PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

[Russell McOrmond]

(Copying Eric Raymond in case he would find this thread interesting -- not
sure if he is a member of the license-discuss list)

  While the discussions of copyright and patent law and licensing might be
seen as on-topic, I suspect we are really sliding off-topic for this list
with this message.

  It does go to the whole justification of patent policy in information
processes, and how this area of policy is being abused.  I just wish the 
OpenSource.org site had more appropriate lists to be discussing this.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote:

> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1462778,00.asp
> 
> Russell,
> 
> Have you read this article?  What are your thoughts?

  I read it and many other references posted to other forums.

  To me it it is standard IBM FUD suggesting that creating a monopoly on a
business model will somehow make more money in a given market sector.  
The reality is that there is more money to be made in a free market where
any entrepreneur can set up their own business.  As a proponent of free
market economics ("free as in free market, not as in free beer") I
strongly oppose business model and other "information process"  
monopolies.

  Having a business model monopoly does mean that the employees of the
monopoly may appear to make more money given they don't have free market
competition, but it is harmful to the economy as a whole.  Great if you
want to work for IBM, but I am an entrepreneur who wants to work for
myself.

  I see this as yet another attempt by IBM to try to claim ownership over
something in order to slow down a transition in the economy which IBM
otherwise cannot control.  This transition would force them to compete in
a free market, including compete for highly competent employees who have
far more options in a free market.

  I wish Eric Raymond would get as upset about this as he does the
Microsoft Memos and write a new Halloween document about it.  I agree that
"It Ain't Necessarily SCO", but think that we should stop staring at
Microsoft to the point of not noticing what IBM is doing.


Note: If all IBM wanted to do is prevent Microsoft from getting a patent
on this method they could simply very publicly publish prior art.  The
suggestion some have made that IBM did this to protect the movement from
Microsoft is rather amusing.

  If it were not for IBM lobbying for the creation of information process
patents we would not likely have patents in this subject matter to need
protection from in the first place.  IBM was already pushing for
information process patents back in the days when Microsoft was still on
our side opposing software patents.
  http://swpat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3