[Fsfe-ie] 1page summary to MEPs (new 2 page format)
adelaney at cs.may.ie
Fri Aug 22 15:22:39 CEST 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I like the majority of this document. Especially your logic on why it is
reasonable to vote the whole proposal down. I would advise removing the
sentance about SCO as it is quite reasonable to interpret their situation as
being an aggreived party (though you, I and Linux know that "they're smoking
In general I feel that the last three paragraphs could benifit mre from
editing than the rest of the document. That is to say that I think the
standard of writing is better in the rest of the document.
Trying to reduce the damage:
Most pro-patent Europeans say we will be stricter about handing out patents,
and that this will lessen the problem. (We'll ignore the implied
acknowledgment that patents cause problems) They don't explain why we would
hand out fewer patents.
* This, I think, has to be explained with references to the WIPO.
A patent is an asset that can be created without raw materials, countries
that hand out the most patents will reap the most rewards.
* I think we have to re-enforce the point that you make about considering
* the software _using_ industry here. In simpler language.
Also, patent offices get revenue from the applications they approve, not the
ones they reject. There is no incentive to consider the affect that
restricting use of the technology will have on the european market as a
* One could mention that most of the recent telecoms advances VOIP etc..
* are because of interoperability and because of patent-free technology.
* And have been paid for by governments i.e us the users/taxpayer (eg: DARPA,
* I know the telecoms market pretty well and I think I know what they want.
* I'll try to explain it here - it's probably not an arguement against
* patents, but at least you'll know what the telcos want.
In telecoms, delivery of a new service a month before compeditors can earn
10's of millions. This is the case if you are talking about a telco the size
of Deutsche Telekom, France telecom or BT.
Introducing a new service based on a propritery protocol can earn millions
for as long as the other telcos can't interoperate with it (and have to pay
you money). It's worth it for BT to pay Ericsson a hefty sum for a new SMS
over fiber compression protocol.
Though I can't offer facts or figures (there are none available) I believe
that the telcos want patents purely to extend the periods that they are
making current short term gains. This will be a lose situation for the
Collaboration and quality:
* This arguement should be phrased better, maybe with reference to the fact
that lone developers (me and you) will not be able to collaborate in the
largest multi-ethnic project on Earth (the Linux kernel) as the legal
overhead of patent lookups is too high. Again this is a problem for software
_using_ industry as opposed to the _producing_ industry. Though in Free
Software the _using_ and _producing_ industries are the same.
If anyone has both the right and the need to study the code and be assured of
its correct functioning, it is users.
-- Whitfield Diffie
Checksums of bad data tell you only: "yup, that's exactly the same
bad data the other guy has"
-- Tom Lord
gpg key: http://minds.cs.may.ie/~balor/public_key.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the FSFE-IE