cheers JJ
* Joachim Jakobs:
according to Heise.de he is the head of the patent department.
Be sure this guy knows very well what he is talking about. But the company pays him to lie - and he does.
Uhm, that's not how companies work. He's out there to show that his work for the company is important. If he didn't do this, he'd had to fear that his department would be axed. This happens all the time.
** Georg C. F. Greve greve@gnu.org [2006-01-22 13:44]: <snip>
Truth is that this debate is only about software patents, about monopolies on logic blocks, ideas and applied mathematics. Those who would like to see these fundamental building blocks monopolised in their hands are back. We beat them once, and we can do it again.
Because even though the second Terminator was so much quicker, stronger and more well-prepared, we all remember the end of the second movie.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
** end quote [Georg C. F. Greve]
Careful with this analogy. You do remember how the third film finished don't you!
|| On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:05:43 +0000 || Paul Tansom paul@whaletales.co.uk wrote:
pt> Careful with this analogy. You do remember how the third film pt> finished don't you!
James Cameron was dead when that movie was shot, IIRC.
So I tend to think that it does not count. ;)
Regards, Georg
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 09:20 +0100, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
|| On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:05:43 +0000 || Paul Tansom paul@whaletales.co.uk wrote:
pt> Careful with this analogy. You do remember how the third film pt> finished don't you!
James Cameron was dead when that movie was shot, IIRC.
A Ghost producer, yay! :)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000116/
So I tend to think that it does not count. ;)
Hey, the end of the third movie compensated(*) for the rest.
(*) I like stories that turn out for the worse while I hope for the best in real life, silly me <:)
Hi Georg,
a very informative article. It was a chance for me to recheck some noSwPats sites. I was a little shocked to see, that the contents seam to be deprecated on all sites. But of course if the enemy isn't visible, nobody will be willing to fight.
I write this e-mail to ask, if the FSFE has some reccomandations about the questionary "Consultation on future patent policy in Europe":
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
Is a request to fill out the questionary planed, should this questionary be used as a chance for european companies to communicate their disagreement to software patents?
If it can be a chance, should a request be send out to the companies, which already communicated their disagreement to software patents?
http://www.economic-majority.com/supporter.en.php?show=all
And my last question ( for now ;) ) Is there a site which will be an aggregator of all the sites and activities (ffii, nosoftwarepatents, ip-watch, blogs, ...) against software patents in europe?
Happy hacking! Patrick
El Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:05:08PM +0100, Patrick Ohnewein deia:
Hi Georg,
a very informative article. It was a chance for me to recheck some noSwPats sites. I was a little shocked to see, that the contents seam to be deprecated on all sites. But of course if the enemy isn't visible, nobody will be willing to fight.
In my case if I'm not helping it's not so much for this reason but for lack of time .
I think the enemy is as visible as ever. The question is that last time we had a software patent directive proposal (in a bit of disguise, right, but it was a directive proposal whose only purpose was legalising swpats). No there's a comunity patent initiative that may indeed help make the swpat situation worse but which has many other things in scope, and may not even legalise swpats, just make them more abundant and more enforceable, which is bad enough.
So last time was a direct (stealth) attack and now it's kind a wider sweep.
Take my words with a grain of salt since I'm not so very well informed, but my impression is that even though the current move may very well try to bring swpats back (not really back, since the problems with swpats didn't go away with the rejection of the directive, no matter how much a success that was), it is in a more wider context.
So maybe this time is more important to discuss whether counting patents is really an indicator of innovation (specially when disregarding the criteria for granting such patents, for example by comparing the number of patents for two territories with different patentable subject matter), whether we want more patent quantity or more patent quality (i.e. do we want to promote innovation by being more strict when granting a patent or to promote monopolies by granting more patents, even in patentable fields), and above all whether we want to take measures to issue more patents (by making them way cheaper for the patent applicant) when our current system for issuing patents (the EPO) is clearly not doing its job properly and is quite out of democratic control. Giving the EPO the power to grant more patents, each patent being cheaper and wider in geographical scope (with current European patents each patent may designate only some member states to save costs, but each comunity patent will affect all the UE, which is an added patent pressure for those territories who aren't an interesting enough market for the european patent).
I write this e-mail to ask, if the FSFE has some reccomandations about the questionary "Consultation on future patent policy in Europe":
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
Is a request to fill out the questionary planed, should this questionary be used as a chance for european companies to communicate their disagreement to software patents?
If it can be a chance, should a request be send out to the companies, which already communicated their disagreement to software patents?
Yes, possibly. I'd tend to express disagreement with EPO practice, structure and unaccountability which in particular for a sw company has much to do with the granting of swpats. But people and organisations in other non-patentable fields may have quite the same concerns. And people in patentable fields unsatified with the quality of EPO work might also join in.
So maybe just like last time it wasn't about free software but about software in general, although the free software community had ample reason to worry, this time maybe it isn't about software patents but about patents in general, although software is probably going to suffer from it.
And my last question ( for now ;) ) Is there a site which will be an aggregator of all the sites and activities (ffii, nosoftwarepatents, ip-watch, blogs, ...) against software patents in europe?
news collection here, but possibly not what you mean ?
http://wiki.ffii.org/FfiinewsEn
At Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:48:31 +0100, xdrudis wrote:
El Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:05:08PM +0100, Patrick Ohnewein deia:
I write this e-mail to ask, if the FSFE has some reccomandations about the questionary "Consultation on future patent policy in Europe":
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
Is a request to fill out the questionary planed, should this questionary be used as a chance for european companies to communicate their disagreement to software patents?
If it can be a chance, should a request be send out to the companies, which already communicated their disagreement to software patents?
Yes, possibly. I'd tend to express disagreement with EPO practice, structure and unaccountability which in particular for a sw company has much to do with the granting of swpats. But people and organisations in other non-patentable fields may have quite the same concerns. And people in patentable fields unsatified with the quality of EPO work might also join in.
So maybe just like last time it wasn't about free software but about software in general, although the free software community had ample reason to worry, this time maybe it isn't about software patents but about patents in general, although software is probably going to suffer from it.
The FFII is working on it: http://wiki.ffii.org/Cpedu0510En. You can also help, the discussion about this is currently happening on the bxl mailinglist (http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/bxl).
Economic-majority.com is also an FFII initiative by the way.
And my last question ( for now ;) ) Is there a site which will be an aggregator of all the sites and activities (ffii, nosoftwarepatents, ip-watch, blogs, ...) against software patents in europe?
news collection here, but possibly not what you mean ?
That's FFII news page for non-patent stuff. The page about software patent news is: http://wiki.ffii.org/SwpatcninoEn
Jeroen Dekkers
news collection here, but possibly not what you mean ?
That's FFII news page for non-patent stuff. The page about software patent news is: http://wiki.ffii.org/SwpatcninoEn
Ooops. Sorry, I meant http://wiki.ffii.org/SwpatcninoEn of course.
Hi, just wanted to add a couple of things to the discussion for whatever they're worth. I've been meaning to contribute another argument made by Guenther Schmalz of SAP at the recent lobbyist meeting in Prague reported in Intellectual Property Watch (http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=195&res=1680_ff&print=0) and mentioned in Heise. He said software development is "not cheap" because they do coding and testing, while "free riders" will follow. "Those who innovate need patent protection, imitators don't," was his message.
He also said that www.economicmajority.com had 1,948 companies, representing 31,503 employees, and 3,258,244,082 EUR turnover, while SAP in Europe is 20 companies with 20,000 employees, representing 7,514,000,000 EUR in turnover. His point was to question the economic majority argument.
I also would like to clarify that Intellectual Property Watch (cited as ip-watch below) does not formally take a position on software patents in Europe. We are trying to report on the process in the name of transparency but are not actually engaging in advocacy. Best, William New, Editor
-----Original Message----- From: discussion-bounces@fsfeurope.org [mailto:discussion-bounces@fsfeurope.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Ohnewein Sent: dimanche, 5. février 2006 17:05 To: discussion@fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: Software patents: They're back!
Hi Georg,
a very informative article. It was a chance for me to recheck some noSwPats sites. I was a little shocked to see, that the contents seam to be deprecated on all sites. But of course if the enemy isn't visible, nobody will be willing to fight.
I write this e-mail to ask, if the FSFE has some reccomandations about the questionary "Consultation on future patent policy in Europe":
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
Is a request to fill out the questionary planed, should this questionary be used as a chance for european companies to communicate their disagreement to software patents?
If it can be a chance, should a request be send out to the companies, which already communicated their disagreement to software patents?
http://www.economic-majority.com/supporter.en.php?show=all
And my last question ( for now ;) ) Is there a site which will be an aggregator of all the sites and activities (ffii, nosoftwarepatents, ip-watch, blogs, ...) against software patents in europe?
Happy hacking! Patrick _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
El Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 03:06:13PM +0100, William New deia:
Hi, just wanted to add a couple of things to the discussion for whatever they're worth. I've been meaning to contribute another argument made by Guenther Schmalz of SAP at the recent lobbyist meeting in Prague reported in Intellectual Property Watch (http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=195&res=1680_ff&print=0) and mentioned in Heise. He said software development is "not cheap" because they do coding and testing, while "free riders" will follow. "Those who innovate need patent protection, imitators don't," was his message.
Well, saying that is "cheap". The result of coding is code and the result of testing is higher quality code. Code is already covered by copyright. Patents don't cover that, patents cover general principles or patterns, ideas. In software having ideas is really cheap, compared with patentable fields, because computers follow precise mathemathical models, so in a way we already know what can be done. The difficulty is not knowing something can be done, but doing it and doing it well (or at most foretelling how much effort will take to do it). And that effort is what copyright covers. In order to ask for a patent you only need the idea, there is no need to have anything coded nor tested. In fields requring empirical research things are different. In order to get to the idea that will work you need to discover how a little protion of the real world works (and you don't have exact mathematical models for that, just aproximate theories to guide your observation), and then you need to build and test prototypes, etc. There's a material cost to innovation in addition to the intellectual cost.
In software "free riders" can only copy the idea, the general features, and in order to copy them without infringing copyright they need either the permission of the author or an amount of work similar to the original coding. The difference is too much for getting soon enough to market, since the original author did it first and software does not live long. So the only way to market similar software is by adding features, quality, etc. That's called competition, not free riding.
Those who innovate need the possibility of doing so legally, without having to pay royalties to those that patent ideas instead of innovating.
He also said that www.economicmajority.com had 1,948 companies, representing 31,503 employees, and 3,258,244,082 EUR turnover, while SAP in Europe is 20 companies with 20,000 employees, representing 7,514,000,000 EUR in turnover. His point was to question the economic majority argument.
Companies like SAP represent a tiny fraction of software development. Most programming is done in software SMEs or in house in computer departments of firms in other fields. So SAP and its 20000 employers is not significant.
But anyway, I'm preaching to the choir, here.
I also would like to clarify that Intellectual Property Watch (cited as ip-watch below) does not formally take a position on software patents in Europe. We are trying to report on the process in the name of transparency but are not actually engaging in advocacy. Best, William New, Editor
Thanks.
"William New" wnew@ip-watch.ch
He also said that www.economicmajority.com had 1,948 companies, = representing 31,503 employees, and 3,258,244,082 EUR turnover, while SAP in Europe is = 20 companies with 20,000 employees, representing 7,514,000,000 EUR in = turnover. His point was to question the economic majority argument.=20
"Small" businesses are 99% of UK businesses[1], but we find it relatively expensive to engage in lobbying or advocacy, because if we let one person do that, it leaves us a man short and we don't have that many to spare. So, the economicmajority.com figures are a massive under-reporting.
Meanwhile, SAP maybe can afford 20 employees-worth of lobbying, even though they're just one business. It doesn't take many SAPs to look like all creative industry wants protectionism.
References. 1. http://www.sbs.gov.uk/sbsgov/action/layer?r.l2=7000000243&r.l1=700000022...
Hi Patrick,
Patrick Ohnewein patrick.ohnewein@lugbz.org writes:
I write this e-mail to ask, if the FSFE has some reccomandations about the questionary "Consultation on future patent policy in Europe":
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
Is a request to fill out the questionary planed, should this questionary be used as a chance for european companies to communicate their disagreement to software patents?
Yes, this is a chance for everyone to communicate their feelings about software patents - and it should be used by everyone.
I will be writing a draft response for FSFE this week, and I'll do the drafting on this list.
If it can be a chance, should a request be send out to the companies, which already communicated their disagreement to software patents?
We shouldn't harvest that list, but we should probably contact people and companies that we have had previous contact with. It would probably be most useful to do this when we have some example replies to show them.
And my last question ( for now ;) ) Is there a site which will be an aggregator of all the sites and activities (ffii, nosoftwarepatents, ip-watch, blogs, ...) against software patents in europe?
I don't plan on making an aggregator site.
(and I agree with others that FFII's swpat news page is the best aggregator-like site.)
Hi Ciaran!
Ciaran O'Riordan schrieb:
I will be writing a draft response for FSFE this week, and I'll do the drafting on this list.
That's good news, thanks.
We shouldn't harvest that list, but we should probably contact people and companies that we have had previous contact with. It would probably be most useful to do this when we have some example replies to show them.
It would be a nice pool ;)
But I think you are right, we should all look for personal contact. The companies may need new informations on the topic or at least a refresh.
I don't plan on making an aggregator site.
(and I agree with others that FFII's swpat news page is the best aggregator-like site.)
The news aggragation site of FFII is very well done.
I was thinking more about a platform like nosoftwarepatents was. Some central point we can direct companies looking for fresh and non tecnical information on the topic. FFII seams to be to tecnical and not adeguated for CIOs in my eyes.
Last time there was nosoftwarepatents, but the activities on it seam stopped now. We cannot use a site which content is outdated for months.
Are there any plans to create something new, reactivate nosofwarepatents or something similar?
Happy hacking! Patrick