Conversation
Notices
-
just as a thought experiment, how would people feel about software patents *if* there was *no* software copyright?
- Michael likes this.
-
@douglasawh perhaps we'd be better off without software copyright *or* software patents
-
@laurelrusswurm that was not the question!
-
@douglasawh But it seems that !copyright and #patents are all bound up together making research & innovation more costly in every field...
-
Getting rid of software copyright would knock out GPLv3 which forbids patent aggression or selective granting of patent rights on its code.
-
@douglasawh no net gain in public good. Swpats would just increase in litigation to forbid use of non(c) code.
-
@douglasawh same as now. abolish swpats.
-
@laurelrusswurm well the problem with software specifically is that it is inherently useful (no C in US) but also has t…
-
@laurelrusswurm my point is software is different. You may have meant that in your statement about research but it is a…
-
@eximious so you think keeping it copyright makes sense only because there is no formality? No reason free software adv…
-
@greg but wouldn't patent application by free software devs or consortiums also increase?
-
@douglasawh That doesn't scale down to devs. Patent applications require funds and legal proficiency.
-
@douglasawh applying for [sw]patents is non-trivial and expensive.
-
@mlinksva for context, reading CA v Altai (1992) where they say (more or less) software copyright is bollocks
-
@greg I'm sure @bkuhn would say GPL-enforcement is non-trivial and expensive.
-
@douglasawh but, applying the GPL to your code is not, that's the difference.
-
@douglasawh #samesame Software developers must budget for legal research/challenges too... !copyright #patent makes *everything* cost more
-
@greg oh I agree. It would require different services from SFLC, FSF, OSI, etc but I'm not convinced we wouldn't be up to the challenge.
-
@douglasawh SFLC et al can't afford to apply for pats for all FLOSS projects (when applicable). Also, I agree with @mlinksva: abolish swpats
-
I'm only catching the 1st 140 chars. I think the "formality" of copyleft has been good for #floss whereas swpats have not.
-
@laurelrusswurm the main I see is that most other patentable items cannot be copyrighted and vice versa, software suffers from both.
-
@douglasawh which is why I said patent application doesn't scale, GPL enforcement does scale, even though it's non-trivial.
-
@kevingranade yeah, poor software, suffering from the worst of both worlds ... like being napalmed #lovethesmellofgreedinthemorning
-
@greg and good thing re non-affordability. last thing needed is another freedom tatoo to distract from surrounding tyrannical gangrene.
Greg Grossmeier likes this. -
@douglasawh amazingly 1992 very approximately equidistant from now and no sw © at all
-
@laurelrusswurm I do not believe social science or humanities research can be patented. Ergo, I feel software is different.
-
@douglasawh Patents and copyright are both monopoly systems with the same sort of effects. Which is why sw !copyright + #patent = redundency
-
@laurelrusswurm Not so. Those making effort to extend swp regieme clearly think diff from cr. Cr: the implementation. Swp: the idea. (Rough)
-
@laurelrusswurm I disagree with that. Copyright and Patents are very different structures with different aims and different histories
-
@expatpaul That is detail; both are monopoly systems. Just as men are men and women are women but both are people.
-
So they are the same as the power company, then?
-
@vanden Public utilities are often monopolies but different in intent (public good, rather than private interest)
-
I agree utilities very different. But, you argued that if X and Y are monopolies, they are the same, save detail. Wrong; utilities eg shows.
-
@laurelrusswurm You have to understand the difference if you are to avoid taking unworkable positions (such as maximilism and abolitionism)
-
@expatpaul The differences are details, and the rules for both variable. When caught up in the trees it can be hard to see the forest.
rozzin's identicat ghost likes this. -
@expatpaul The details can be hugely important to those directly affected but both are monopolies imposing unnatural behaviour on society.
-
@laurelrusswurm Well no, one is a state enforced monopoly, the other isn't. You are starting to make my point for me
-
@expatpaul really. Which is not ?
-
@laurelrusswurm I agree that Patents shouldn't be applied to software. That has nothing to do with copyright.
-
@laurelrusswurm I assert my copyright and have to enforce it myself - civil law. The state grants and enforces patents - state enforced
-
@laurelrusswurm Because I bothered to read up on the subject first :-P
-
@expatpaul If picking sides in the discussion, I'm with you. But, a civil judgement is ultimately enforced by the state, too.
-
@expatpaul copyright laws is different the world over, although ACTA undoubtedly has at its core a desire to make them all the same.
-
@vanden True, but the process, history and issues are different and that's the point I'm trying to make
-
@expatpaul That is not true in Canada, and many other places, where everything copyrightable is whether we assert it or not.
-
@expatpaul above read: "where everything copyrightable is automatically covered under copyright"
-
@expatpaul part of the reason the maximalists are pushing these laws so hard is to migrate copyright out of civil so gov't must enforce
-
@expatpaul Agreed. I was surprised to see "X & Y are monopolies, thus X & Y are the same" invoked. I think they are m; I deny t/ inference.
-
@laurelrusswurm If that's the case then you are helping the maximalist position by agreeing with them that all IP should be treated the same
-
@vanden Indeed. I've seen the argument made a few times and it always strikes me as being bogus and counter-productive
-
@vanden, I'm sorry you have such trouble with the concept monopolies share the same characteristics.
-
@expatpaul yes the issues and history are different, but that doesn't change the fact both systems are monopolies with similar effects.
rozzin's identicat ghost likes this. -
@expatpaul that's rather a leap.
-
I am sorry that you are willing to move from "they are similar" to "they are the same". We are on the same side, but clarity matters.
-
I agree with @laurelrusswurm in that they are similar. They are not identical. US Courts (in the past at least) tried t…
-
@douglasawh They are similar, but not the same. Clarity is impportant if you want to avoid confusing the issue
-
@laurelrusswurm, have you ever listened to any of @rms's speeches on the dangers of #swpats vs. #copyright?
-
Also, @laurelrusswurm, have you read @rms's `Software Patents and Literary Patents'? http://ur1.ca/0k4x4
-
@vanden Actually, I didn't. My point has been clear from the beginning. The sameness is what categorizes monopolies as monopolies.
-
You said both monop so same save detail & hence redundant. Redundant --> at least one a subset of other. That's false. But, whatever.
-
Last go. If my code's under copyright I control, you cannot use the code w/o my perm. If under a patent, can't use the idea my code encodes.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the