Patents & Liberties

Johnboy1951

I found this an interesting read, from a historical point of view.
It gave me a better understanding of the processes and thoughts involved in the whole process.
As an aside it is also rather disparaging of the Irish & Dutch involvement.

A translated presentation/speech by Michel Rochard

http://www.sens-public.org/spip.php?article704&lang=fr

ASX

Thank you, very interesting readings!

"What is a computer program?

I'm going to risk using formulas I've learnt by heart. Again, I'm not at all a practitioner in this discipline. Software is a useful manual that makes a computer work and consolidates its calculation functions. So it's a group of inter-connected mathematical formulae that facilitate the use of a computer in a logical fashion."

I found the initial definition of computer program a bit reductive, but then, reading the article, it appear clear what a "program" effectively is and which effective definition was used in practice: "an aggregate of knowledge", which in my view is a much better definition.

That speech is also a good reminder to me, to send a postcard to my Poland's friends.

croo

That speech is also a good reminder to me, to send a postcard to my Poland's friends.

Yes! I have always been under the illusion that Denmark was key after MS threatened to shut offices there http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Bill_Gates_on_software_patents#Threatening_Denmark_in_2005
But it seems they only joined the opposition close to the end while the Poles objected all along.

As for the definition of a computer program and the references to mathematics ... I suspect those not involved with the art [just muddy the waters further! ] have the idea that writing software is much more complicated than it is. To be sure some software is very mathematical - I'm thinking about weather modelling and the likes but I would speculate that most is pretty straight forward. And the likes of the weather modelling is an idea that could be written in software many different ways. What people are proposing to patent is the idea not how that idea is implemented. At the time of the EU directive debate I remember there was a list of example patents that the EPO has already issued. Most are pretty simple... paying online by credit card, the concept of the basket used by most online sales websites are two that come to mind. That these could be considered to be inventive is beyond me.

The other point is that unlike most "things", once created software can be recreated an near zero cost. In that sense it is probably most comparable with something like music that is also reproducible at zero cost [there is that art again!] ... the work is copyrighted - as is software. But can we even imagine that when the first "who dunnit" movie or rock song it was patented and everyone else to make a "who dunnit" movie or pop song would have to pay royalty on the idea?

My own view of someone who's spent his entire life in the software business ... is that the vast majority of software has nothing new in it and much that is new is an obvious next step to anybody that sits down and thinks about.

Someone here once quoted me Thomas Jefferson

“He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4276-he-who-receives-an-idea-from-me-receives-instruction-himself

And that would sum up my view of the idea of Open Source. To copy someone's actual code without permission would be wrong but taking an idea and using that to move forward and improve on it ... is that not what all sciences (and much art!) does?

Finally, as an employee of the industry, I find that having no access to source codes acts a hindrance to trade and restricts me in business. Suppose I get an architect to design & build a unique house for me... imagine now that if I ever wanted to extend it .. or even repaint I would have to go to the original firm who designed and built it to get that work done! Crazy right? But this is exactly what the software world does... nobody else is allowed to view the designs of the "house" or make any changes.

Open source is about challenging all that. If I put effort into some work and get paid for it .. then I got paid and once I'm done it costs nothing to share that and hopefully move the whole forward. Instead I have, over the bulk of my 25 years in software, been involved in rewriting the same business applications over and over again... to be sure it gets a little more sophisticated on each iteration but every project begins from scratch and it's mostly pointless.

Coming back to the article, it is interesting to read the "inside the EU" story.