All I think it was Ian made the point in a recent posting, concerning how to get the uninitiated and untechnical public concerned.
The challenge isn't out-arguing them, the challenge is out-arguing them in a manner that a non-expert audience will understand. Once you start talking about where within an invention the "inventive step" occurs, 99% of your audience's eyes will have glazed over and you are wasting your breath :-(
I found after the Stallman talk that initially the non-techincal were dismissive on the basis of the usual cliche "I know nothing about computers".
When faced with the alternative scenario (because it was in a bike shed) that...
"If I design a new bike, that's my design and I can copyright it." That was understood without a problem.
Next I mentioned that Patents are ownership of a concept or idea, so if I had a patent on "Mechanically propelled transport", then every maker of bikes, skateboards, rollerskates, miniscooters etc. owes me.
Once explained, the upshot is that jobs will go to juristictions where these patents don't apply. So, it's not just a computer problem, but an economic one.
The rest you can explain yourselves. This line seems to work for me. Our problem up to now seems to be the initial dismissiveness. Hope this helps.
Mel ps: Congratulations and many thanks to all involved in organising the Stallman talk.
*************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get 100 Free Mapping Credits from IOL Mapping! All new site and new features. Log on for your Free Credits! maps.IOL.ie
"mmcweeney@oceanfree.net" wrote:
"If I design a new bike, that's my design and I can copyright it." That was understood without a problem.
Next I mentioned that Patents are ownership of a concept or idea, so if I had a patent on "Mechanically propelled transport", then every maker of bikes, skateboards, rollerskates, miniscooters etc. owes me.
Once explained, the upshot is that jobs will go to juristictions where these patents don't apply. So, it's not just a computer problem, but an economic one.
This is really good. Only thing is, I personally would say "software patents give people exclusive rights to abstract concepts or ideas."
1) The idea that "patents are necessary in order to have control of ideas [as opposed to the supposedly inadequate coverage of original expression provided by copyright]" is newthink -- as far as I'm concerned, even patents in the tradition were not supposed to be for abstract ideas as such, but for particular implementations of abstract theoretical insights; proscriptions against having exclusive rights to ideality or abstract theory also apply to patents, as we see reflected in codes such as Article 52 of the EPC. 2) Rather than speaking about patents in general, this says that when patents are applied to software, then due to the inherent nature of software, the result is that we are giving control over an abstract idea, a general and theoretical insight. 3) I don't give over the notion that we're talking about ownership when we talk about patents or copyright, but rather prefer to emphasize that these are statutory rights and use the term "exclusive rights."
Seth