Re: [Fsfe-uk] Arlene McCarty on software patents

[Robin Green]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:25:34PM +0100, Nick Hill wrote:
> Any input about elements to include, and references, 
> are welcome.

Oops, one more thing: practical examples.

Red Hat have decided not to include either any MP3 *playback*
(let alone encoders) in their distros (e.g. Red Hat 9) because
of patent fears. Namely, the owner of a patent which covers MP3
decided to start charging for decoders, when previously they 
had only charged for encoders.

They don't even include MPlayer because of intellectual property
rights worries (Worth checking up on whether patent concerns
are involved at all in that, or whether it's just about other
IPR problems.)

No MP3 OR video playback included as standard... that's pretty
significant, I think.

Now, granted, MP3 may not be as unoriginal as Amazon's stupid
One Click Shopping patent. (But few things could be!)

However, those who want to argue against all software patents
musn't be afraid to tackle the harder examples. Software patents
are illegimate because:

 (a) Individually, many of them cover either:
   (i) incremental ideas (by the nature of the computing field), or
   (ii) mathematical algorithms (which it is highly offensive to the
   progress of science to patent), or
   (iii) both
 
 (b) Software patents are not necessary for speeding up innovation.
 In fact, they often retard it. Governments and corporations pay
 millions to MS in economically wasteful license fees, which has
 not been a great promotion of innovation. If just a fraction of
 that money were invested in well-targeted free software R&D, much
 more innovation would result.

-- 
Robin