Is IFSO planning any leaflets on swpat to hand out at RMS's talk ?
Here in the UK he's giving a talk at a Copyright thing this Thursday, and then on Friday evening he's giving his Software Patent talk we've asked each of the UK parties to put somebody up for a round-table discussion panel.
It would be nice to produce eg a 2-sided A4 folded leaflet to hand to everybody that turns up.
Is IFSO planning anything similar, and should we share drafts ?
Hi All,
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 20:53, James Heald wrote:
Is IFSO planning any leaflets on swpat to hand out at RMS's talk ?
I would be interested to know if there is a software patents leaflet out there somewhere that we could use as the basis for this. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't *have* to be right up-to-date on EU matters: I don't expect people hearing the issues for the first time to go straight to their MEPs.
Also, I notice that here in the TCD Computer Science dept there is some sort of seminar for the Dublin Business Innovation Centre (http://www.dbic.ie/) today. They don't appear to be overtly pro software patents (http://www.dbic.ie/adviceip.htm) but it would be nice to leave some strategically-placed information leaflets.
I'm happy to help with drafting, but I'd like a starting point, if someone can point one out to me.
David
David O'Callaghan wrote:
I would be interested to know if there is a software patents leaflet out there somewhere that we could use as the basis for this. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't *have* to be right up-to-date on EU matters: I don't expect people hearing the issues for the first time to go straight to their MEPs.
I would almost say the opposite. There are two issues we need to get across:
1) Software patents are bad 2) How do we prevent software patents in the EU?
Stallman will argue 1) better than any leaflet could, so the leaflet should focus on 2) by explaining the situation and what people can do about it.
I spoke to some MEPs yesterday with varying degrees of success, but many of them indicated that it might be more productive to have the conversation closer to the 2nd vote in the EP, rather than now when many are distracted by elections. The general consensus was that "reinstate the September 03 amendments" was a simple message that was easy for MEPs to agree with.
Ian.
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 09:23, David O'Callaghan wrote:
I'm happy to help with drafting, but I'd like a starting point, if someone can point one out to me.
I've started a draft with only minor changes to the letter to Mary Harney. It's available at http://www.cs.tcd.ie/David.OCallaghan/ifso/. It's not really a leaflet, but it might be ok in two-column form.
I'm thinking in terms of a general-purpose document on the topic, so this may not be much good for the people at RMS's talk, who will, I'm sure, get a much more in-depth look at the issues. However, they might like something they can pass on when people ask them "what's wrong with software patents?"
Also, this doc doesn't really address Ian's comments about telling people *how* they can oppose software patents. Perhaps a stock paragraph about "contact your MEP" or a link to an FFII "get involved" page would be enough.
Anyway, please give me your comments on the following.
Thanks,
David
The Case Against Patents on Software
Irish Free Software Organisation
1 The Right to Write Software
For software to be competitive, it must allow it's users to share data with other people. To do this, is has to be able to read and write the files that software users have created with the market leaders' software. If companies are allowed to patent techniques required for writing certain file formats, compatibility could be made illegal. By rendering alternative software packages useless, competition would become a puppet show, and a lot of innovative software would go unused.
In addition to data compatibility, software users expect a certain level of functionality. If a new piece of software is to enter the market, it must do the work of the current market leader, plus something new. This incremental or cumulative development style is how the software industry has progressed, but if software developers are prohibited from implementing widely used features, new products will cease to be competitive.
Software already has "ownership rights" in the form of copyright. Use of copyright is instant, free, and doesn't interfere with other peoples work. In contrast, patents would leave even independent software development open to patent infringement charges.
An open letter from 14 notable European economists said:
``Unlike most complex technologies, the opportunity to develop software is open to small companies, and even to individuals. Software patents damage innovation by raising costs and uncertainties in assembling the many components needed for complex computer programs and constraining the speed and effectiveness of innovation.''
The full letter is available at [key-1] http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm
2 Free Software, also known as "Libre Software", or "Open Source"
Free Software is software that comes with royalty-free permission to run, study, modify, copy, and redistribute the software.
Since the mid-nineties, some businesses have been building a new business model based on the fact that it costs nothing to give people these rights, and there's no barrier to entry into the market. These businesses make money from providing software development services such as writing extensions, customisation, system setup, technical support, etc. and each new company contributes to the pool of Free Software. The European Commissions' Information Society Initiative recently released a report on "Free / Open Source Software F/OSS", which says:
``On the provider side, F/OSS creates new opportunities for software and service providers, which may be a unique opportunity for the European software industry - somehow this may be a proverbial `second and last chance'.''
([key-2] http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/opensource/tex t_en.htm)
Software patents are particularly harmful to Free Software, more so than unfree/proprietary software because Free Software cannot require per-copy royalties, so Free Software projects find it virtually impossible to get permission to use patented technologies.
3 The US Federal Trade Commission
In October 2003 the US Federal Trade Commission.made a report on the US patent system. The report is 315 pages and covers the system as a whole, with a 13-page section specific to the patenting of software. In the printed copy, this section begins on page "44" of chapter 3 (each chapter staring at 1), or page 153 in the complete digital copy which can be found at [key-3] http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf
From the conclusion:
``Many panelists and participants expressed the view that software and Internet patents are impeding innovation. They stated that such patents are impairing follow-on incentives, increasing entry barriers, creating uncertainty that harms incentives to invest in innovation, and producing patent thickets.''
The conclusion listed no redeeming qualities for software patents.
Software patents were introduced into the US in 1986 by a court decision rather than any democratic legislative procedure, and because the US was the first economy to permit software patents, their decision was made without the benefit of being able to study the effects of software patents in other countries. The EU has the advantage of being able to learn from their mistakes.
The US held the dominant position in the software industry long before 1986, so the existence of software patents in the US should not be construed to imply that they benefit the industry. In contrast, we believe that if software patentability spreads into Europe, it would stagnate the industry in a manner which would benefit only the very large software companies --- none of which are European.
4 Support the European Parliament Rejection of Patents on Software
Last September, we were pleased that Ireland's MEPs, along with the majority of the European Parliament, voted to adopt a set of amendments which would clarify that software innovations are excluded from patentability. For the reasons given above, we believe it is clear that the introduction of legal software patents would be disastrous for Europe's software developers and software users, and we ask that you support the decision of the Irish MEPs and the parliament.
Please contact the Irish Free Software Organisation[key-4] for further information
References
http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/opensource/text_en.htm http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf http://ifso.ie/
David O'Callaghan wrote:
I'm thinking in terms of a general-purpose document on the topic, so this may not be much good for the people at RMS's talk, who will, I'm sure, get a much more in-depth look at the issues. However, they might like something they can pass on when people ask them "what's wrong with software patents?"
I note that you start out with the interoperability issue, but is this really the strongest argument against software patents? Perhaps the functionality argument should be the first paragraph, and interoperability the second?
Ian.
David, I (stupidly) mailed a PDF of the document I was writing to the list. I've butchered some of Ciarans' and Eibhears' stuff and come up with this http://minds.may.ie/~balor/downloads/handout.pdf the source is http://minds.may.ie/~balor/downloads/handout.pdf in LaTeX. It would be cool if we could combine the two. I was going for a mix of Eibhears "What is FS?" and Ciarans great example of patents with respect to a word processor. I'm missing a paragraph or two, but don't have time to work on it until later today.
I'll be at the talk and I'll try to be of help handing out leaflets, chatting up MEPs etc.
Conor
On Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 14:37 +0100, Conor Daly wrote:
I'll be at the talk and I'll try to be of help handing out leaflets, chatting up MEPs etc.
Great!
I'll take this opportunity to make a formal request for a few assistants. Netsoc (the hosts) have asked if we could have a few people to help direct any crowds that may turn up. If you'd be willing to do this please send me a mail off-list.
Thanks,