Synopsis 1[1]
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Synopsis 1[1] as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 980
- Pages: 3
Sarah Schoffstall Comp Sci 82 Group 3 Synopsis 9/16/09 For Richard Stallman, a large proponent of unabashed and unrestrained software development, patents are a nightmare. In a talk he presented at the University of Cambridge Computer Labortory in 2002, Stallman describes the dangerous obstacles that patents create for software development. He says that laws are grossly misused and the description of the term “intellectual property” is completely distorted as well. The laws of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, which were initially designed separately of one another, have been lumped into the same category. This is a travesty since there are overwhelming differences between copyrights and patents. Copyrights regulate the expression of a work while patents only cover an idea. Copyrights go into effect immediately after the release of a documented work. Patents are a much more expensive and lengthy process to obtain. Some copyrights last up to 150 years, while patents are only good for 20. In a domain like technology, where new products are emerging on the market every few months, a patent lasting 20 years will only hinder the development of new products. This holds true particularly in the area of software development; 20 years can seem like an eternity to wait to make modifications off of already existing but still patented software. It is quite clear, as Stallman describes it, “A patent is an absolute monopoly on using an idea.” Stallman also illustrates the analogy of a patent and the lottery: there are only a small percentage of patents that actually bring a profit to their holders. The patent system seems quite enticing, but the odds of turning out unsuccessful are far greater than the odds of winning. Stallman also expresses his contempt for the language of patents. He says they are frequently
written in legal jargon which is very difficult to understand. This contributes to the monopolizing tendencies of a patent: it is seemingly impossible to understand what exactly the patent entails. Stallman suggests three options for conducting business in a manner which avoids the loop holes of the patent: the first is to avoid the patent completely but this depends upon the situation. The second option is to license the patent, however many patent holders do not offer licenses. The third option is to overturn the patent in court. Stallman says, “The patent office does things that are so obviously foolish, you wouldn’t even have to know the state of the art to see they are foolish.” Stallman looks to Europe and the free software community it has created for itself to set the example for the United States. The UK Patent office held a public consultation and it found that a large proportion of its responders were opposed to software patents. Stallman wants the United States to get support from countries in Europe to fight against software patents. Mark H. Webbink’s article entitled A New Paradigm for Intellectual Property Rights in Software(2005) echoed many of the same sentiments expressed by Richard Stallman. Webbink says, “Today software patents are widely recognized as a threat to the freedom to innovate within the software industry.” Webbink used support from Bill Gates to bolster his claim. Gates had publicly stated in a memorandum from 1991 that, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” Webbink described a quite frightening, though hypothetical situation: if patents had been around in 1975 when many of the great technological advancements were taking place such as WordStar, the first PC-based word processor, 1995 would have been the earliest date of new product development. This would have been twenty years after the initial patent. In those twenty years it can only be imagined what advancements
would have taken place. It certainly is a relief to know that in 1975 this was not the case and patents were not registered for things like word processors. Webbink does explain, however, that patents are important for other business such as pharmaceutical companies that compete with each other to produce medications. Pharmaceutical patents are rewarded far less frequently than software patents, to the point that every minute development of prior software technology is patented. As an example, there are in fact fourteen different patents for the positioning and movement of a cursor. In comparison, there is only one patent for the drug Viagra. Like Stallman, Webbink also looked to Europe and the European Commission and European Parliament as a good example of how patents should be handlednamely the right to create interoperable products. I can certainly see how the patent system in the United States hinders innovative growth. If patents are issued for up to 20 years at a time, it seems that the amount of progressive changes that could occur within this time span is enormous. I find the Richard Stallman’s myth of a “starving genius” quite interesting because as far back as I can remember, I only thought of patents as helpful entities. I certainly believed the myth that patents helped brilliant inventors save their ideas so that no one else could steal them. When the concept of a patent is put into a larger context, such as in the hands of a corporation like IBM, it is easy to see where patents can create an overwhelming monopoly that limits the growth of product development and controls the financial sector surrounding the product or line of products. Philosophically, I completely agree with Richard Stallman. I think that technological and software development should be free in the sense that everyone has equal access and ability to alter the product. Realistically, however, human beings have never been good at “sharing” especially when a profit can be made from an idea. Most people will jump at the opportunity to make a buck and forget their neighbor.
written in legal jargon which is very difficult to understand. This contributes to the monopolizing tendencies of a patent: it is seemingly impossible to understand what exactly the patent entails. Stallman suggests three options for conducting business in a manner which avoids the loop holes of the patent: the first is to avoid the patent completely but this depends upon the situation. The second option is to license the patent, however many patent holders do not offer licenses. The third option is to overturn the patent in court. Stallman says, “The patent office does things that are so obviously foolish, you wouldn’t even have to know the state of the art to see they are foolish.” Stallman looks to Europe and the free software community it has created for itself to set the example for the United States. The UK Patent office held a public consultation and it found that a large proportion of its responders were opposed to software patents. Stallman wants the United States to get support from countries in Europe to fight against software patents. Mark H. Webbink’s article entitled A New Paradigm for Intellectual Property Rights in Software(2005) echoed many of the same sentiments expressed by Richard Stallman. Webbink says, “Today software patents are widely recognized as a threat to the freedom to innovate within the software industry.” Webbink used support from Bill Gates to bolster his claim. Gates had publicly stated in a memorandum from 1991 that, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” Webbink described a quite frightening, though hypothetical situation: if patents had been around in 1975 when many of the great technological advancements were taking place such as WordStar, the first PC-based word processor, 1995 would have been the earliest date of new product development. This would have been twenty years after the initial patent. In those twenty years it can only be imagined what advancements
would have taken place. It certainly is a relief to know that in 1975 this was not the case and patents were not registered for things like word processors. Webbink does explain, however, that patents are important for other business such as pharmaceutical companies that compete with each other to produce medications. Pharmaceutical patents are rewarded far less frequently than software patents, to the point that every minute development of prior software technology is patented. As an example, there are in fact fourteen different patents for the positioning and movement of a cursor. In comparison, there is only one patent for the drug Viagra. Like Stallman, Webbink also looked to Europe and the European Commission and European Parliament as a good example of how patents should be handlednamely the right to create interoperable products. I can certainly see how the patent system in the United States hinders innovative growth. If patents are issued for up to 20 years at a time, it seems that the amount of progressive changes that could occur within this time span is enormous. I find the Richard Stallman’s myth of a “starving genius” quite interesting because as far back as I can remember, I only thought of patents as helpful entities. I certainly believed the myth that patents helped brilliant inventors save their ideas so that no one else could steal them. When the concept of a patent is put into a larger context, such as in the hands of a corporation like IBM, it is easy to see where patents can create an overwhelming monopoly that limits the growth of product development and controls the financial sector surrounding the product or line of products. Philosophically, I completely agree with Richard Stallman. I think that technological and software development should be free in the sense that everyone has equal access and ability to alter the product. Realistically, however, human beings have never been good at “sharing” especially when a profit can be made from an idea. Most people will jump at the opportunity to make a buck and forget their neighbor.
