| | |
|
CompSoftPatentorCopyright 12 - 12 Oct 2011 - Main.BahradSokhansanj
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Eben mentioned how computer software has been traditionally protected by copyright, instead of patents. That has me thinking, maybe patent protection is better than copyright (if we cannot achieve free computer software). | | | -- ThomasHou - 08 Oct 2011 | |
>
> | I wanted to refine my comment, because I feel like in thinking about this issue, I have a better sense of what I wanted to say instead of something that was more of an emotional response. | | | | |
<
< | Alexey -- Yeah, this is to what I was alluding in my previous comment... That apparently, the only "benefit" of patents to start-ups is as a "signal" to funders that there is something worth investing in (though I suspect they are more attracted to an asset that the could sell off to an entity seeking to expand its patent portfolio for offensive or defensive purposes). And, indeed, as you point out -- for the innovator, not much benefit at all. But isn't the latter who we actually care about? I'm still looking for this example of innovators who are motivated by patents and copyright, who can't get what they really want from just having trade secrets, or couldn't get benefit from end-user innovation empowered by open source software that exceeds any benefits gained from an IP monopoly (and even provides social benefits of expanded invention besides how they contribute to improving the product in question). If the problem is on the funding side rather than the innovator side, then that's a different problem than the one I keep hearing about of "how can we provide incentives for inventors?" | >
> | Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that this argument of how to optimize incentives for innovators is stupid, and there is no reason to have it. The question should be, how do we optimize the quality of functional goods? IP, whether it's copyright or patent, only gets in the way of making the best software possible. The way to encourage innovation is to allow it, not to prevent it. In a zero marginal cost for distribution world, software can theoretically get to every possible user. Therefore, all users will have a chance to modify and improve it, provided that they are allowed to do so because the source code is open and modification does not break the terms of copyright and patent licenses. | | | | |
<
< | And really, what we should really care about in terms of social benefits is the best product possible that helps all of us innovate and do useful things. That is what will make everyone more productive. VLC Player is awesome, and it helped me save what could have been hours of frustration when I was trying to play the contents of a DVD as a TA on Friday. It's kind of a long story, but R and Perl have been incredibly powerful in terms of their impact on human genome research. Given how many challenges we face as a society and as a planet, we have a lot of work to do, and if we're going to succeed, we can't have a system that literally prevents people from helping to solve problems. The reason why software patents or software copyrights or some software copyright with fair use solution that I don't understand make me really upset is that I can tell immediately that the outcome will be shittier products over all. And all the instruments of power, judicial, political, law enforcement, are being directed towards this outcome. | >
> | It seems like a lot of people just don't get what motivates software innovation... I read articles where people honestly say things like "free software is developed by programmers motivated by altruism" or that free software programmers are "hobbyists." This may describe some people who take advantage of free software and contribute to free software projects. But, what this misses is the reality that most of the users who care about free software are programmers who are focused on the use of software. Scientists, system administrators, IT guys, game developers, etc. -- all of whom want better stuff to work with and want the ability to improve what they have. Smart companies have recognized this -- tapping into their user communities as a source of innovation to improve the quality of the services they provide and make money off of, recognizing that this is a lot more efficient than trying to guess what they want and try to solve what they imagine are the problems of their users. | | | | |
<
< | -- BahradSokhansanj - 09 Oct 2011 | >
> | Maybe it's because I've been frustrated by un-free software in my previous professional career -- and because I'm conscious of the contribution that free software has made in many domains -- that I just don't get the argument behind imposing IP on software as having a social benefit. To me, it just comes with social harms. Software IP, whether it takes the form of patent or copyright, just makes it harder for us to solve the bigger problems that threaten us, as people and as a society, and I really can't imagine how this can be "good" in any way.
-- BahradSokhansanj - 11 Oct 2011 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |