The EFF certainly has!
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-...
- d.
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 03:22:39AM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
The EFF certainly has!
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-...
It's good to look at the issue at hand, rather then at the parties involved. So, I think it is a good position they have in this case. It may affect not only Microsoft, but Free Software comapnies also, because it could set a precedent.
However, I think it is unfortunate how they put it in the headline of their article. There they put the name of the company in the first position, instead of the topic the case is about. - Note, that I only complain about the headline!
So yes, the deeds are good, the words are not.
So I think, the FSF should have the same position, but they should communicate it differently.
If supporting them is a step towards invalidating all software patents as a flawed concept, then yes.
If it adds legitimacy to the concept of software patents, and gives even more power to those with substantial "arsenals" of patents already, then no.
K
----
On 2 October 2010 12:39, Andreas K. Foerster list@akfoerster.de wrote:
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 03:22:39AM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
The EFF certainly has!
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-...
It's good to look at the issue at hand, rather then at the parties involved. So, I think it is a good position they have in this case. It may affect not only Microsoft, but Free Software comapnies also, because it could set a precedent.
However, I think it is unfortunate how they put it in the headline of their article. There they put the name of the company in the first position, instead of the topic the case is about. - Note, that I only complain about the headline!
So yes, the deeds are good, the words are not.
So I think, the FSF should have the same position, but they should communicate it differently.
-- AKFoerster _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi,
in the meantime, http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/microsoft-sues-motorola-over-android/
“Microsoft filed an action today in the International Trade Commission and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Motorola, Inc. for infringement of nine Microsoft patents by Motorola’s Android-based smartphones. The patents at issue relate to a range of functionality embodied in Motorola’s Android smartphone devices that are essential to the smartphone user experience, including synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power.
We have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year in bringing innovative software products and services to market. Motorola needs to stop its infringement of our patented inventions in its Android smartphones.”
Microsoft's position seems to be that software should be patentable and that only the patents of Microsoft are valid, not the one of its competitors.
I, personally, can't support that and I think the FSF and the FSFE should not.
Best regards,
* David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com [2010-10-02 03:22:39 +0100]:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-...
Any idea what EFF means with "_bad_ patents"? Do they have the position that there are also good software patents? Or do they want to express that patents are bad?
Thanks, Matthias
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 10:31 +0200, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com [2010-10-02 03:22:39 +0100]:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-...
Any idea what EFF means with "_bad_ patents"? Do they have the position that there are also good software patents? Or do they want to express that patents are bad?
I think it would be correct to say their position is that a large number of granted software patents are of low quality, and that they want to correct that.
Their philosophical position on the remainder I think is something yet to be determined; indeed, the extent to which such a remainder even exists would be arguable given the standard they seek to set in approval.
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
On 4 October 2010 09:53, Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
Their philosophical position on the remainder I think is something yet to be determined; indeed, the extent to which such a remainder even exists would be arguable given the standard they seek to set in approval.
Indeed. Giving Microsoft what they're asking for here would be quite ... delicious.
(The EFF is unlikely to be as strident about software patents as the FSF is, because software patents don't affect free speech quite as directly as they affect free software. But, y'know, they're smart geeks with their heads screwed on straight and a good understanding of just how morally offensive patenting mathematics is, and I expect more than a few of them are welcoming the opportunity.)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
(The EFF is unlikely to be as strident about software patents as the FSF is, because software patents don't affect free speech quite as directly as they affect free software.
Perhaps not now but the threat has already been established: the Heckel-Apple story describes the threat rather well. Stallman tells this story in his patent talk. He's given this talk many times and it is transcribed in multiple locations. This quote comes from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html
Few years ago an engineer in US named Paul Heckel was suing Apple. He had a couple of software patents in the late 80's for a software package and then when he saw hypercards and looked at inside — this is nothing like my program. He didn't think any more of it. But later on his lawyer explained to him that if you read this patent carefully hypercards fell into the prohibited area. So he sued Apple feeling this is an opportunity to get some money. Well once when I give a speech like this, he was in the audience, and he said “oh no that's not true. I just wasn't aware of the scope of my protection” and I said “yeah, that's what I said”.
In his talk from 2002-03-25 he elaborated on the threat to computer users -- from http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html
All software developers are threatened by software patents and even software users are threatened by software patents. For instance, Paul Heckel, when Apple wasn't very scared of his threats, he threatened to start suing Apple's customers. Apple found that very scary. They figured they couldn't afford to have their customers being sued like that, even if they would ultimately win. So the users can get sued too, either as a way of attacking a developer or just as a way to squeeze money out of them on their own or to cause mayhem.
The patent laws in the US allow this to happen. This threat exists for all computer users.
And the solution is clear: end software patents.
Critiquing a corrupt system by invalidating "bad" patents ends up preserving, even bolstering, the status quo; the implication is that there are only a few bad actors in an otherwise just and right-minded system so it makes sense, from that unrealistic perspective, to weed out the so-called "patent trolls" and "bad patents". Any critique aimed at increasing scrutiny of patent applications or issued patents (such as Microsoft's critique) will not help the computer users in countries that allow software patents.
Therefore I don't see why the FSF or its sister organizations would champion Microsoft's side in this dispute. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to again speak against software patents and explain why Microsoft's side is merely tinkering with the edges of a horrible system.