Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 29439
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/04/10 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/10    

2003/8/22-23 [Computer/SW/OS/SCO] UID:29439 Activity:high
8/22    Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S.
        Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs
        counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property
        rights.
        "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such
        rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.
       http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html
        \_ Lessig on the subject:
           http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml
        \_ Microsoft reduces visibility of open source with big lobbying $.
           \_ The PTO predates MS by about 90 years.  Let it go.
              \_ let what go?
              \_ Lois Boland does not.  The office is old and established;
                 the appointee is younger and bribeable.
        \_ For related discussion, see blurb on Petra Moser
           http://mitsloan.mit.edu
           \_ Can you give me a better url than that?
        \_ Yes, that's their purpose.  There isn't an anti-intellectual
           property rights part of the government.  That's because in this
           case they're there to defend the rights of people who created
           something, not people who want to use someone else's stuff free.
           \_ You misread Boland's intent. He said that the government
              is not interested in supporting the rights of people
              who want to give away their own creations, only those
              who wish to charge for them. This is actually a pretty
              extreme position to take.
              \_ People who want to give away their stuff have 2 simple choices
                 which don't require a lot of PTO assistance.  1) BSD style
                 free-beer license, 2) Everything else such as GPL, or license
                 for a dollar or whatever.  People in neither category require
                 a large government agency to referee or interpret anything. I
                 understand what he was saying and find nothing extreme there.
                 \_ What does the word "contrary" mean to you? It is clear
                    that she believes it is her job to stop #2, even though
                    open source developers have the same IP rights as anyone
                    else. It is not a matter of getting government support,
                    it is the government opposition that is extreme and
                    disturbing.
                    \_ The PTO takes no action pro or con on people who want to
                       give their stuff away.  The very concept that people who
                       want to give away their stuff for free need some sort of
                       government protection is bizarre at best.
                       \_ Have you followed the SCO vs Linux lawsuits at all?
                          People trying to give stuff away are being sued,
                          so yes, they need some kind of protection, or at
                          the very least, not the active hostility of the
                          agency whose job it is to monitor such things.
                          Boland's statment makes it clear that she is
                          "con" such activity.
                          \_ SCO's position is that people are trying to
                             give stuff that doesn't belong to them away.
                             \_ SCO's position is they have an really
                                awesome reality distortion field that will
                                destroy IBM
                            \_ SCO's position is that people are trying to
                               give stuff that doesn't belong to SCO away.
                               \_ Actually, that's SCO's critics' position.
                                  SCO really does think that the UNIX bits
                                  belong to SCO.
                \_ GPL requires every bit as much government protection as
                   any other licensing scheme that places restrictions on
                   the "getting" party.   Possibly more. -phuqm
Cache (13 bytes)
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html
References 1.
Cache (8192 bytes)
www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml
Lobbyists for Microsoft and others apparently (according to 28 this extraordinary story by Jonathan Krim) started lobbying the US government to get the meeting cancelled. Open source and free software is a competitor to MSFT's products. Lobbying is increasingly the way competition is waged in America. But the astonishing part is the justification for the US opposing the meeting. The level of ignorance built into that statement is astonishing, and the idea that a government official of her level would be so ignorant is an embarrassment. First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights. It can't exist (and free software can't have its effect) without it. Second, the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should be to promote the right balance of intellectual-property rights, not simply to promote intellectual property rights. And finally, if an intellectual property right holder wants to "disclaim" or "waive" her rights, what business is it of WIPOs? Why should WIPO oppose a copyright or patent rights holder's choice to do with his or her rights what he or she wants? That someone who doesn't understand them is at a high level of this government just shows how extreme IP policy in America has become. The level of greed/resistance to change is just amazing. This conference idea was not a nobly dispassionate proposal to examine the ontological status of open source software. This was in fact an an openly politicized attempt to get an international, government-sanctioned intellectual property organization to provide a forum so that the usual suspects can vent about the evils of capitalism in general and Microsoft et al. Why should the USPTO send somebody to listen to that that crap or give credence to it merely by being there? If someone has a specific, serious proposal to change the legal status of open-source software then let the WIPO examine that concept when and if it is ripe for such examination. I think it is flatly disingenuous to presume that this proposal was anything other than a highly politicized stunt with no basis in any specific concepts or proposals ripe for WIPO-level discussion. Looking over a longer term, the US does have a history of being too stingy with intellectual property rights. In the patent context there have been arguably arbitrary and arguably capricious obviousness standards (see AG Pro v. Also, in the patent context there was the longstanding blanket denial of software patents. In the copyright context there has been denial of copyright based on failure to follow hypertechnical procedures (Gold Rush movie, that Capra movie). Against this temporally dilated background, it is easier to understand the simple minded more-ip-better attitudes that we commonly observe. Not everyone has an easy time walking away from their Reagan era political stances. The real challenge on a going forward basis is how can we strategically dole out intellectual property rights so that you only get rights economically commensaurate with the economic benefit you give. IBM, this will probably be a relatively straightforward process when the copyright infringement evidence (and counter-evidence) emerges. Crafting better standards for who really deserves a given software patent monopoly seems like a funner issue. Not all big players are wedded to expansive patent rights these days (eg, some of the amici briefs in the Warner-Jenkinson case). Even if the WIPO has to listen to the occasional political rant, it should be there. But even more importantly, Boland didn't refuse because she was concerned about the politicisation of the meeting; Open Source Anything is based on international intellectual rights. George makes a common mistake of confusing Open Source _fill in the blank_ with the public domain. If you look closely, you will see that the end products of open source projects tend to come with license agreements. In my work I have seen source code licenses for many proprietary products. The structure of agreements covering the usage of open source products is similar (if not identical) to agreements covering the use of proprietary "closed source" products. They tend to describe who owns the intellectual property, who is being granted a license, what the licensee is allowed to do with the licensed product, who owns derivative works, and who gets to collect fees for derivative works. To say that open source is at odds with intellectual property and IP law is to completely miss the point. Intellectual Property law creates the legal environment that supports both proprietary and open source projects. WIPO is the international structure for establishing international agreements WRT IP. Tobin is wrong to state that only proprietary interests should be represented in an international IP forum. Hamrick on Aug 22 03 at 41 8:34 AM This is so awful I don't know where to start. I don't have time to deal with this kind of thing, but I have a little bit of money. I already donated $50 to the FSF to help defray the SCO extortion case. It is first grade in this field to understand that open source and free software is not anti-commerce, or anti-IP. It might be anti-proprietary software, but it takes a particularly careless mind to miss the distinction. Such minds do not deserve high office (all evidence to the contrary). And Henry: 44 EFF, and Jamie Love's organization is 45 CPTech. I think his argument was that the function of having this get-together re: open-source was not to discuss directions for or desirable changes in law relating to open-source development, but simply an opportunity for a bunch of pinko commie bedwetters to bitch about our fine upstanding IP right holders' activities. I suspect he is probably quite aware of the legal basis for open-source development. I believe he just thinks the purpose of the session was to promote open source, not to engage in a meaningful dialectic process or otherwise share information. I'm too intellectually lazy to inquire further, but I suspect it's at least based on the questionable premise that rich capitalists carving up the world is OK, but (metaphorically) penguin-suited computer geeks having a go is wrong. Tobin thinks the meeting would be about, he is not informed. Whether you support there being a meeting or not, my criticism was of the reasons given for opposing the meeting. Note that Free software / Open Source is just one of them. I propose that you first READ the Open Letter before making lousy comments like that. The letter calls for a meeting to examine the IPR implications not only of free software, but of a wide range of emerging economic models based on open collaboration. The signatories include economists like Josepth Stiglitz and Hal Varian, not generally known for their anti-capitalist views. Given its increasing global relevance, the intellectual property system cannot continue to evolve as an issue limited in scope and focused mainly on maintaining and developing intellectual property rights protection. The more intellectual property becomes central to economic growth and wealth creation, the greater will be the challenge of developing the international intellectual property system in a way that it be instrumental to social and economic development. Whether one endorses this agenda or not does not change the fact that the conference was expressly intended to advocate /endorse /promote models closer to a "patent-free" paradigm. The express intent was to act to reduce the scope of current intellectual property rights for both pharmaceuticals and software. Boland said that the US (as a member of WIPO) should not be in the business of acting to reduce the scope of intellectual property rights, a statement completely consistent with the express goals of WIPO and accurately responding to the true intention of the conference promoters. She appears to have a better grasp of her role and that of WIPO than does Prof. No matter how warm and fuzzy James Love and the Naderite agenda may make you feel, Ms. If "patent-free" government funded-innovation is your dream, then by all means strap on those Birkenstocks and march the issue through any an...
Cache (13 bytes)
mitsloan.mit.edu
References 1.