Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Patented videoshop opens in Wales

[Ramanan Selvaratnam]

On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 19:55, Kevin Donnelly wrote:
> On Friday 05 December 2003 6:14 pm, Marco Schulze wrote:
> > The propriatery formats are pushed into the market

Is a propietary format exclusively a patented one?

>  by powerful
> > monopolists. They establish a "secret language" and exclude everyone
> > they want. That's creating a monopoly on information itself as they can
> > decide who is allowed to read/write!
> 
> Yes, I understand this point (though you could argue that Sperry-Rand did not 
> compel anyone to use gifs, and Fraunhofer had a format without a market until 
> around 1998), but I'm just trying to get a handle on how best to put the 
> argument where formats are concerned.

I think the description of the multiple patents on MPEGn format in the
RMS speech on dangers of software patents  (transcripts are on the GNU
website) is a good one. There is a good hypothetical argument
culminating in a question:"what happens when the 21st patent holder
comes by demanding the 5% patent charge" or similar.
Although this is about mutiple patents imho it is a good point to
illustrate how patents on formats and other software patents are based
on one common thing ... greedy stupid selfish useless misled few.

> 
> I have put the above argument to people, and it's just too vague.  The usual 
> response I get is that people spent time and money to develop these formats,

One has to be careful to be specific. If anyone refers to 'people' we
have to make them care about this issue and ask them to breakdown not in
street instead the definition of people :) and scrutinise what is
happenning with our future.
Programmers develop programs/software. Lawyers develop laws/legislature.
Who are the other 'people' and why are they interested so much?

> they're (currently) allowing users to use them for free, so what's the 
> problem? 
OK, then it must  be  made clear that they are referring to cost being free.
The argument should be kept within the realm of free attitude to
software. Making people appreciate the need for freedoms in software is
the way forward.


> Can someone summarise the pithy points here?  Ideally in terms that will make 
> the man in the street think about his pocket.  
Lets make them think about  his/her freedoms first.

> I tend to think the real nub is not the formats themselves, or who owns them, 
> or what their motives are/may be, but the proposed prohibition on 
> reverse-engineering something similar that produces the same result, leading 
> to decreased competition, leading to less choice and higher prices.  For 
> example, suppose someone had patented the idea of cars having 4 wheels, for 
> instance - most of us would be going around in 3 or 6 wheelers (cars are a 
> good analogue, because most people have one - see also 
> http://www.kyfieithu.co.uk/item.php?lg=en&item_id=32).

This argument is good to highlight the copyleft but not software
patents. 
The first reason is the manufacturing process of a car is going to
confuse everyone. 
Car manufacture is done with high iniital costs with patents applying to
different reasons than in software manufacture, which is done even in my
rickety old machine.
The processes and concepts in question can easily be seen to be very
different. What is being patented are very different things.
A good analogy will be w.r.t to music.
[www.coolscience.co.uk] has some good material on this.

Best regards,

Ramanan 

> 
> This suggests that the page should be changed to make it clear that it is not 
> the formats themselves, but the possibility of being forced to use them and 
> only them that is the key objection.  However, I may be barking up the wrong 
> tree here, so I would welcome comments.