Reviewing a proponent’s arguments in favour of #swpatents

[Tim McNamara]

I thought this would be of interest to members of this community. I've
written up an evaluation of Airways Corporation's support for software
patents at the Open Knowledge Foundation's Notebook[0].

Welcome any discussion and people pointing out flaws in my reasoning.



Tim McNamara

[0] http://notebook.okfn.org/2011/09/30/reviewing-a-proponents-arguments-in-favour-of-swpatents/

_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list ***@linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug

[Daniel Pittman]

Post by Tim McNamara
I thought this would be of interest to members of this community. I've
written up an evaluation of Airways Corporation's support for software
patents at the Open Knowledge Foundation's Notebook[0].
Welcome any discussion and people pointing out flaws in my reasoning.

When Airways' compare the situation to theft, I think they are
clumsily trying to express that (from their business perspective)
having a competitor produce a cheap clone of your software after you
invested in solving hard problems is comparable to having them steal
the results of research.

An analogy to the physical world would be that they invested heavily
in the design of a physical item, potentially millions in R&D, and
then a competitor purchased one, took it apart, and started selling an
exact clone at lower cost – because they don't have to do the R&D.

So, which I don't disagree with what you say, I think responding to
the intent (however poorly worded) would be more compelling.

Otherwise, it seemed solid to me. :)

Daniel

[Tomislav Skunca]

Well, there was talk of differentiating 'embedded' code from the normal,
everyday programming. I suppose it might be relevant to factory
installations and specialty shops that strongly benefit from patents. If the
legislators go this way then the wording becomes crucial.
I can see some businesses sufferring from this but doubt it will be many.
The criticism of the law mostly seems to come from corporations and
lobbyists.

Post by Daniel Pittman

Post by Tim McNamara
I thought this would be of interest to members of this community. I've
written up an evaluation of Airways Corporation's support for software
patents at the Open Knowledge Foundation's Notebook[0].
Welcome any discussion and people pointing out flaws in my reasoning.

When Airways' compare the situation to theft, I think they are
clumsily trying to express that (from their business perspective)
having a competitor produce a cheap clone of your software after you
invested in solving hard problems is comparable to having them steal
the results of research.
An analogy to the physical world would be that they invested heavily
in the design of a physical item, potentially millions in R&D, and
then a competitor purchased one, took it apart, and started selling an
exact clone at lower cost – because they don't have to do the R&D.
So, which I don't disagree with what you say, I think responding to
the intent (however poorly worded) would be more compelling.
Otherwise, it seemed solid to me. :)
Daniel
--
♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
_______________________________________________
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug

_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list ***@linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug

[Vik Olliver]

The real problem is that an awful lot of the work in that item might
have been done by other people anyway, and they knowledge that they
produced has been gleaned in a very similar manner over the years. It's
called experience, and I for one don't want people trying to patent and
restrain it.

Vik :v)

Post by Daniel Pittman
When Airways' compare the situation to theft, I think they are
clumsily trying to express that (from their business perspective)
having a competitor produce a cheap clone of your software after you
invested in solving hard problems is comparable to having them steal
the results of research.
An analogy to the physical world would be that they invested heavily
in the design of a physical item, potentially millions in R&D, and
then a competitor purchased one, took it apart, and started selling an
exact clone at lower cost – because they don't have to do the R&D.
So, which I don't disagree with what you say, I think responding to
the intent (however poorly worded) would be more compelling.
Otherwise, it seemed solid to me. :)

_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list ***@linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug