Should the FSF come out in support of Microsoft?

[David Gerard]

The EFF certainly has!

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-easier


- d.

[Andreas K. Foerster]

Post by David Gerard
The EFF certainly has!
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-easier

It's good to look at the issue at hand, rather then at the parties involved.
So, I think it is a good position they have in this case. It may affect not
only Microsoft, but Free Software comapnies also, because it could set a
precedent.

However, I think it is unfortunate how they put it in the headline of their
article. There they put the name of the company in the first position,
instead of the topic the case is about. - Note, that I only complain about
the headline!

So yes, the deeds are good, the words are not.

So I think, the FSF should have the same position, but they should communicate
it differently.

[Kim Tucker]

If supporting them is a step towards invalidating all software patents
as a flawed concept, then yes.

If it adds legitimacy to the concept of software patents, and gives
even more power to those with substantial "arsenals" of patents
already, then no.

K

----

Post by Andreas K. Foerster

Post by David Gerard
The EFF certainly has!
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-easier

It's good to look at the issue at hand, rather then at the parties involved.
So, I think it is a good position they have in this case. ?It may affect not
only Microsoft, but Free Software comapnies also, because it could set a
precedent.
However, I think it is unfortunate how they put it in the headline of their
article. ?There they put the name of the company in the first position,
instead of the topic the case is about. - Note, that I only complain about
the headline!
So yes, the deeds are good, the words are not.
So I think, the FSF should have the same position, but they should communicate
it differently.
--
AKFoerster
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

[Hugo Roy]

Hi,

in the meantime,
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/microsoft-sues-motorola-over-android/

?Microsoft filed an action today in the International Trade Commission
and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against Motorola, Inc. for infringement of nine Microsoft patents by
Motorola?s Android-based smartphones. The patents at issue relate to a
range of functionality embodied in Motorola?s Android smartphone devices
that are essential to the smartphone user experience, including
synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and
notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power.

We have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to
safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year in bringing
innovative software products and services to market. Motorola needs to
stop its infringement of our patented inventions in its Android
smartphones.?


Microsoft's position seems to be that software should be patentable and
that only the patents of Microsoft are valid, not the one of its
competitors.

I, personally, can't support that and I think the FSF and the FSFE
should not.

Best regards,

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by David Gerard
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-easier

Any idea what EFF means with "_bad_ patents"? Do they have the position
that there are also good software patents? Or do they want to express
that patents are bad?

Thanks,
Matthias

[Alex Hudson]

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by David Gerard
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/eff-supports-microsoft-seeking-make-it-easier

Any idea what EFF means with "_bad_ patents"? Do they have the position
that there are also good software patents? Or do they want to express
that patents are bad?

I think it would be correct to say their position is that a large number
of granted software patents are of low quality, and that they want to
correct that.

Their philosophical position on the remainder I think is something yet
to be determined; indeed, the extent to which such a remainder even
exists would be arguable given the standard they seek to set in
approval.

Cheers

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

[David Gerard]

Post by Alex Hudson
Their philosophical position on the remainder I think is something yet
to be determined; indeed, the extent to which such a remainder even
exists would be arguable given the standard they seek to set in
approval.

Indeed. Giving Microsoft what they're asking for here would be quite
... delicious.

(The EFF is unlikely to be as strident about software patents as the
FSF is, because software patents don't affect free speech quite as
directly as they affect free software. But, y'know, they're smart
geeks with their heads screwed on straight and a good understanding of
just how morally offensive patenting mathematics is, and I expect more
than a few of them are welcoming the opportunity.)


- d.

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Post by David Gerard
(The EFF is unlikely to be as strident about software patents as the
FSF is, because software patents don't affect free speech quite as
directly as they affect free software.

Perhaps not now but the threat has already been established: the
Heckel-Apple story describes the threat rather well. Stallman tells
this story in his patent talk. He's given this talk many times and it
is transcribed in multiple locations. This quote comes from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html

Post by David Gerard
Few years ago an engineer in US named Paul Heckel was suing Apple. He
had a couple of software patents in the late 80's for a software
package and then when he saw hypercards and looked at inside ? this
is nothing like my program. He didn't think any more of it. But later
on his lawyer explained to him that if you read this patent carefully
hypercards fell into the prohibited area. So he sued Apple feeling
this is an opportunity to get some money. Well once when I give a
speech like this, he was in the audience, and he said ?oh no that's
not true. I just wasn't aware of the scope of my protection? and I
said ?yeah, that's what I said?.

In his talk from 2002-03-25 he elaborated on the threat to computer
users -- from http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html

Post by David Gerard
All software developers are threatened by software patents and even
software users are threatened by software patents. For instance, Paul
Heckel, when Apple wasn't very scared of his threats, he threatened
to start suing Apple's customers. Apple found that very scary. They
figured they couldn't afford to have their customers being sued like
that, even if they would ultimately win. So the users can get sued
too, either as a way of attacking a developer or just as a way to
squeeze money out of them on their own or to cause mayhem.

The patent laws in the US allow this to happen. This threat exists for
all computer users.

And the solution is clear: end software patents.

Critiquing a corrupt system by invalidating "bad" patents ends up
preserving, even bolstering, the status quo; the implication is that
there are only a few bad actors in an otherwise just and right-minded
system so it makes sense, from that unrealistic perspective, to weed out
the so-called "patent trolls" and "bad patents". Any critique aimed at
increasing scrutiny of patent applications or issued patents (such as
Microsoft's critique) will not help the computer users in countries that
allow software patents.

Therefore I don't see why the FSF or its sister organizations would
champion Microsoft's side in this dispute. Perhaps this is a good
opportunity to again speak against software patents and explain why
Microsoft's side is merely tinkering with the edges of a horrible system.