[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy software-literary-patents.html
|
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy software-literary-patents.html |
|
Date: |
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:55:06 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 09/06/25 00:55:06
Modified files:
philosophy : software-literary-patents.html
Log message:
Remove the parts specifically about the EU directive, to make it
general.
Don't talk about "infringing" patents, because that presumes the
patent is valid. Instead talk about whether the patent appears to
apply to a certain text.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16
Patches:
Index: software-literary-patents.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -b -r1.15 -r1.16
--- software-literary-patents.html 18 Sep 2008 15:12:49 -0000 1.15
+++ software-literary-patents.html 25 Jun 2009 00:54:40 -0000 1.16
@@ -15,46 +15,39 @@
<p>by <strong><a href="http://stallman.org/";>Richard Stallman</a></strong></p>
<p>
-<em>This article was first published in <cite>The Guardian</cite>, of
-London, on June 20, 2005. The software patent directive was voted
-down, on July 6, because its supporters decided at the last minute not
-to try their strength. They will surely try again, in not quite the
-same way.</em></p>
-
-<p>
-On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital
-question of whether to allow patents covering software—a policy
-that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers
-up in knots.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Many politicians may be voting blind; not being programmers, they
-don't understand what software patents do. They often think patents
-are similar to copyright law (except for some details)—which is
-not the case. For instance, when I publicly asked Patrick Devedjian,
-then Minister for Industry, how France would vote on the issue of
-software patents, Devedjian responded with an impassioned defense of
-copyright law, praising Victor Hugo for his role in the adoption of
-copyright. (The misleading term <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">
-“intellectual property”</a>, promotes this
-confusion—one reason it should never be used.)
+<em>A version of this article was first published in <cite>The
+Guardian</cite>, of London, on June 20, 2005. It focused on the
+proposed European software patent directive.</em></p>
+
+<p>
+When politicians consider the question of software patents, they are
+usually voting blind; not being programmers, they don't understand
+what software patents really do. They often think patents are similar
+to copyright law (“except for some details”)—which
+is not the case. For instance, when I publicly asked Patrick
+Devedjian, then Minister for Industry in France, how France would vote
+on the issue of software patents, Devedjian responded with an
+impassioned defense of copyright law, praising Victor Hugo for his
+role in the adoption of copyright. (The misleading
+term <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> “intellectual
+property”</a>, promotes this confusion—one reason it
+should never be used.)
</p>
<p>
-Those who imagine effects like those of copyright law cannot
-grasp the real effects of software patents. We can use Victor Hugo as
-an example to illustrate the difference.
+Those who imagine effects like those of copyright law cannot grasp the
+disastrous effects of software patents. We can use Victor Hugo as an
+example to illustrate the difference.
</p>
<p>
A novel and a modern complex program have certain points in common:
-each one is large, and implements many ideas. So let's follow the
-analogy, and suppose that patent law had been applied to novels in the
-1800s; suppose that states such as France had permitted the patenting
-of literary ideas. How would this have affected Victor Hugo's
-writing? How would the effects of literary patents compare with the
-effects of literary copyright?
+each one is large, and implements many ideas in combination. So let's
+follow the analogy, and suppose that patent law had been applied to
+novels in the 1800s; suppose that states such as France had permitted
+the patenting of literary ideas. How would this have affected Victor
+Hugo's writing? How would the effects of literary patents compare
+with the effects of literary copyright?
</p>
<p>
@@ -62,9 +55,9 @@
wrote it, the copyright belonged only to him—nobody else. He
did not have to fear that some stranger could sue him for copyright
infringement and win. That was impossible, because copyright covers
-only the details of a work of authorship, and it only restricts
-copying. Hugo had not copied Les Misérables, so he was not in
-danger.
+only the details of a work of authorship, not the ideas embodied in
+them, and it only restricts copying. Hugo had not copied Les
+Misérables, so he was not in danger from copyright.
</p>
<p>
@@ -88,10 +81,11 @@
<p>
If such a patent had existed in 1862 when Les Misérables was
-published, the novel would have infringed all three claims, since all
-these things happened to Jean Valjean in the novel. Victor Hugo could
-have been sued, and if sued, he would have lost. The novel could have
-been prohibited—in effect, censored—by the patent holder.
+published, the novel would have conflicted with all three claims,
+since all these things happened to Jean Valjean in the novel. Victor
+Hugo could have been sued, and if sued, he would have lost. The novel
+could have been prohibited—in effect, censored—by the
+patent holder.
</p>
<p>
@@ -105,9 +99,9 @@
</ul>
<p>
-Les Misérables would have infringed that patent too, because
-this description too fits the life story of Jean Valjean. And here's
-another hypothetical patent:
+Les Misérables would have been prohibited by that patent too,
+because this description too fits the life story of Jean Valjean. And
+here's another hypothetical patent:
</p>
<ul>
@@ -117,7 +111,7 @@
</ul>
<p>
-Jean Valjean would have infringed this patent too.
+Jean Valjean would have been forbidden by this patent too.
</p>
<p>
@@ -129,7 +123,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-The novel would also have infringed this patent,
+This patent also could have violated this patent,
</p>
<ul>
@@ -166,7 +160,7 @@
<p>
However, a very broad patent could have made all these issues
-irrelevant. Imagine patents with broad claims like these:
+irrelevant. Imagine a patent with broad claims like these:
</p>
<ul>
@@ -187,7 +181,7 @@
patents follow the real patent system, these patent holders would not
have had to write novels, or stories, or anything—except patent
applications. Patent parasite companies, businesses that produce
-nothing except threats and lawsuits, are growing larger today.</p>
+nothing except threats and lawsuits, are booming nowadays.</p>
<p> Given these broad patents, Victor Hugo would not have reached
the point of asking what patents might get him sued for using the
@@ -198,54 +192,27 @@
do. Software patents cover features, such as defining abbreviations in
a word processor, or natural order recalculation in a spreadsheet.
Patents cover algorithms that programs need to use. Patents cover
-aspects of file formats, such as Microsoft's new formats for Word
-files. MPEG 2 video format is covered by 39 different US patents.</p>
+aspects of file formats, such as Microsoft's OOXML format. MPEG 2
+video format is covered by 39 different US patents.</p>
-<p>Just as one novel could infringe many different literary patents at
-once, one program can infringe many different patents at once. It is
-so much work to identify all the patents infringed by a large program
-that only one such study has been done. A 2004 study of Linux, the
-kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, found it infringed 283
-different US software patents. That is to say, each of these 283
-different patents covers some computational process found somewhere in
-the thousands of pages of source code of Linux.</p>
-
-<p>The text of the directive approved by the Council of Ministers
-clearly authorizes patents covering software techniques.
-(See <a
href="http://eupat.ffii.org/xatra/cons0406/text/index.en.html";>http://eupat.ffii.org/xatra/cons0406/text/index.en.html</a>.)
-Its backers claim that the requirement for patents to have a
-“technical character” will exclude software patents, but
-it will not. It is easy to describe a computer program in a
-“technical” way: The Boards of Appeal of the European
-Patent Office said (Case T 0258/03;
-<a
href="http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t030258ex1.pdf";>http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t030258ex1.pdf</a>):</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-<p>
- The Board is aware that its comparatively broad interpretation of
- the term “invention” in Article 52(1) EPC will include
- activities which are so familiar that their technical character
- tends to be overlooked, such as the act of writing using pen and
- paper.
-</p>
-</blockquote>
-
-<p> Any usable software can be “loaded and executed in a
-computer, programmed computer network or other programmable
-apparatus” in order to do its job, which is the criterion in
-article 5(2) of the directive for patents to prohibit even the
-publication of programs
-(<a
href="http://eupat.ffii.org/papri/europarl0309/cons0401/tab/index.en.html";>http://eupat.ffii.org/papri/europarl0309/cons0401/tab/index.en.html</a>).
-</p>
+<p>Just as one novel could run afoul of many different literary patents at
+once, one program can be prohibited by many different patents at once.
+It is so much work to identify all the patents that appear to apply
+to a large program that only one such study has been done. A 2004 study of
+Linux, the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, found 283
+different US software patents that seemed to cover it. That is to
+say, each of these 283 different patents forbids some computational
+process found somewhere in the thousands of pages of source code of
+Linux. And Linux was less than one percent of the GNU/Linux system.</p>
<p>
The way to prevent software patents from bollixing software
-development is simple: don't authorize them. In the first reading, in
-2003, the European Parliament adopted the necessary amendments to
-exclude software patents, but the Council of Ministers reversed the
-decision. Citizens of the EU should phone their MEPs without delay,
-urging them to sustain the parliament's previous decision in the
-second reading of the directive.
+development is simple: don't authorize them. This ought to be easy,
+since most patent laws have provisions against software patents. They
+typically say that “software per se” cannot be patented.
+But patent offices around the world are trying to twist the words and
+issuing patents on the ideas implemented in programs. Unless this is
+blocked, the result will be to put all software developers in danger.
</p>
<!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general, -->
@@ -287,7 +254,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2008/09/18 15:12:49 $
+$Date: 2009/06/25 00:54:40 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/philosophy software-literary-patents.html,
Richard M. Stallman <=