A while ago, there was a discussion that I can't find now, I think it was between Justin Mason and Ian Clarke - but the point was that we shouldn't confuse the patents issue by talking about Free Software. I was a bit snowed under for joining the discussion at the time but it's imperative that we talk about Free Software.
Small&Medium enterprises can't afford to apply for patents, enforce their own patents, and defend themselves from patent litigation - so what if a solution was found whereby our government set up a patent assistance fund for SMBs?
I can't take credit for that idea, I think I heard Mary Hareny suggest it but I can't find the reference now.
So our own government could pay of Microsoft and IBM instead of our SMBs, (in effect, MS would simply launch twice as many litigation suits because there would be more cash to grab), and free software developers would be absolutely screwed.
(which is a reason why MS might whisper this suggestion into the ear of an MS-loving person with political power.)
So what I'm saying is, if you don't ask for what you want, you may not like what you get.
(not that our argument should be purely free software based, but I struck what I think was a good balance in the last letter - but then, of course I'd like my balance) http://ifso.ie/documents/swpats-council-00.html
BTW, I got a comment published on the rte.ie site: http://www.rte.ie/comments/comments.html (but the site is down right now)
And I saw software patents were mentioned on the front page of France's main national newspaper Le Monde during the week - so the non-english speakers are as busy as we are.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Small&Medium enterprises can't afford to apply for patents, enforce their own patents, and defend themselves from patent litigation - so what if a solution was found whereby our government set up a patent assistance fund for SMBs?
You make a good point, but consider the other danger.
If we specifically talk about free software then what if "the enemy" proposes an exemption for free software?
Now, this might initially seem attractive however its effect would be disastrous:
* It would drive a wedge between free software advocates and SMEs who would consider this to be a back-stabbing move (as an SME owner and a free software advocate I know I wouldn't be happy about it)
* It would soak up the energies of the free software movement, drawing our attention away from the true and correct goal of preventing software patents
* It would almost certainly be rejected in the end, but by this time it will have done its damage
I would argue that the creation of a patent assistance fund would be an expensive and likely ineffective solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist. I would further point out that it would still not remove the legal uncertainty (it might reduce the litigation costs but I doubt it would pay in the event that a patent suit is lost - so the risk remains).
Of course, as with all hand-wavy "lets throw money at the problem" ideas, the simplest argument against it might be to ask which hospital they will close in order to pay for it.
Both of these problem scenarios come from the separation of the interests of SMEs from those of free software advocates. We solve the problem by speaking for *all* software developers, free or non-free, and refuse to allow our opponents to create a smokescreen by trying to separate us.
Of course, this discussion may be somewhat moot now since most relevant politicians now agree, or claim to agree with our contention that software patents are generally undesirable. We need to be focus on ensuring that they act on this professed belief when it comes to voting on the directive and/or amendments to the directive (which did not happen at the Council of Ministers).
Ian.