diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html | 56 |
1 files changed, 36 insertions, 20 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html index 9846983..e555743 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html @@ -1,19 +1,34 @@ <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> -<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="thirdparty" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> <title>Daniel Ravicher's FFII panel presentation - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/patent-practice-panel.translist" --> <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> +<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> +<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> +<div class="article reduced-width"> <h2>New Developments in Patent Practice: Assessing the Risks and Cost of Portfolio Licensing and Hold-ups</h2> -<p>by <strong>Daniel B. Ravicher</strong></p> +<address class="byline">by Daniel B. Ravicher</address> -<p><em>This is a transcript of a panel presentation given by Daniel B. +<div class="infobox"> +<p>This is a transcript of a panel presentation given by Daniel B. Ravicher as the executive director of the Public Patent Foundation on Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at a conference organized by the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) in Brussels, -Belgium. The transcription was done by Aendrew Rininsland.</em></p> +Belgium. The transcription was done by Aendrew Rininsland.</p> + +<p>The GNU Project agrees with the premise that <a +href="/philosophy/limit-patent-effect.html">patents on computational +ideas are bad</a>, but it disagrees with the assumption that nonfree +programs are morally legitimate competitors.</p> +</div> +<hr class="thin" /> <p>Thanks. I think, for me, the whole two days of conferences boils to really one question, and the whole debate boils down to one question: @@ -30,7 +45,7 @@ the decision about who wins and who fails. If we want software to succeed because we want it to succeed on its merits and be the best software that the public can have, it's more likely we want a system that lets consumers and end-users make the decision about which -software is selected — not bureaucrats. +software is selected—not bureaucrats. </p> <p> Now, what does that have to do with patents? The larger you make a @@ -49,10 +64,10 @@ developers have intrinsic advantages over small developers. Large developers have the resources, large developers have the relationships, large developers have the distribution channels, large developers have the brand. So even without software patents, large -developers are still at an advantage — they start out at an +developers are still at an advantage—they start out at an advantage. Well, then, the next question to me is, “If we have software patents, does that increase the advantage of large developers -or decrease it?”, because the patent system could benefit small +or decrease it?” because the patent system could benefit small developers and therefore that could erode some of the naturally existing benefits that large corporations have. </p> @@ -109,7 +124,7 @@ price? <p> Now, I think it's important to concede the point that people on the other side will make, which is, will a less-onerous patent system, or -they would call it a ‘less-beneficial’ patent system, I +they would call it a “less-beneficial” patent system, I call it less-onerous, will harm their business, because people could copy them. Well, large businesses aren't worried about being copied. They really aren't. At least not by other large businesses, @@ -118,8 +133,8 @@ this is why they enter into cross-licenses all the time. company really didn't want its software to be copied, why is it licensing its patent portfolio to every other big company in the world? Because it can't stop them from copying it once they enter into -that agreement, so this argument that , “Well, we're worried -about people copying our software”, the most likely people to +that agreement, so this argument that, “Well, we're worried +about people copying our software,” the most likely people to copy your software are other large businesses because they have the resources and the ability and the distribution channels and the brand and the relationships. Why are you letting them copy it? You must not @@ -149,8 +164,8 @@ States. Microsoft is a very successful software company, I don't think anyone would debate that. They've never had to sue anyone for patent infringement. So they claim they need patents, but yet they've never had to use them. They cross-license them and that's where we wonder, -‘If you're worried about people copying, then why are you -cross-licensing them to people?’. +“If you're worried about people copying, then why are you +cross-licensing them to people?” </p> <p> @@ -158,8 +173,8 @@ You know, the last point is, who else does a patent system benefit? If it benefits large developers over small developers, is there anyone else? A patent system benefits non-developers. Do we really want a bureaucratic system that helps people who aren't adding anything to -society? What I mean by non-developers are trolls — which -everyone here is familiar with — people who get a patent either +society? What I mean by non-developers are trolls—which +everyone here is familiar with—people who get a patent either by applying for it or acquiring it in some asset purchase and then use it to tax other developers, other distributors of a product. </p> @@ -169,10 +184,11 @@ Do we really want a system which encourages people to not add products or services to the market place but only detracts from the profits and capabilities of those that do? </p> +</div> </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> -<div id="footer"> +<div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> <div class="unprintable"> <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to @@ -190,19 +206,19 @@ to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> - <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of our web pages, see <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a>. --> Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations -README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p> </div> <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should - be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the @@ -226,10 +242,10 @@ permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.</p> <p class="unprintable">Updated: <!-- timestamp start --> -$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:33 $ +$Date: 2022/05/31 08:46:03 $ <!-- timestamp end --> </p> </div> -</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> </body> </html> |