Hi
A hiberno-english image (of an original danish picture http://www.it-pol.dk/sager/swpat/videoshop) of what you would have to pay for in the new software patented www can be seen at:
http://www.e-xamit.ie/swpat/video.htm
Best Wishes
John Evans
Lovely job, but next time please let the list know if you're going to be doing something. I had half of this done and have a friend translating the screenshot for me, which is time I could have put to better use if I'd known.
adam
-----Original Message----- From: fsfe-ie-bounces@fsfeurope.org [mailto:fsfe-ie-bounces@fsfeurope.org]On Behalf Of John Evans Sent: 05 December 2003 00:34 To: fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org Subject: [Fsfe-ie] Videoshop Mark 2
Hi
A hiberno-english image (of an original danish picture http://www.it-pol.dk/sager/swpat/videoshop) of what you would have to pay for in the new software patented www can be seen at:
http://www.e-xamit.ie/swpat/video.htm
Best Wishes
John Evans
Fsfe-ie mailing list Fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
John Evans wrote:
A hiberno-english image (of an original danish picture http://www.it-pol.dk/sager/swpat/videoshop) of what you would have to pay for in the new software patented www can be seen at:
Good work, but I think we need to consider who the target audience is for this. If, as I suspect, the intention is to persuade those not already familiar with the problem of software patents, I think a more dramatic approach might be productive.
Here is my crazy suggestion (and no, I am afraid I don't have time to implement it - but I am hoping that someone else might):
Text could be something like:
"In the debate over software patents, everyone is keen to claim that their proposals will protect innovation.
To test this notion, we decided to examine the case of an imaginary innovator keen to set up a video library on the Internet. He has created his website, but you, as his Intellectual Property lawyer must now take a look at it to ensure that he isn't infringing any software patents:
We then have the same picture of website, but with no numbers. When mouse is moved over different parts of the screen there is an unpleasant "crashing" noise and a red circle with a line through it appears along with some text explaining why that part of the site could not be implemented without infringing a patent (this should be doable with Flash or Javascript). This text should be reasonably verbose and clear - possibly naming the patent holder and explaining in plain English what the patent covers).
This idea isn't complete - but I wanted to put it out there for discussion,
Ian.
John Evans wrote:
I have some additional comments on the existing introductory text. I hope John doesn't see this as a criticism of his translation work, but I think that this is a powerful idea (forcing people to look at patents from the perspective of an innovator whose hands are tied by patents, rather than an innovator who gets rich by coming up with an idea and patenting it), and want to make it as accessible as possible.
If you want to start your own videoshop on the internet there are a few patents you should be aware of.
As per my previous email - I think we need a better introduction to this page. Imagine someone totally unfamiliar with the patent debate. I think we need to make it more narrative:
"Everyone seems keen to protect innovation in the European software industry, so we thought we would take a look at patents from the perspective of an actual innovator. Susan has recognized that there is a gap in the market for an online video store, and she has put together a prototype which you can see below. Her friend, Patrick, who is a patent lawyer, has pointed out that she has infringed a number of patents and may be sued if she actually goes into business. Here are some of the patents she infringes:"
Patents normally cost a certain percentage of turnover (often between 2% and 5% - most expensive if turnover is small).
I don't understand what this whole thing about turnover is about - much simpler just to say "This website infringes the following patents:", I think this whole 2% 5% business is just confusing the issue.
Some companies give discounts on purchase of licenses to several different patents. The patents mentioned below are not owned by the same company, so you can't expect to get volume discount.
Again, this is beside the point and just obscures the real issue, which is that our imaginary innovator could not set up this simple website without infringing 20 patents.
Ian.
Hi Ian,
I don't understand what this whole thing about turnover is about - much simpler just to say "This website infringes the following patents:", I think this whole 2% 5% business is just confusing the issue.
Joe Soap doesn't understand turnover but Joe CEO and his shareholders do, in fact they won't care about much else. Isn't that who this is targetted at? Perhaps we could create another example more suited to consumers, perhaps explaining how patents are tacking a buck or two onto their purchases?
Oh, and if you want crashing sounds when someone mouses over an element on the screenshot, I want the page done in green, with dancing leprechauns and diddley-idle music in the background. And my name in <BLINK> down the bottom for suggesting it all. ;)
adam
adam beecher wrote:
Hi Ian,
I don't understand what this whole thing about turnover is about - much simpler just to say "This website infringes the following patents:", I think this whole 2% 5% business is just confusing the issue.
Joe Soap doesn't understand turnover but Joe CEO and his shareholders do, in fact they won't care about much else. Isn't that who this is targetted at?
I think Joe CEO would respond just as well to "you can get sued if you do that" as to vague arguments about hypothetical percentages of revenue.
Perhaps we could create another example more suited to consumers, perhaps explaining how patents are tacking a buck or two onto their purchases?
Hmmm, again, I think we are making this more complicated than it needs to be by talking about specific and completely imaginary amounts of money and percentages. Lets keep it simple.
Ian.
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:47:18AM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:
"Everyone seems keen to protect innovation in the European software industry, so we thought we would take a look at patents from the perspective of an actual innovator. Susan has recognized that there is a gap in the market for an online video store, and she has put together a prototype which you can see below. Her friend, Patrick, who is a patent lawyer, has pointed out that she has infringed a number of patents and may be sued if she actually goes into business. Here are some of the patents she infringes:"
Small point - I don't think that calling an online video shop "innovative" is a great, it's less innovative than some of the patents we criticise for their lack of innovation.
Can we make it clear that we don't think this is innovative, but similar obstacles would apply. Or we could just change to an example of how ridiculous any sort of web based selling is in patent-land.
F
Fergal Daly wrote:
Small point - I don't think that calling an online video shop "innovative" is a great, it's less innovative than some of the patents we criticise for their lack of innovation.
Can we make it clear that we don't think this is innovative, but similar obstacles would apply. Or we could just change to an example of how ridiculous any sort of web based selling is in patent-land.
It may not be innovative in technology terms, but it could be seen as an innovative business idea if the market was right. For example, E-Bay was not the first online auction site, they weren't really a technology innovator, but few would deny that they are a business innovator, not because they were first, but because they were best.
Ian.
On Friday 05 December 2003 11:06, Ian Clarke wrote:
Can we make it clear that we don't think this is innovative, but similar obstacles would apply. Or we could just change to an example of how ridiculous any sort of web based selling is in patent-land.
It may not be innovative in technology terms, but it could be seen as an innovative business idea if the market was right. For example, E-Bay was not the first online auction site, they weren't really a technology innovator, but few would deny that they are a business innovator, not because they were first, but because they were best.
Yes but but even implying it's an innovative business idea is a no-no when you bring business model patents into the picture. I can't remember if they're also included in the current fight.
Rather than phrasing the whole thing in terms of an innovative business (whterh you can find an innvovative example or not), you may gain more allies by showing how the whole patent quagmire will effectively keep the many already established companies from doing business on the net,
F
Fergal Daly wrote:
On Friday 05 December 2003 11:06, Ian Clarke wrote:
It may not be innovative in technology terms, but it could be seen as an innovative business idea if the market was right. For example, E-Bay was not the first online auction site, they weren't really a technology innovator, but few would deny that they are a business innovator, not because they were first, but because they were best.
Yes but but even implying it's an innovative business idea is a no-no when you bring business model patents into the picture. I can't remember if they're also included in the current fight.
Wait a minute, what are you trying to argue? I am saying that innovators (whether business innovators or technology innovators) are adversely affected by patents. You seem to be going off on a tangent about how someone inventing a video library website isn't an innovation. True or false, it is totally beside the point.
I would rather argue that the fact that someone comes up with a bright idea and files a patent on it doesn't justify software patents. The goal of software patents is to encourage them to come up with the idea in the first place.
Rather than phrasing the whole thing in terms of an innovative business (whterh you can find an innvovative example or not), you may gain more allies by showing how the whole patent quagmire will effectively keep the many already established companies from doing business on the net,
Playing Devil's advocate, established companies are already doing plenty of business on the net, even in countries which enforce software patents, like the US.
Ian.
On Saturday 06 December 2003 02:02, Ian Clarke wrote:
Yes but but even implying it's an innovative business idea is a no-no when
you
bring business model patents into the picture. I can't remember if they're also included in the current fight.
Wait a minute, what are you trying to argue? I am saying that innovators (whether business innovators or technology innovators) are adversely affected by patents. You seem to be going off on a tangent about how someone inventing a video library website isn't an innovation. True or false, it is totally beside the point.
I'm just pointing out (and as I said it's not a very big point) that one of the problems with the patent system as it has applied to software has been the abysmally low standard for what is innovative. We anti-swpat folk mention this a lot and will probably be pointing out just how uninnovative most of the patents effecting our video store owner are. The problem is that some of them could be considered (especially from a non-techie background) marginally more innovative than simply flogging videos over the net. Calling a web video store an "innovation" implies that some of these or some of the other appalling business method patents which take an everyday physical business and webbify it actually are innovations and we wouldn't want to do that.
Playing Devil's advocate, established companies are already doing plenty of business on the net, even in countries which enforce software patents, like the US.
They are but how many of them have quietly settled with bullshit patent companies rather than fight? I have no idea and it'll never be public but I'd say the answer is a resounding "some". Then there's the quite public case of Microsoft and Eolas, there's also the "you could be next" campaign, can't find the site right now but it's a perfect example of small businesses getting the shaft on a nonsense patent. So it's a useful angle with plenty of real live this is happening right now material to work with. Just emphasise that in 10 yers time the web will be awash with "you could be next" companies and that each 1 of the patents on that diagram could be used in this way,
F
Hi,
The screen shot can be used to address a number of different audiences. The content would need repurposing. The metadata can be used effectively to particularise the audience to which the content is to be served.
I've created these two pages; I've pasted in some of the list text to particularise the content
* http://testers.mkdoc.com/hidden-fsfe-ie/patents-bad-jo-coe/
* http://testers.mkdoc.com/hidden-fsfe-ie/patents-bad-consumer/
I've particularised the pages in the following metadata elements
* Audience * Identifier * Description
(I've left the Subject element (keywords) but this is relevant too.)
This metadata can also be used to syndicate the content to other sites also. These sites could particularise the feed they required by filtering the content on these or other metadata elements, such as language
These are example feeds generated by the metadata
http://testers.mkdoc.com/hidden-fsfe-ie/patents-bad-jo-coe/.meta.rdf http://testers.mkdoc.com/hidden-fsfe-ie/patents-bad-jo-coe/.headlines.rss
-- Adam
(I've overused the word 'particularise' above, sorry )
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 00:34, John Evans wrote:
Hi
A hiberno-english image (of an original danish picture http://www.it-pol.dk/sager/swpat/videoshop) of what you would have to pay for in the new software patented www can be seen at:
I was under the impression that the patents on LZW compression (as used in GIFs) and RSA encryption had now expired. If I'm right, I think these should be removed from the diagram.
Also, could you produce a PNG version? This would look nicer and should be viewable by most people.
I'm not sure what to think about the "India" comment at the end. Would some of these patents apply to the client-side software (e.g. Internet Explorer)? If so, maybe your clients (and Microsoft?!) would have to move to India too!
David
I was under the impression that the patents on LZW compression (as used in GIFs) and RSA encryption had now expired. If I'm right, I think these should be removed from the diagram.
LZW has. Not sure about RSA, but I think you might be right.
Also, could you produce a PNG version? This would look nicer and should be viewable by most people.
Aren't there concerns about patents affecting PNG now? Or was that MNG? :)
I'm not sure what to think about the "India" comment at the end. Would some of these patents apply to the client-side software (e.g. Internet Explorer)? If so, maybe your clients (and Microsoft?!) would have to move to India too!
I just don't like the idea of encouraging outsourcing! Stay over there, taking our jobs... :)
adam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 5 Dec 2003 at 15:45, adam beecher wrote:
I was under the impression that the patents on LZW compression (as used in GIFs) and RSA encryption had now expired. If I'm right, I think these should be removed from the diagram.
LZW has. Not sure about RSA, but I think you might be right.
RSA expired in 2000. It was invented in the UK but the Americans patented it and got all the money.
Also, could you produce a PNG version? This would look nicer and should be viewable by most people.
Aren't there concerns about patents affecting PNG now? Or was that MNG? :)
It's getting hard to find an area of technology which /isn't/ affected by a patent! All you can do is work from what patents have actually been enforced, otherwise you couldn't possibly get any work done. And hope that when the lawyer's come calling you don't get caught out first and have an opportunity to backpedel.
I'm not sure what to think about the "India" comment at the end. Would some of these patents apply to the client-side software (e.g. Internet Explorer)? If so, maybe your clients (and Microsoft?!) would have to move to India too!
I just don't like the idea of encouraging outsourcing! Stay over there, taking our jobs... :)
How about some text about the economic inevitability that there'll be no work for computer programmers in the west within 20 years! I just ordered another set of books on the economics of information and so might have a decent bibliography backing me up in future! :)
Cheers, Niall
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
John Evans writes:
Hi
A hiberno-english image (of an original danish picture http://www.it-pol.dk/sager/swpat/videoshop) of what you would have to pay for in the new software patented www can be seen at:
whoa -- I post a link to that on my weblog and now it's all over the place! ;)
- ------- Forwarded Message
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 22:33:04 +0000 From: "Boing Boing Blog" rssfeeds@jmason.org To: jm@jmason.org Subject: eCommerce is 0wned by bogus patents
URL: http://boingboing.net/2003_12_01_archive.html#107066153276770637 Date: 2003-12-05T21:58:52Z
Want to get a sense of just how screwed up the patent system is? Check out this mockup of a simple e-commerce page, which is annotated with the _twenty_ patents it violates.
* 24-kids-scannÃn.ie: Ã domain name. National characters in domain names: EP1159820 * [Action] [Kids] [Drama] [Adventure]: (tabbed pallettes) EP689133 * Picture link - pop-up window: EP0537100 * Watch - Displaying video through the web: EP0933892 * Download film - Displaying video through the web (same as above): EP0933892 * mpeg4-format - Widely used video format for video download: More than 40 patents (herunder DK638218)
Link[1] (_Thanks, Yoz[2]!_)
[1] http://www.e-xamit.ie/swpat/video.htm [2] http://cheerleader.yoz.com/