Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Patented videoshop opens in Wales

[Simon Waters]

Kevin Donnelly wrote:
> 
> I have put the above argument to people, and it's just too vague.  The usual 
> response I get is that people spent time and money to develop these formats, 
> they're (currently) allowing users to use them for free, so what's the 
> problem? 

Free ? I think you have missed the point big time.

You wanted to create software that worked with GIF you had to pay a fee.

In some cases you must licence the patent by paying a fee per reader.

Whilst the end user may not see the cost as it is swallowed up in the
cost of his software or hardware, he is still paying, otherwise why
bother patenting it in the first place if it doesn't raise revenue?

Thus the immediate end of free software - free software authors maybe
generous with their time, and effort, but if they have to pay $1
everytime you install an import filter for a new format Linux will be
getting expensive to run, and we'll all go over to the monopoly software
provider who gets a volume discount.

> I tend to think the real nub is not the formats themselves, or who owns them, 
> or what their motives are/may be, but the proposed prohibition on 
> reverse-engineering something similar that produces the same result, leading 
> to decreased competition, leading to less choice and higher prices.

No you can reverse engineer (although possibly not if it infringes copy
protection mechanisms).

You can implement something similar (OGG, PNG)

You can't create a reader for the formats without licencing the patent,
even if you do a clean room implementation.

> For 
> example, suppose someone had patented the idea of cars having 4 wheels, for 
> instance - most of us would be going around in 3 or 6 wheelers (cars are a 
> good analogue, because most people have one - see also 
> http://www.kyfieithu.co.uk/item.php?lg=en&item_id=32).

Argh but I patented using round wheels ;-)

> This suggests that the page should be changed to make it clear that it is not 
> the formats themselves, but the possibility of being forced to use them and 
> only them that is the key objection.  However, I may be barking up the wrong 
> tree here, so I would welcome comments.

>From a free software perspective it is being obliged to licence them,
even if none of the authors original work is present other than the
format specification itself.

Also software is far more often a pyramid of ideas, even the humble GNU
Chess uses algorithms by many different authors, utilities like the M4
and autoconf tools, GCC is the supported compiler, imagine how many
patentable software ideas go in modern compilers.

I think 'format' is distinct from 'algorithms' in some ways. I can
appreciate that algorithmns may require research (although most
important software algorithmns are the products of one or two people
with a good background in mathematics, and not the product of huge
research projects - although occaisonally spin-offs from such).

Format to me merely implies the arrangement of items with respect to one
and other.

Formats usually lend themselves well to being free. As usually it is for
the exchange of information, which is more useful if the recipient can
do his own thing. This tends to break down in the publishing formats
DVD, MP3, where it is more common for people to have readers but not
writers. Just look how long it tooks most Windows users to get PDF
creationg software even though it was an open format.

"should algorithmns be patentable?" comes right back to the question of
whether knowledge is someting to share, or something to profit from.

I think this is a moral, and pragmatic, point to decide. Will putting
more money in the hands of a few increase human creativity or
inventiveness? Is the software industry lacking in inventiveness?

Ultimately if you allow algorithmns to be patented you allow formats to
be patented as they build upon them, and thus common formats will exist
for which no free software implementation exist. Although I guess we can
keep boycotting such format, they will become ubiquitous unless Joe
Buying public also sees them as so bad they shoud be boycotted -
unlikely but possible.

pgpooxMP0CvLq.pgp
Description: PGP signature