-- more on -- Lessig on USG and WIPO Open Source mtg

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:27:04 -0600
> From: David Adams <david () osnews com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Lessig on USG and WIPO Open Source mtg
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
>
> When I published a link to the Washington Post story at OSNews
> (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4313) I was also surprised about
> the level of ignorance demonstrated by some of our readers with regard to
> open source software's relationship to IP.  I've also been irked at people
> who think that if people are not paying some multinational corporation
> and/or billionaire for their software, that it's hurting the economy.  Some
> of the comments in the discussion of the article were so out of whack, I
> just had to respond. One reader wrote the following, and my response
> follows:
>
> > No, open source does not protect my IP.
> >
> > Example, I come up with some wiz bang new sorting algorithm that can sort a
> > list 100 times faster than any current algorithm. What do I do?
> >
> > 1. Sell a library with no source code so that programmers can use my
> > algorithm, but have to pay me a fee to do so.
> >
> > 2. Open source it so that everyone can simply copy the algorithm and 
> use it in
> > their own apps.
>
>
> If your goal is to maximize the amount of money you made on your discovery
> then it's true that an open source license would not be the way to go.
> However, that does not mean that your IP wouldn't be protected if you did go
> open source. Intellectual property does not equal money.  The GPL is a great
> way for someone who makes some software but does not have the inclination to
> try to sell it to get it out there, with the potential to be useful, but
> still have it be protected, and preventing someone else with more marketing
> resources from stealing it from you.
>
> If Linus Torvalds had created Linux and tried to sell it commercially, it
> would have gone nowhere.  Same with Apache, most likely.  But the licenses
> they were released under protected their authors' IP.  The copyrights and
> trademarks that protect them are the reasons that Linux and Apache exist as
> thriving entities, and their authors are known and recognized.
>
> Now, the original author of the story Cinderella, on the other hand, did not
> have his or her IP protected.  Nobody knows who wrote that story, and it's
> been told and retold and changed and when Disney made a bunch of money on
> the movie that author didn't get so much as a screen credit, much less a
> royalty.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, since that author is
> long dead anyway, and the world is richer for having the Cinderella story in
> the public domain.  I mention this to demonstrate what it means to not have
> your IP protected by protections in the open source licenses, backed up by
> international copyright laws.
>
> > Open source works well in the academic and scientific communities where 
> people
> > tend to share discoveries. it doesn't work so well in the capitalist 
> economy
> > where people want to keep their discoveries a secret.
>
> It depends on what you mean when you say "works."  If you mean that it
> allows the creator of some code to make money without doing any further
> work, then open source is not a good way to do that.  If you mean that it
> lets programmers create and/or contribute to a project that may have
> worldwide positive impact and maybe even make them famous, then it works
> very well.
>
> Remember, most of the software that's written is done in-house and only used
> by one organization.  There are thousands of companies reinventing the
> wheel, developing and maintaining mundane software.  The availability of
> open source foundations upon which they can build customized versions of
> this mundane software (like Bind, Sendmail, and Samba) have freed them from
> countless hours of drudgery, yet again reinventing the wheel.  In fact, it's
> unlikely that the internet would have proliferated as quickly without them.
> That has contributed to worldwide productivity and a positive boost to the
> economy.  There was no Bill Gates to get rich off of BIND, but if there had
> been, would there be any positive impact to the economy because of that?
> Not much.  Bind and Sendmail have contributed much more to the economy as a
> result of being free than they would have if their original authors had
> demanded payment instead of freeing the code.
>
>
> As some other commentors pointed out later, keeping your source code
> proprietary does not prevent someone from taking your idea and capitalizing
> on it.  Most software is relatively easily reverse-engineered, or
> re-implemented, and the only way to keep someone from taking your idea is to
> patent it.  And that's a whole other controversy.  But the point is that
> jealously guarding your source code is not an effective way of protecting
> your intellectual property anyway.
>
>
>
> on 8/22/03 8:13 AM, Dave Farber at dave () farber net wrote:
>
> >> http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml
> >
> >
> > the extremists in power
> >
> > I don't even know how to begin this story, so stupid and extreme it is.
> >
> > The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was convinced by Jamie
> > Love and others to hold a meeting about "open collaborative models to
> > develop public goods." One of those models is, of course, open source and
> > free software. Lobbyists for Microsoft and others apparently (according to
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html>this
> > extraordinary story by Jonathan Krim) started lobbying the US government to
> > get the meeting cancelled. No surprise there. 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. According to the Post, 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." As she is quoted as saying, "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."
> >
> > If Lois Boland said this, then she should be asked to resign. 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?
> >
> > These points are basic. They should be fundamental. 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.
> >
>
>
> David Adams
> Publisher
> OS News, NewMobileComputing
> 202-321-2512
> www.osnews.com
> www.newmobilecomputing.com

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/