[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy stallman-mec-india.html
|
From: |
Dora Scilipoti |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy stallman-mec-india.html |
|
Date: |
Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:54:38 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Dora Scilipoti <dora> 12/02/14 14:54:38
Modified files:
philosophy : stallman-mec-india.html
Log message:
Some fixes as per www-discuss/2012/007564.html
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.16&r2=1.17
Patches:
Index: stallman-mec-india.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html,v
retrieving revision 1.16
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -b -r1.16 -r1.17
--- stallman-mec-india.html 7 Feb 2012 05:30:00 -0000 1.16
+++ stallman-mec-india.html 14 Feb 2012 14:54:00 -0000 1.17
@@ -2,8 +2,7 @@
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.65 -->
<title>Stallman's Speech at Model Engineering College About Software Patent
-Dangers
-- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+Dangers - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/stallman-mec-india.translist" -->
@@ -254,7 +253,7 @@
what they prohibit you from doing. Practically speaking though, once
there are software patents there are so many of them that you can't
keep up with them. In the US there are over a hundred thousand of
-them; may be two hundred thousand by now. This is just an estimate.
+them; maybe two hundred thousand by now. This is just an estimate.
I know that 10 years ago they were issuing 10,000 a year and I believe
that it has accelerated since then. So it's too much for you to keep
track of them unless that's your full-time job. Now you can try to
@@ -263,7 +262,7 @@
links, you'll find some patents that are relevant to what you're doing.
You won't find them <em>all</em>.</p>
-<p> Now, a few years ago somebody had a US patent — may be it's
+<p> Now, a few years ago somebody had a US patent — maybe it's
expired by now — on natural order recalculation in spreadsheets.
Now, what does this mean? It means the original spreadsheets did the
recalculation always from top to bottom. Which meant that if a cell
@@ -314,7 +313,7 @@
to understand. You are going to have to work with a lawyer to do it.</p>
<p> In the 1980's the Australian government commissioned a study of
-the patent system. The patent system in general, not software patents.
+the patent system — the patent system in general, not software patents.
This study concluded that Australia would be better off abolishing the
patent system because it did very little good for society and caused a lot
of trouble. The only reason they didn't recommend that was international
@@ -432,11 +431,9 @@
may be very bad.</p>
<p> Of course, sometimes a patent is so broad that it's impossible to
-avoid it.</p>
-
-<p> Public key encryption is essential for computer users to have privacy.
-The whole field was patented. That patent expired just four years ago;
-there could be no free software in the US for public key encryption,
+avoid it. Public key encryption is essential for computer users to have
+privacy. The whole field was patented. That patent expired just four years
+ago; there could be no free software in the US for public key encryption,
until then: many programs, both free and nonfree, were wiped out by the
patent holders. And in fact that whole area of computing was held back
for more than a decade despite strong interest.</p>
@@ -645,8 +642,8 @@
<p> Now, these are your possible options. At this point, of course, you
have to write the program. And there, the problem is that you face this
situation not just once but over and over and over, because programs today
-are complicated. Look at a word processor; you'll see a lot of features.
-Many different things, each of which could be patented by somebody, or a
+are complicated. Look at a word processor; you'll see a lot of features,
+many different things, each of which could be patented by somebody, or a
combination of two of them could be patented by somebody. British Telecom
has a patent in the US on the combination of following hypertext links
and letting the user dial up through a phone line. Now these are two
@@ -986,12 +983,12 @@
All of the German political parties have taken a stand against software
patents.</p>
-<p> The battle is not yet over, you know, we have not conclusively
+<p> The battle is not yet over, you know. We have not conclusively
blocked software patents in Europe, because the multinational companies
and their servant, the United States government, is lobbying very hard,
and they have ignorance on their side. It's so easy for somebody with
a naive neo-liberal view to be persuaded that a new kind of monopoly
-has to be good.</p>
+has to be good!</p>
<p> You have to look at the details of how software patents affect
software development to see that they cause a problem. You have to
@@ -1023,7 +1020,7 @@
software patents.</p>
<p> So, yes it is important that each country has its own patent law.
-That makes big difference, but you've got to understand what difference
+That makes a big difference, but you've got to understand what difference
it makes. Having software patents in a certain country is not an
advantage for the developers in that country. It's a problem for anybody
distributing and using software in that country.</p>
@@ -1141,7 +1138,7 @@
<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, you said that companies like IBM are harmed
about 10 times as much as they benefit?</dt>
- <dd><b>A</b>: No. What I said is the harm that would had happened to
+ <dd><b>A</b>: No. What I said is the harm that would have happened to
them is 10 times the benefit, but this harm is purely theoretical,
it doesn't occur. You see, they avoid it through cross-licensing.
So in fact, the harm does not happen.</dd>
@@ -1157,11 +1154,11 @@
<dt><b>Q</b>: But for that something will oppose this movement against
patents?</dt>
- <dd><b>A</b>: Right, IBM favors software patents. I had trouble one,
- I couldn't hear all the words in your sentence. I don't know whether
- there was a ‘not’ in it. I couldn't tell, there are two
- diametrically opposite meanings for what you just said, so what you can
- do is make sure that the situation is clear. IBM favors software
+ <dd><b>A</b>: Right, IBM favors software patents. I had with trouble
+ one, I couldn't hear all the words in your sentence. I don't know
+ whether there was a ‘not’ in it. I couldn't tell, there are
+ two diametrically opposite meanings for what you just said, so what you
+ can do is make sure that the situation is clear. IBM favors software
patents, IBM thinks it stands to gain a lot from software patents. So
what it stands to gain is that the IBM and the other very big companies
would basically control software development, because it will be very
@@ -1298,14 +1295,15 @@
<dd><b>A</b>: As I said at the beginning, it is foolish to even
think about that topic. That topic is an overgeneralization. It lumps
together totally different things like copyrights and patents, and so any
- opinion about "intellectual property" is a foolish one. I don't have an
- opinion about intellectual property, I have opinions about copyrights,
- and I have completely different opinions about patents, and even in the
- area of patents, you know, I have different opinions in different fields.
- Even that area is a big area. And then there are trademarks which are
- also "intellectual property"; I think trademarks are basically a good
- idea. The US has taken trademarks all little too far but, basically it
- is reasonable to have labels that you can rely on.
+ opinion about “intellectual property” is a foolish one. I
+ don't have an opinion about intellectual property, I have opinions about
+ copyrights, and I have completely different opinions about patents, and
+ even in the area of patents, you know, I have different opinions in
+ different fields. Even that area is a big area. And then there are
+ trademarks which are also “intellectual property”; I think
+ trademarks are basically a good idea. The US has taken trademarks all
+ little too far but, basically it is reasonable to have labels that you
+ can rely on.
<p> So you shouldn't try to have an opinion about intellectual property.
If you are thinking about intellectual property, you are thinking at a
@@ -1339,7 +1337,7 @@
physical property rights, they are totally different. What do you say
extend “this concept”? Which is “this concept”?
The idea that the term “intellectual property” is a
- generalization that leads you into simplistic thinking. Should we apply
+ generalization that leads you into simplistic thinking, should we apply
that to physical property? No, they are totally different. They have
nothing in common.</dd>
@@ -1348,7 +1346,7 @@
labor”?</dt>
<dd><b>A</b>: No! No, you are totally wrong, you are totally wrong.
- The purpose of you have been brainwashed, you have been listening to
+ The purpose of… You have been brainwashed, you have been listening to
the propaganda of the companies that want to have these monopolies.
If you ask what legal scholars say is the basis of these systems,
they say that they are attempts — for copyrights and for patents
@@ -1959,13 +1957,13 @@
<dt><b>Q</b>: Other programming environments, other operating
systems.</dt>
- <dd><b>A</b>: Well may be there are some users developing some free
+ <dd><b>A</b>: Well maybe there are some users developing some free
software that runs on Windows, in fact I'm sure there are…
<p><em>Note: At this point, there was a short blackout, and both the
recording and the transcript is incomplete here.</em></p></dd>
- <dd><b>A</b>: Well, may be there, are there anymore questions? Could you
+ <dd><b>A</b>: Well, maybe there, are there anymore questions? Could you
speak louder? I can't hear you at all.</dd>
<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir may I ask you a question?</dt>
@@ -2125,7 +2123,7 @@
<p> Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/02/07 05:30:00 $
+$Date: 2012/02/14 14:54:00 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>