[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy patent-practice-panel.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy patent-practice-panel.html |
|
Date: |
Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:24:28 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 07/06/02 07:24:28
Modified files:
philosophy : patent-practice-panel.html
Log message:
Templated.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/patent-practice-panel.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
Patches:
Index: patent-practice-panel.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/patent-practice-panel.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- patent-practice-panel.html 16 Jun 2006 20:35:07 -0000 1.2
+++ patent-practice-panel.html 2 Jun 2007 07:24:09 -0000 1.3
@@ -1,225 +1,227 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
- "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en">
-
- <head>
- <title>Daniel Ravicher's FFII panel presentation, November 10, 2004 - GNU
Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
- <meta http-equiv="content-type" content='text/html; charset=utf-8' />
- <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/gnu.css" />
- <link rev="made" href="mailto:address@hidden"; />
- </head>
-
- <!-- This document is in XML, and xhtml 1.0 -->
- <!-- Please make sure to properly nest your tags -->
- <!-- and ensure that your final document validates -->
- <!-- consistent with W3C xhtml 1.0 and CSS standards -->
- <!-- See validator.w3.org -->
-
- <body>
-
- <h3>New developments in patent practice: assessing the risks and cost of
- portfolio licensing and hold-ups</h3>
-
- <p>
- by Daniel B. Ravicher
- </p>
-
- <p>
- <a href="/graphics/philosophicalgnu.html"><img
src="/graphics/philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg" alt="" width="160" height="200" /></a>
- </p>
-
- <p><em> This is a transcript of a panel presentation given by Daniel B.
- Ravicher as the executive director of the Public Patent Foundation on
- Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at a conference organized by the
Foundation
- for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) in Brussels, Belgium. The
- transcription was done by Aendrew Rininsland. </em></p>
-
- <p>Thanks. I think, for me, the whole two days of conferences boils to
- really one question, and the whole debate boils down to one question:
- “How do we want success in the software industry to be
- determined?”
- </p>
-
- <p>
- Or, another way, who do we want to determine those who succeed and those
- who fail in the software industry? Because there are various people who
- can make this decision. We can have bureaucrats make the decision about
- who wins and who fails, or we can let consumers make the decision about
- who wins and who fails. If we want software to succeed because we want it
- to succeed on its merits and be the best software that the public can
- have, it's more likely we want a system that lets consumers and end-users
- make the decision about which software is selected — not
- bureaucrats.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- Now, what does that have to do with patents? The larger you make a patent
- system, the more you allow the patent system to impact software, and the
more
- you're allowing success in the software industry to be determined by
- patent-based bureaucrats, those who can take advantage of the
bureaucracy which
- grants and resolves disputes regarding patent rights. It's a bureaucratic
- competition, not one based on the decision of consumers. That means it's
less
- likely for the merits to be determinative of what software succeeds.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- We have to recognize that even without software patents, large
developers have
- intrinsic advantages over small developers. Large developers have the
- resources, large developers have the relationships, large developers
have the
- distribution channels, large developers have the brand. So even without
- software patents, large developers are still at an advantage —
they start
- out at an advantage. Well, then, the next question to me is, “If
we have
- software patents, does that increase the advantage of large developers or
- decrease it?”, because the patent system could benefit small
developers
- and therefore that could erode some of the naturally existing benefits
that
- large corporations have.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- I think that point's been belaboured already. We know that small
developers are
- not benefited by a patent system, in fact, they are prejudiced by a
patent
- system. So, enlarging a patent system to apply to software development
only
- enlarges the disadvantage small developers have in competition. Again,
it comes
- back: Who do we want to make the decision about which software developers
- succeed, do we want consumers, based on merits and functionality and
price, or
- bureaucrats, based on whom patents are granted to and who wins patent
- infringement cases?
- </p>
-
- <p>
- The other thing we need to recognize is whether or not the patent system
has a
- preference for users of certain types of software. A patent system as we
have
- in the United States benefits those under a software distribution scheme
which
- allows them to charge royalties. This is because all software has to
deal with
- the risk of infringing on patents. Patents don't discriminate between
- open-source or freely licensed software and proprietary software: a
patent
- covers certain technology, it doesn't matter how the software's
distributed.
- But proprietary software is licensed with a fee so the cost of that risk
can be
- passed on to the consumer without them recognizing it. They don't see
it, it's
- baked into the price of the software they're buying and if you were to
ask a
- consumer if they've bought insurance against being sued for patent
- infringement, they would say they don't believe that have. But in fact
they
- had, because if someone sues a user of Microsoft software, Microsoft has
built
- in the cost of stepping in to defend them from that into the cost of the
- license fee. On the other side, if you have royalty-free distributed
software
- such as open-source or free software, you can't bake in the cost of that
risk
- so it becomes more transparent. And this makes consumers or users think
that
- open-source is in a worse position than proprietary software when it's
actually
- not. It's just because the open-source distribution scheme does not allow
- someone to sneak in the cost of that risk to make it opaque instead of
- transparent. So the patent system not only prefers large developers over
small
- developers, it also prefers users of proprietary software over
open-source
- software.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- If we come back to the initial question, which I think this is all
about, how
- do we want success in the software market to be determined? Do we want
it to be
- determined by these types of factors, or do we want it to be determined
by who
- can get the best software at the best price?
- </p>
-
- <p>
- Now, I think it's important to concede the point that people on the
other side
- will make, which is, will a less-onerous patent system, or they would
call it a
- 'less-beneficial' patent system, I call it less-onerous, will harm their
- business, because people could copy them. Well, large businesses aren't
worried
- about being copied. They really aren't. At least not by other large
businesses,
- this is why they enter into cross-licenses all the time. If a large
company
- really didn't want its software to be copied, why is it licensing its
patent
- portfolio to every other big company in the world? Because it can't stop
them
- from copying it once they enter into that agreement, so this argument
that ,
- “Well, we're worried about people copying our software”, the
most
- likely people to copy your software are other large businesses because
they
- have the resources and the ability and the distribution channels and the
brand
- and the relationships. Why are you letting them copy it? You must not be
that
- worried about it.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- And so the question is, then, does a patent system have a net-beneficial
effect
- or a net-detrimental effect on software development? I think we've seen
already
- it only decreases the ability for open-source or royalty-free license
software
- to compete with proprietary software. In the end you have to ask, is less
- competition beneficial for the software industry? I don't know what
Europeans
- think about that, I think Europeans are very pro-competition and I know
us on
- the other side of the Atlantic are very pro-competition as well, and so
the
- answer is never less competition is better for consumers. And so I think
as we
- bring the point home, if we had two seconds in an elevator to pitch this
idea
- to someone, software patents have a net-negative effect on competition
in the
- software industry. True, they may increase competition in some ways, but
the
- net-effect is anti-competitive. And that's what putting the ability to
decide
- success in the software industry in the hands of the patent office or in
hands
- of the courts does. If you need examples, if people think that's just
rhetoric
- or your opinion, just point to the United States. Microsoft is a very
- successful software company, I don't think anyone would debate that.
They've
- never had to sue anyone for patent infringement. So they claim they need
- patents, but yet they've never had to use them. They cross-license them
and
- that's where we wonder, 'If you're worried about people copying, then
why are
- you cross-licensing them to people?'.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- You know, the last point is, who else does a patent system benefit? If it
- benefits large developers over small developers, is there anyone else? A
patent
- system benefits non-developers. Do we really want a bureaucratic system
that
- helps people who aren't adding anything to society? What I mean by
- non-developers are trolls — which everyone here is familiar with
—
- people who get a patent either by applying for it or acquiring it in
some asset
- purchase and then use it to tax other developers, other distributors of a
- product.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- Do we really want a system which encourages people to not add products or
- services to the market place but only detracts from the profits and
- capabilities of those that do?
- </p>
-
- <hr />
- <h4><a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a></h4>
- <hr />
-
- <div class="copyright">
-
- <p>
- Return to the <a href="/home.html">GNU Project home page</a>.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
-
href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>. There are also <a
-
href="http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html";>other ways to contact</a>
- the FSF.
- <br />
- Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
-
- <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- Please see the
- <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
- README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
- translations of this article.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- Copyright © 2006 Daniel B. Ravicher
- <br />
- Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
- permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- Updated:
- <!-- timestamp start -->
- $Date: 2006/06/16 20:35:07 $ $Author: johnsu01 $
- <!-- timestamp end -->
- </p>
- </div>
-
- </body>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<title>Daniel Ravicher's FFII panel presentation, November 10, 2004 - GNU
Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>New developments in patent practice: assessing the risks and cost of
portfolio licensing and hold-ups</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Daniel B. Ravicher</strong></p>
+
+<p><em>This is a transcript of a panel presentation given by Daniel B.
+Ravicher as the executive director of the Public Patent Foundation on
+Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at a conference organized by the
+Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) in Brussels,
+Belgium. The transcription was done by Aendrew Rininsland.</em></p>
+
+<p>Thanks. I think, for me, the whole two days of conferences boils to
+really one question, and the whole debate boils down to one question:
+“How do we want success in the software industry to be
+determined?”
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Or, another way, who do we want to determine those who succeed and
+those who fail in the software industry? Because there are various
+people who can make this decision. We can have bureaucrats make the
+decision about who wins and who fails, or we can let consumers make
+the decision about who wins and who fails. If we want software to
+succeed because we want it to succeed on its merits and be the best
+software that the public can have, it's more likely we want a system
+that lets consumers and end-users make the decision about which
+software is selected — not bureaucrats.
+</p>
+
+<p> Now, what does that have to do with patents? The larger you make a
+patent system, the more you allow the patent system to impact
+software, and the more you're allowing success in the software
+industry to be determined by patent-based bureaucrats, those who can
+take advantage of the bureaucracy which grants and resolves disputes
+regarding patent rights. It's a bureaucratic competition, not one
+based on the decision of consumers. That means it's less likely for
+the merits to be determinative of what software succeeds.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+We have to recognize that even without software patents, large
+developers have intrinsic advantages over small developers. Large
+developers have the resources, large developers have the
+relationships, large developers have the distribution channels, large
+developers have the brand. So even without software patents, large
+developers are still at an advantage — they start out at an
+advantage. Well, then, the next question to me is, “If we have
+software patents, does that increase the advantage of large developers
+or decrease it?”, because the patent system could benefit small
+developers and therefore that could erode some of the naturally
+existing benefits that large corporations have.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+I think that point's been belaboured already. We know that small
+developers are not benefited by a patent system, in fact, they are
+prejudiced by a patent system. So, enlarging a patent system to apply
+to software development only enlarges the disadvantage small
+developers have in competition. Again, it comes back: Who do we want
+to make the decision about which software developers succeed, do we
+want consumers, based on merits and functionality and price, or
+bureaucrats, based on whom patents are granted to and who wins patent
+infringement cases?
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The other thing we need to recognize is whether or not the patent
+system has a preference for users of certain types of software. A
+patent system as we have in the United States benefits those under a
+software distribution scheme which allows them to charge
+royalties. This is because all software has to deal with the risk of
+infringing on patents. Patents don't discriminate between open-source
+or freely licensed software and proprietary software: a patent covers
+certain technology, it doesn't matter how the software's distributed.
+But proprietary software is licensed with a fee so the cost of that
+risk can be passed on to the consumer without them recognizing
+it. They don't see it, it's baked into the price of the software
+they're buying and if you were to ask a consumer if they've bought
+insurance against being sued for patent infringement, they would say
+they don't believe that have. But in fact they had, because if someone
+sues a user of Microsoft software, Microsoft has built in the cost of
+stepping in to defend them from that into the cost of the license
+fee. On the other side, if you have royalty-free distributed software
+such as open-source or free software, you can't bake in the cost of
+that risk so it becomes more transparent. And this makes consumers or
+users think that open-source is in a worse position than proprietary
+software when it's actually not. It's just because the open-source
+distribution scheme does not allow someone to sneak in the cost of
+that risk to make it opaque instead of transparent. So the patent
+system not only prefers large developers over small developers, it
+also prefers users of proprietary software over open-source software.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+If we come back to the initial question, which I think this is all
+about, how do we want success in the software market to be determined?
+Do we want it to be determined by these types of factors, or do we
+want it to be determined by who can get the best software at the best
+price?
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Now, I think it's important to concede the point that people on the
+other side will make, which is, will a less-onerous patent system, or
+they would call it a ‘less-beneficial’ patent system, I
+call it less-onerous, will harm their business, because people could
+copy them. Well, large businesses aren't worried about being
+copied. They really aren't. At least not by other large businesses,
+this is why they enter into cross-licenses all the time. If a large
+company really didn't want its software to be copied, why is it
+licensing its patent portfolio to every other big company in the
+world? Because it can't stop them from copying it once they enter into
+that agreement, so this argument that , “Well, we're worried
+about people copying our software”, the most likely people to
+copy your software are other large businesses because they have the
+resources and the ability and the distribution channels and the brand
+and the relationships. Why are you letting them copy it? You must not
+be that worried about it.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+And so the question is, then, does a patent system have a
+net-beneficial effect or a net-detrimental effect on software
+development? I think we've seen already it only decreases the ability
+for open-source or royalty-free license software to compete with
+proprietary software. In the end you have to ask, is less competition
+beneficial for the software industry? I don't know what Europeans
+think about that, I think Europeans are very pro-competition and I
+know us on the other side of the Atlantic are very pro-competition as
+well, and so the answer is never less competition is better for
+consumers. And so I think as we bring the point home, if we had two
+seconds in an elevator to pitch this idea to someone, software patents
+have a net-negative effect on competition in the software
+industry. True, they may increase competition in some ways, but the
+net-effect is anti-competitive. And that's what putting the ability to
+decide success in the software industry in the hands of the patent
+office or in hands of the courts does. If you need examples, if people
+think that's just rhetoric or your opinion, just point to the United
+States. Microsoft is a very successful software company, I don't think
+anyone would debate that. They've never had to sue anyone for patent
+infringement. So they claim they need patents, but yet they've never
+had to use them. They cross-license them and that's where we wonder,
+‘If you're worried about people copying, then why are you
+cross-licensing them to people?’.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+You know, the last point is, who else does a patent system benefit? If
+it benefits large developers over small developers, is there anyone
+else? A patent system benefits non-developers. Do we really want a
+bureaucratic system that helps people who aren't adding anything to
+society? What I mean by non-developers are trolls — which
+everyone here is familiar with — people who get a patent either
+by applying for it or acquiring it in some asset purchase and then use
+it to tax other developers, other distributors of a product.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Do we really want a system which encourages people to not add products
+or services to the market place but only detracts from the profits and
+capabilities of those that do?
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Please see the
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 2006 Daniel B. Ravicher
+<br />
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2007/06/02 07:24:09 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is German. -->
+<!-- Write the language name in its own language (Deutsch) in the text. -->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
+<!-- - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!-- - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right, cf. -->
+<!-- <URL:http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm> -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/patent-practice-panel.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
</html>
-
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy patent-practice-panel.html,
Yavor Doganov <=