More random trawling with Google, looking for people who may credibly shape the debate, and/or possibly know how the process is going...
For academics, there may be at least four or five groups we should be thinking about.
* Lawyers. Any change in the law will presumably involve consultation with lawyers -- What is the law now? What is the legal effect of such-and-such changes? Would they clarify things or create a legal nightmare?
* Economists / Business Studies. What drives innovation? Would software patents help or hinder?
* Business incubators, technology transfer specialists, and successful academic entrepreneurs. Experience from the sharp end.
* Free software users. Throughout CS, mathematics, physical sciences and engineering there must be a lot of researchers who use free software because it works, and because it makes the budget go further, and who wouldn't want it crippled by patents. They may also be drawn by the kindred spirit of the free software model and the open scientific process. A silent majority which could be very powerful if we can get it mobilised ?
* Researchers specifically working on free software, and as part of the free software community.
===================================================== 1. Lawyers.
So who are the country's experts on IT and IP law, that the policy makers may want to formally or informally bounce things off?
Obviously there may be independent barristers with particular renown, the major city firms of solicitors, specialist patent agents, in-house lawyers of key corporates, and experts at the patent office.
But academics may also be important, as an independent disinterested source of advice.
Most useful would be anything they can tell us about what's going on, and any particular sensitivities or areas where the government is looking for more information that they may have heard of about the process.
Prof Robert Clark at UCD surely fits the bill, as their leading IP lecturer, member of the Patent Office user council, and a particular expert in data protection, internet, copyright and database law.
Two more, who have written the book on the subject, are Denis Kelleher and Karen Murray (http;//www.ictlaw.com/; Information Technology Law in Ireland (Dublin: Butterworths), 1997; IT Law in the European Union (London: Sweet & Maxwell), 1999).
Karen Murray is the lecturer at the National College of Ireland that ENN spoke to. Denis Kelleher wrote a policy review for Forfas in 2002 called "Legislating for Competitive Advantage in e-Business and ICT". http://www.forfas.ie/newsasp/show.asp?page_id=251 http://www.forfas.ie/publications/ebus_ict_leg02/021029_ebusiness_ict_leg_72...
I'm attaching pages 19-22 on patents. Interestingly, although Kelleher quotes economic benefits from swpats from the year 2000 CEC study "The Economic Impact of Patentability of Computer Programs", he then seems almost agnostic as to what in fact should and should not be patentable.
(See http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/indprop-ipi00/index.en.html for a rebuttal of the CEC study in Hartmut's usual no-prisoners style).
These three seem to be the leading academic lawyers in the field, at least in Dublin (I haven't really checked Cork or elsewhere).
At TCD the computer science department offers a course in IT law given by Proinnsias Ó Cillín, formerly of the land registry in Dublin. Kelleher and Murray is the #1 text for the course, and their website is his #1 link under Information Technology Law. http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Proinnsias.OCillin/ http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Proinnsias.OCillin/lawcourse/weblawsites.htm http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Proinnsias.OCillin/lawcourse/int-ppty/patent.htm
In the law department itself, the main full-time IP lecturers seem to be Paul Ralph Coughlan and Eoin O'Dell; there is also an LLM course on European Intellectual Property Law, taught by an external barrister Imelda Higgins.
Paul Ralph Coughlan, B.C.L., LL.M. (N.U.I.), Barrister-at-Law. Paul Coughlan is a graduate of the National University of Ireland, from which he holds the degrees of Bachelor of Civil Law and Master of Laws. He is Registrar of the Law School, Trinity College Dublin. He has lectured in Land Law and Intellectual Property at Trinity College Dublin since 1990. Previously he lectured in Law at University College Dublin and the University of Keele. A practising barrister, he has written extensively on land law, equity and intellectual property and is the Irish correspondent for the European Intellectual Property Review. His research interests cover land law, intellectual property law, equity.
Eoin O'Dell B.C.L.(N.U.I.), B.C.L.(Oxon.), Barrister-at-Law. Eoin O'Dell lectures Contract, Restitution and Freedom of Expression, researches primarily in the fields of private and commercial law, and is the Editor of the Dublin University Law Journal.
Ms. Imelda Higgins B.C.L. (NUI), LL.M. (NUI), Diploma in European Law (Bruges), Barrister-at-Law lectures in European Intellectual Property Law on the LL.M. Programme.
http://www.tcd.ie/Law/Contacts.htm
It's possible Alexander Schuster might take an interest from the European law/consumer interest angle; but I assume that's mostly more about product liability.
Alexander William Edward Schuster, B.A., LL.B., M.Litt., Barrister-at-Law. Alex Schuster is a Senior Lecturer-in-Law at Trinity College Dublin. A former Director of the Irish Centre for European Law and a practising barrister, he has written widely on EU Consumer Protection Law. Publications edited by him include Product Liability (1989), the New Product Liability Regime (1992) and Key Aspects of Irish Competition Law and Practice (1993). He is currently editing Company Law in Ireland and the EC. He is a member of the European Consumer Law Group, a group of lawyers which vets EU legislative proposals in the field of consumer protection and the Irish correspondent for the Consumer Law Journal.
Over at UCD, Robert Clark is clearly the man; but I found the following lecturers giving IP courses this year over his sabbatical:
Intellectual Property Law (2 BCL, 3BBLS) Ms Leesha O'Driscoll, BCL(NUIC), LLM(NUID), BL
Intellectual Property Law (LLM, Commercial Law) Ms Maire Ni Shuilleabhain , BCL, LLM (NUI), BCL (Oxon), BL
Information Technology Law (LLM ,Commercial Law) Mr Eamonn Hall, BA, BCL, PhD, Solicitor, Legal Advisor Eircom Plc, Visiting Fellow Mr. Thomas Jeremiah McIntyre, BCL, LLM(Lond), BL, Member of New York Bar
European Intellectual Property Law (LLM, European Law) Ms. I. Higgins
=============================================
2. Economists / Business Studies
Possibly the people with the widest, most balanced view of both the pluses and the minuses of software patents for innovation and development across the whole economy; and able to give the most authoritative assessment of the likely impact in practice of different variants of the software patent legislation.
We need to absorb as much of what they can tell us as possible, so we can also speak about the economic aspects with authority.
* Prof. William Kingston School of Business Studies, TCD
http://www.tcd.ie/Business_Studies/StaffResearch/kingston.html http://www.tcd.ie/Business_Studies/StaffResearch/kingston_pub.html
Kingston is very knowledgeable and quite critical about how well the patents system generates innovation, at least as presently constituted. He would certainly be familiar with all of the material in the FTC report (http://www.ffii.org.uk/ftc/ftc.html).
Thus for example in his paper "Meeting Nelson's concerns about Intellectual Property" (14 May 2001), he writes:
The recognised comparative failure of European firms to commercialise inventive and RTD efforts is partly explained by this. No firm can exploit more than a single trajectory of incremental change properly. Proprietary rights can prevent firms which could exploit other trajectories from doing so, thus also depriving the originator of competitive pressure to move along the learning curve as fast as possible. Eventually, products from foreign firms which incorporate more incremental improvements, gain an advantage in the market.
(http://www.druid.dk/conferences/nw/paper1/kingston.pdf)
It would be very interesting to have his analysis of the different likely effects of the swpat directive, both the council version and the parliament version, and anything there might be in between.
However, I think he is not necessarily against software patents. He is a fan of small firms:
These are productive of inventions to a degree that is quite disproportionate to their resources.
and a strong believer in the value of patents to them:
Smaller firms are prolific users of intellectual property because they lack other types of market power to protect the information they produce.
Instead the paper argues that the deficiencies of the patent system could be largely cured by imposing a compulsory licensing option for all patents at a multiple of their R&D costs.
He argues this would be especially beneficial in software:
8.5 Giving appropriate protection to software development
If the proposal were to be put into effect, the beneficial effects of intensified competition would be felt immediately by the public in relation to computer programs. As a new way of generating information, these needed a new kind of protection. Forcing software instead into copyright has resulted in programs receiving absurdly inappropriate terms of protection which can be up to 120 years. Among other outcomes, this has made conflict between Competition authorities and Microsoft inevitable in the U.S. and elsewhere.
He has also written an influential EU study, "Enforcing Small Firms' Patent Rights" (2001) http://www.cordis.lu/innovation-policy/studies/im_study3.htm
Key findings include that
The current patent system works poorly for SMEs. Especially in the US, large firms use the resources which they have available for litigation to intimidate SMEs. For SMEs, patenting is currently not cost-effective as a means of protecting intellectual property.
However again, he seems to believe that the system could be fixed, this time by instituting a "Patent Defence Union", a sort of government backed offensive and defensive insurance scheme for SMEs.
Most frequently seen with him on the bandwagon for this is Arlene McCarthy's favourite software patentee, John Mitchell of AllVoice.
Kingston's analysis of the effect of various possible scopes for software patentability would be very interesting to hear; but he is by no means necessarily a cheerleader for our side.
Somebody else who might be interesting is:
* Dr. Colm O'Gorman Department of Business Administration, Quinn School of Business, UCD. http://www.ucd.ie/busadmin/colmogorman.htm http://www.ucd.ie/busadmin/researchinterests.htm#1
Dr O'Gorman appears to have done extensive fieldwork research on the software industry in Ireland, so may be especially well informed to say how much real use software patents really are in the sector, or whether they are as little use as Laura Creighton says at http://www.vrijschrift.org/swpat/030508_1/
According to the department research page, Dr O'Gorman has particularly investigated:
New Venture Process: Colm O’Gorman has investigated the process of new venture creation among software firms.
High Growth Ventures: Colm O’Gorman continues to study the dynamics of growth in high-tech ventures.
SMEs: Colm O’Gorman continues to examine key managerial issues in SMEs including success strategies, their use of mission statements and the factors influencing internationalisation.
He is also likely to be able to give very useful pointers to what other work has been done in this field, and by whom.
=============================================
3. Business incubators, technology transfer specialists, and successful academic entrepreneurs.
Quite an interesting overview of the process at http://www.ucd.ie/nova/newsandevents/journey/overview.htm
The advice can get depressing: protect everything, talk to no-one, never let anyone have your source code...
Real entrepreneurs may actually have the most unrealistic view of the usefulness of patents. Almost a prerequisite of keeping their business going is they have to believe in every aspect of it 120%, including the value of their IP protection. And if they still have a business, that probably means their IP protection hasn't (yet) been tested...
But it would be interesting to know even from these people how useful they think patents really are in the software arena, or whether copyright, closed-source and trade secrets are actually a lot more important -- that, and really focussing on the product itself, customer satisfaction, and quick market response.
One name I saw in that lecture programme was
* Prof Barry Smyth – UCD Department of Computer Science & CTO Changing Worlds (company producing mobile data platforms and solutions for mobile operators)
It would be interesting to know whether he would feel threatened by the Parliament version of the directive, or liberated.
UCD also has * Margaret Kennedy, Commercialisation Specialist (ICT), UCD Nova.
who it might be interesting to cross-check with what Prof Smyth has to say.
=============================================
4. Free software users.
5. Researchers specifically working on free software
No specific links.
Do people think it would be possible to build on existing awareness, and try to get departmental policy staements of concern ?
Probably that's enough for one night...
All best,
James.
Legislating for Competitive Advantage in e-Business and ICT (Denis Kelleher) http://www.forfas.ie/newsasp/show.asp?page_id=251 http://www.forfas.ie/publications/ebus_ict_leg02/021029_ebusiness_ict_leg_72... pp.19-22 of the pdf.
2.3 Patents
Intellectual Property (IP) is an essential element in modern information societies, and there is a wide variety of laws that apply to this area. One such law relates to patents, a patent being a transferable property right, which gives the holder the exclusive right to exclude others from manufacture, use, or sale of the invention for a time-limited period. In patent law, inventors can apply to have their inventions protected; if they are successful they then receive a monopoly on how that invention is exploited.
Another form of IP is the law of copyright, which protects the reproduction and distribution of works such as computer programs, music, films, songs, recordings of songs and books. Ireland is a significant producer of all forms of IP, ranging from musical recordings to software, and including new emerging sectors such as biotechnology.
In order to promote R&D and the creation, development and management of intellectual property in Ireland, it is critical that the enterprise sector is capable of using patents to protect new products,processes and ideas. However, as a signatory to the European Patents Convention, 1973, Ireland has very little room to legislate in this area, and there are a number of crucial issues which are as yet unresolved. EU member states have to date failed to agree on the future role of national patent offices and their relationship with the European Patent Office (EPO)[30] in Munich, on the future language regime and on the establishment of a community patent jurisdiction.
Other factors that have to be taken into account when comparing the situation in the EU with that elsewhere include the cost of patenting an item and the types of patent that can be applied for. For example, the cost of patenting an idea is four to five times higher in Europe (EPO estimate of Eur. 49,000 per patent) than in the US. The cost of translating patents (25-40 per cent of total cost) into the various EU Member State languages makes the procedure expensive and, at present, there is no agreement as to how to tackle this issue. Enterprise Ireland, through its Intellectual Property Assistance Scheme, can provide funding for patent applications, as well as advice on the protection, development and commercialisation of inventions. However, from the perspective of Irish firms which engage in research, the expensive nature of the present patent system leaves them at a competitive disadvantage compared to their US and Japanese competitors.
Europe also differs from the US in the types of software patents that can be issued. In Europe, an invention has to be of a technical character, while in the US the mere fact that an invention uses a computer or software makes it patentable. According to a study conducted for the European Commission [31], this difference in standards has resulted in European software developers making less use of the patenting process compared with American firms. The report also noted `the patentability of computer program-related inventions has helped the growth of computer program-related industries in the (United) States, in particular the growth of SMEs and independent software developers into sizeable, indeed major, companies'. European software developers have raised concerns that the lower use of patents could weaken their ability to raise finance and to bring their products to market through licensing the use of their inventions.
It would be untrue to state that the EPO will not issue patents for computer-implemented inventions; in fact the EPO has issued 20,000 such patents. However, there is confusion in Europe as to how this law is to be applied and there appear to be differences in the interpretation of patent law within Europe. The EU Commission has identified the possibility of divergences developing between the courts of different member states in their interpretation of the law of patents as being a cause for particular concern, and it notes that such divergences have already occurred between the courts of the UK and Germany, and within the EPO itself. The EU Commission is considering these issues, and has issued a Proposal for a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions. This draft directive published on 20 February 2002 supports the existing stricter EPO practice of only allowing inventions in which computer programs form an integral part to be patented if the invention concerned provides a technical contribution.
While Article 52(2)(c) of the European Patent Convention prohibits the patenting of business methods [32], the US has taken a more liberal view. In State Street v. Signature Financial Group33, Signature sought and was awarded a patent for a system that allowed an administrator to monitor and record the financial information flow and make all calculations necessary for maintaining a `partner fund financial services configuration'. This willingness of the US Patent Office to patent business methods with no apparent technical characteristic may seriously weaken the competitive position of Irish and other European firms across a wide range of sectors.
Determining the relative strength of patent laws from a technology and enterprise development perspective is a complex matter. Some Internet companies have used patents to obtain monopoly rights in certain inventions, the rationale being that by securing the exclusive rights to their discoveries and innovation, enterprise among inventors can be promoted. However using patents to provide legal monopolies can also slow down dissemination of new technologies and best practice and can reduce competition. Furthermore, given the rate of technological change, it may be that continuous innovation rather than legal protection offers the best opportunities to sustain and develop competitive advantage. However, the ideal environment is one which balances the rights of innovators and imitators in all jurisdictions.
Resolution of these issues is of particular importance to Ireland, given that a large and increasing proportion of Ireland R&D expenditure is concentrated in ICT, as can be seen in figure 2.
[Figure 2 omitted]
While many of these issues must be resolved at a European level, which limits Ireland's ability to legislate unilaterally, there are a number of key actions which can be taken:
* Ireland needs to be proactive in the formulation of an EU-wide patent policy which is assessing the business merits of allowing software and `business methods' to be patented and seeks to reduce the costs of issuing patents. The EU is currently considering a Proposal for a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions.
Action: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
* The Proposal for a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions will further harmonise national patent laws, which should reduce ambiguities in the implementation of the current legislation that arise due to the complex and diverse nature of cases. In the future, it will be critical that the courts have a strong understanding of the role of patents, the capacity of software to be innovative, and the potential benefits and costs of seeking patents. Ireland should examine how it can provide as much protection as possible to the creators of intellectual property rights in these subject matters, in the context of its existing international commitments.
Action: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
* As divergences have emerged in how different EU states interpret the European Patents Convention, the creation of a Community Intellectual Property Court has been proposed as a remedy. Such a court has also been called for in order to reduce the costs of IP litigation, as high costs are discouraging the use of the system, other than by large organisations. If such a court should be established, and depending on the structure that this proposed court would adopt [34], then the Government should seek to have the Court of First Instance of the proposed Community Intellectual Property Court based in Ireland. Despite its limited domestic market, there may be significant opportunity for Ireland to develop a critical mass of e-business law expertise.
Action: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
* Irish researchers and entrepreneurs should be made aware of how they can protect their ideas. Different strategies may be suitable for different jurisdictions, given the differences between European and US patent law. One example is defensive publishing, where details of the idea or suggestion are published. This means that even if a rival patents a similar idea, the fact that it has been previously published can be used to set aside the patent or deny any attempt to seek damages.
Action: Enterprise Ireland, the Enterprise sector
If Irish researchers and entrepreneurs have definite prospects/plans for commercialising their intellectual property in the US and the resources to actively pursue such plans, they should be informed of their options in relation to patenting a computer-implemented invention or business concept in the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patenting ideas at the USPTO would only provide protection in the US, and would not extend to Europe. However, as many indigenous firms, particularly in the software industry, primarily focus on the US market, patenting with USPTO should be considered.
Action: Enterprise Ireland, business associations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
30 The European Patent Office is the executive arm of the European Patent Organisation, an intergovernmental body set up under the European Patent Convention (EPC), whose members are the EPC contracting states.
31 The Economic Impact of Patentability of Computer Programs, European Commission, July 2001.
32 Examples of business process patenting include Amazon.com's `1-Click' Patent, and the designs of e-marketplaces and electronic auctions.
33 149 F.3d 1368; 1998 US App LEXIS 16869; 47 USPQ 2D (BNA) 1596.
34 It remains unclear whether this proposed court would operate on a circuit court or national basis in each jurisdiction, or in just a limited number of locations for the entire EU.
I probably should have added under (2. Economists / Business Studies).
* the Science Policy Research Centre, UCD
led by Prof. J. D. Cogan, http://www.ucd.ie/busadmin/parttime.htm#cogan
though it doesn't seem to have a web-page of its own.
If we're looking for a way into the technology transfer people at TCD, I wonder if Iona (http://www.iona.com/) might be onside.
They specialise in systems integration based on Open Standards (Corba, J2EE etc) running on a variety of platforms including Linux -- so potentially directly threatened by software patents.
According to the page at TCD, "Iona is a prestigious software company which was developed from research into distributed systems at Trinity in 1991. Dr Chris Horn, a former lecturer in the Department of Computer Science, serves as Managing Director. Iona was launched on NASDAQ in February 1997 and has over 500 employees worldwide".
James Heald wrote:
If we're looking for a way into the technology transfer people at TCD, I wonder if Iona (http://www.iona.com/) might be onside.
They specialise in systems integration based on Open Standards (Corba, J2EE etc) running on a variety of platforms including Linux -- so potentially directly threatened by software patents.
According to the page at TCD, "Iona is a prestigious software company which was developed from research into distributed systems at Trinity in 1991. Dr Chris Horn, a former lecturer in the Department of Computer Science, serves as Managing Director. Iona was launched on NASDAQ in February 1997 and has over 500 employees worldwide".
Though their PR material does make quite a lot of the fact that their core system is built on patented "Adaptive Runtime Techology"(tm)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James Heald writes:
James Heald wrote:
If we're looking for a way into the technology transfer people at TCD, I wonder if Iona (http://www.iona.com/) might be onside.
They specialise in systems integration based on Open Standards (Corba, J2EE etc) running on a variety of platforms including Linux -- so potentially directly threatened by software patents.
According to the page at TCD, "Iona is a prestigious software company which was developed from research into distributed systems at Trinity in 1991. Dr Chris Horn, a former lecturer in the Department of Computer Science, serves as Managing Director. Iona was launched on NASDAQ in February 1997 and has over 500 employees worldwide".
Though their PR material does make quite a lot of the fact that their core system is built on patented "Adaptive Runtime Techology"(tm)
I used to work for Iona -- they were very keen on software patents, at least at one stage. If I recall correctly, the board was keen on establishing a patent portfolio, since that's viewed as a Good Thing by investors and shareholders. So it would be unlikely, I'd say.
However, totally unrelated -- it occurs to me that Antoin O'Lachtnain, being a frequenter of the IRISHLAW list, might have a good idea of some people in the Irish legal community who might be useful to get in contact with.
Would that be useful?
(Antoin: this is regarding software patents, and ways to get the correct viewpoint ;) "out there" into the other decision-making communities.)
- --j.
i can certainly give you some pointers on the Irish legal help side, if it's any help. I'm in Germany for the rest of the week, but let me know what help you'd need and we can go from there.
as for the theory and practice of patents, you should remember that just because a company has a lot of software patents doesn't mean that it necessarily thinks software patents are a brilliant idea. Applying for patents is in some respects like paying taxes. It's something that you do because you know you have to, not because you like doing it. Companies pick them up to use them defensively (which is not a bad idea in a litigious patent-ridden world). Also, there may be tax benefits from having patents - in Ireland patent royalties are tax free, although this applies mainly to manufactured products, rather than software -.
Antoin.
At 15:53 03/12/2003 -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James Heald writes:
James Heald wrote:
If we're looking for a way into the technology transfer people at TCD, I wonder if Iona (http://www.iona.com/) might be onside.
They specialise in systems integration based on Open Standards (Corba, J2EE etc) running on a variety of platforms including Linux -- so potentially directly threatened by software patents.
According to the page at TCD, "Iona is a prestigious software company which was developed from research into distributed systems at Trinity in 1991. Dr Chris Horn, a former lecturer in the Department of Computer Science, serves as Managing Director. Iona was launched on NASDAQ in February 1997 and has over 500 employees worldwide".
Though their PR material does make quite a lot of the fact that their core system is built on patented "Adaptive Runtime Techology"(tm)
I used to work for Iona -- they were very keen on software patents, at least at one stage. If I recall correctly, the board was keen on establishing a patent portfolio, since that's viewed as a Good Thing by investors and shareholders. So it would be unlikely, I'd say.
However, totally unrelated -- it occurs to me that Antoin O'Lachtnain, being a frequenter of the IRISHLAW list, might have a good idea of some people in the Irish legal community who might be useful to get in contact with.
Would that be useful?
(Antoin: this is regarding software patents, and ways to get the correct viewpoint ;) "out there" into the other decision-making communities.)
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQE/zneWQTcbUG5Y7woRAkQXAKCoOl0UaPtveZO2w3BzAqxBBtyufACdFWPl 4kDonaAg8wnb7nQBKPhnb7A= =L463 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Antoin O Lachtnain antoin@eire.com
Justin Mason wrote:
I used to work for Iona -- they were very keen on software patents, at least at one stage. If I recall correctly, the board was keen on establishing a patent portfolio, since that's viewed as a Good Thing by investors and shareholders. So it would be unlikely, I'd say.
I have experienced investor-pressure to get software patents to while in the US - unfortunately such investors are operating on a "Cargo Cult"* principal.
There are actually robust business reasons that software patents are a bad idea, and I used these arguments to persuade my partners and investors not to go down that route. These are:
1) Its expensive for a small company
2) It takes 3 years, which may as-well be a lifetime for a small company
3) They are useless if a large company infringes the patent as they will simply accuse you of infringing one of their patents and force you to cross-license
4) By the time you have discovered (3) you have already disclosed your invention as part of the patent process and there is nothing you can do about it
I successfully advocated a trade secret strategy which is:
1) Free
2) Doesn't take any time
3) If it is a genuinely novel idea it won't be independently re-invented and so the issue of someone else "infringing" it won't arise
I relay this story to highlight the fact that most investors *do* like to see patents, but they typically don't know why. I also relay it to highlight that there are good reasons why patents are a bad thing even from the perspective of the person seeking the software patent.
Ian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 3 Dec 2003 at 0:41, James Heald wrote:
The advice can get depressing: protect everything, talk to no-one, never let anyone have your source code...
Real entrepreneurs may actually have the most unrealistic view of the usefulness of patents. Almost a prerequisite of keeping their business going is they have to believe in every aspect of it 120%, including the value of their IP protection. And if they still have a business, that probably means their IP protection hasn't (yet) been tested...
But it would be interesting to know even from these people how useful they think patents really are in the software arena, or whether copyright, closed-source and trade secrets are actually a lot more important -- that, and really focussing on the product itself, customer satisfaction, and quick market response.
Worse than this, you will do yourself out of funding if you dare say anything against the "patent everything" line. I tried in my new business proposal to say that I wanted to take out software patents in order to ensure anyone could use my ideas without fear of getting sued and was immediately told "That's a deal breaker. You say that and you will be seen as being either a fool or soft and neither inspires investor confidence. They are looking for an animal".
Remember, these guys aren't too hot on the intellectual stuff generally. They want to know how to make money and that and only that matters. People, society, the environment or the other man are simply there to be exploited and if they can't be, to be foisted off as baggage to someone else. Trying to argue intellectually against IP to these people will simply bore them at best - I suggest arguing it as simply as "software patents = less profit" which is true in all except the most exploitative business models - which are dinosaurs becoming extinct except for perhaps Microsoft.
You may think I'm being unfair. Well, I've read all the entrepreneur books and was actually shocked at what they said - it's a far less moral game than drug dealing whose punters at least actually want the product - and it's rare to shock me anymore :)
Still, better being an entrepreneur than working in some god awful hierarchy with incompetent bosses ordering you to deliberately sabotage your work ... :(
Cheers, Niall
Niall Douglas wrote:
Worse than this, you will do yourself out of funding if you dare say anything against the "patent everything" line. I tried in my new business proposal to say that I wanted to take out software patents in order to ensure anyone could use my ideas without fear of getting sued and was immediately told "That's a deal breaker. You say that and you will be seen as being either a fool or soft and neither inspires investor confidence. They are looking for an animal".
I think your error here was to frame your argument in terms of the public good - investors don't give a flying fsck about the public good, and the last thing they want is the Gandhi of the software world deciding how to spend their money.
As I highlighted in my previous email, there are robust *business* arguments against software patents, I have used these successfully to persuade some pretty hard-nosed investors that software patents were *not* a good idea.
Ian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 4 Dec 2003 at 10:10, Ian Clarke wrote:
Niall Douglas wrote:
Worse than this, you will do yourself out of funding if you dare say anything against the "patent everything" line. I tried in my new business proposal to say that I wanted to take out software patents in order to ensure anyone could use my ideas without fear of getting sued and was immediately told "That's a deal breaker. You say that and you will be seen as being either a fool or soft and neither inspires investor confidence. They are looking for an animal".
I think your error here was to frame your argument in terms of the public good - investors don't give a flying fsck about the public good, and the last thing they want is the Gandhi of the software world deciding how to spend their money.
As I highlighted in my previous email, there are robust *business* arguments against software patents, I have used these successfully to persuade some pretty hard-nosed investors that software patents were *not* a good idea.
What annoyed me then and annoys me just now about your reply is that a software architecture's success is predicated upon people choosing to use it before any other architecture. Thus all future profits and long-term viability depend *exclusively* on lowering any obstacles for punters to choose our platform.
This is where most investors simply do not understand the free software culture. Increasingly we're seeing most programmers even if they work for Microsoft believing in some form of free software. If it's them who's recommending solutions to their management for consideration, you've GOT to understand what appeals to them.
Many investors most unfortunately seem to be locked into the concept of priming a market, locking down a market and ruthlessly exploiting it. They don't understand that software has zero copy cost, that by asking for more than ten euro for a web sale actually reduces profits (because sales shift to astalavista.box.sk) and most importantly of all, that good karma creates goodwill and that creates longevity. Apple could not have survived the late 90's without its fans continuing to buy clearly substandard solutions.
Mark my words - the company which understands these new market dynamics right is the next Microsoft.
Anyway, we're getting off-topic. There's plenty more discussion about the economics of free software on the oekonux.org list.
Cheers, Niall