diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html | 4184 |
1 files changed, 2096 insertions, 2088 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html index 5572bc5..99cbeb9 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html @@ -1,2108 +1,2117 @@ <!--#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="speeches" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Stallman's Speech at Model Engineering College About Software Patent +Dangers - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!-- +ul.big-list li { margin-top: 1em; } +#content i { color: #505050; } +--></style> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/stallman-mec-india.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!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--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>The Danger of Software Patents (2001)</h2> -<title>Stallman's Speech at Model Engineering College About Software Patent -Dangers - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address> -<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/stallman-mec-india.translist" --> -<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> - -<h2>The Danger of Software Patents (2001)</h2> - -<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p> -<p> <em>Speech given at Model Engineering College, Government of Kerala, -India, 2001</em> -(<a href="http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-mec-india.ogg">audio -recording</a>)</p> -<hr class="thin" /> - -<div><h3>Summary</h3> - -<p><a href="#intro">Introduction of the speaker</a></p> - -<p><a href="#conf">Stallman's speech</a></p> - -<ul> - <li><a href="#conf1">There are two things wrong with the phrase - “intellectual property.”</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf2">Copyrights and patents have nothing to do with each - other.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf3">How the patent system works.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf4">You have to work with a lawyer.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf5">Avoid the patent.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf6">License the patent.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf7">Challenge the validity of the patent.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf8">Nobody can reinvent the entire field of software.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf9">The relationship between patents and products varies - between the fields.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf10">Program development is hampered by software - patents.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf11">What can a country do to avoid this problem?</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf12">Preventing India from having software patents will - be up to the citizens of India.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf13">Businesses should demand opposition to software - patents.</a></li> - <li><a href="#conf14">It's important for countries to work together - against this.</a></li> -</ul> - -<p><a href="#questions">Questions from the audience</a></p> +<div class="infobox"> +<p>Speech given at Model Engineering College, Government of Kerala, +India, 2001 +(<a href="//audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-mec-india.ogg">audio +recording</a>)</p> +</div> +<div class="toc"> +<h3 class="no-display">Summary</h3> <ul> - <li><a href="#questions1">Questions about software patents</a></li> +<li><a href="#intro">Introduction of the speaker</a></li> +<li><a href="#conf">Stallman's speech</a> + <ul> + <li><a href="#conf1">There are two things wrong with the phrase + “intellectual property.”</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf2">Copyrights and patents have nothing to do with each + other.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf3">How the patent system works.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf4">You have to work with a lawyer.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf5">Avoid the patent.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf6">License the patent.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf7">Challenge the validity of the patent.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf8">Nobody can reinvent the entire field of software.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf9">The relationship between patents and products varies + between the fields.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf10">Program development is hampered by software + patents.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf11">What can a country do to avoid this problem?</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf12">Preventing India from having software patents will + be up to the citizens of India.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf13">Businesses should demand opposition to software + patents.</a></li> + <li><a href="#conf14">It's important for countries to work together + against this.</a></li> + </ul> +</li> +<li><a href="#questions">Questions from the audience</a> + <ul> + <li><a href="#questions1">Questions about software patents</a></li> <li><a href="#questions2">Questions about free software</a></li> + </ul> +</li> </ul> -</div> <!-- Summary --> - -<div><h3 id="intro">Introduction of the speaker</h3> - -<p><strong>Prof. Jyothi John, Head of Computer Engineering Department -introduces Stallman:</strong></p> - -<p> It's my privilege and duty to welcome the most distinguished guest -ever we had in this college.</p> - -<p> Mr. Richard Mathew Stallman launched the development of the GNU -operating system in 1984, the goal being to create a completely free -Unix-like operating system. The organization that was founded in 1985 -to further this purpose is the Free Software Foundation.</p> - -<p> Stallman is a visionary of computing in our times, and is the -genius behind programs such as Emacs, GCC, the GNU debugger and more. -Most importantly, he's the author of the GNU General Public License, the -license under which more than half of all free software is distributed -and developed. The combination of GNU with Linux, the kernel, called -the GNU/Linux operating system, now has an estimated twenty million -users worldwide.</p> - -<p> Stallman's concept of free software talks about freedom, rather -than about price. His ideas go a long way into ensuring development of -software for the welfare of society, collectively developed by programmers -who do not “lock up” their work, but rather release it for -others to study, modify and redistribute.</p> - -<p> Stallman received the Grace Hopper award from the Association for -Computing Machinery for 1991, in 1990 he was awarded MacArthur Foundation -Fellowship — other recipients of this prestigious award include Noam -Chomsky and Tim Berners-Lee. In 1996, an honorary doctorate of Technology -from the Royal Institute, Sweden was awarded to him. In 1998, he received -the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer award, along with Linus -Torvalds. In 1999 he received the Yuri Rubinski Memorial award.</p> - -<p> Today, Stallman will be talking about the danger of software patents. -In fact this is one of the most important aspect of the freedom of -programming because the aspect of software patents may make all programmers -potential lawbreakers because unknowingly they may be violating some of the -patents registered by some other company.</p> - -<h3 id="conf">Stallman's speech</h3> - -<p> After that introduction, I am sure many of you want to know about free -software. But unfortunately that's not what I am supposed to speak about. -In fact, this topic, software patents, is <em>not</em> very closely related -to the issue of free software. Software patents are a danger that affect -all programmers and all computer users. I found out about them, of course, -in working on free software because they are a danger to my project as well -as to every other software project in the world.</p> - -<h4 id="conf1">There are two things wrong with the phrase -“intellectual property.”</h4> - -<p> There is a very unfortunate phrase that you may have heard. It is the -phrase “intellectual property.” Now, there are two things -wrong with this phrase.</p> - -<p> One — it prejudges the most important policy question about how -to treat some kind of ideas or practices or works, or whatever. It assumes -that they are going to be treated as some kind of property. Now, this is a -public policy decision and you should be able to consider various -alternatives to choose the best one. Which means you shouldn't name the -whole field, name the question with a term that prejudges what kind of -answer you use.</p> - -<p> But second and even more fundamental, that term is actually a -catchall for totally different areas of law, including copyrights, -patents, trademarks, trade secrets and various other things as well. Now -these areas of the law in fact have almost nothing in common. What the -laws say is totally different from one to the next. Their origins are -completely independent and the public policy issues they raise are -completely different. So, the only intelligent way to think about them is -to pick one of them and think about it; think about them separately.</p> - -<p> So the intelligent way to talk about them is never to generalize about -them but to talk about a specific one, you know, talk about copyrights, or -talk about patents, or talk about trademarks, but never lump them all -together as intellectual property because that's a recipe for simplistic -conclusions. It's almost impossible to think intelligently about -“intellectual property” and so I refuse to do that. I just tell -people why the term is a mistake, and then if you ask me for my opinion on -copyrights or my opinion on patents, it will take me an hour to tell you -it. But they are two different opinions, and my opinion about trademarks -is something completely different as well.</p> - -<h4 id="conf2">Copyrights and patents have nothing to do with each other.</h4> - -<p> So the most important thing for you to start with is never mix -copyrights and patents as topics. They have nothing to do with each -other. Let me tell you some of the basic differences between copyrights -and patents:</p> - -<ul class="blurbs"> - <li> A copyright deals with a particular work, usually a written work, - and it has to do with the details of that work. Ideas are completely - excluded. Patents, by contrast — well, a patent covers an idea. - It's that simple, and any idea that you can describe, that's what a +</div> + +<h3 id="intro">Introduction of the speaker</h3> + +<p><em>Prof. Jyothi John, Head of Computer Engineering Department +introduces Stallman:</em></p> + +<p> It's my privilege and duty to welcome the most distinguished guest +ever we had in this college.</p> + +<p> Mr. Richard Mathew Stallman launched the development of the GNU +operating system in 1984, the goal being to create a completely free +Unix-like operating system. The organization that was founded in 1985 +to further this purpose is the Free Software Foundation.</p> + +<p> Stallman is a visionary of computing in our times, and is the +genius behind programs such as Emacs, GCC, the GNU debugger and more. +Most importantly, he's the author of the GNU General Public License, the +license under which more than half of all free software is distributed +and developed. The combination of GNU with Linux, the kernel, called +the GNU/Linux operating system, now has an estimated twenty million +users worldwide.</p> + +<p> Stallman's concept of free software talks about freedom, rather +than about price. His ideas go a long way into ensuring development of +software for the welfare of society, collectively developed by programmers +who do not “lock up” their work, but rather release it for +others to study, modify and redistribute.</p> + +<p> Stallman received the Grace Hopper award from the Association for +Computing Machinery for 1991, in 1990 he was awarded MacArthur Foundation +Fellowship—other recipients of this prestigious award include Noam +Chomsky and Tim Berners-Lee. In 1996, an honorary doctorate of Technology +from the Royal Institute, Sweden was awarded to him. In 1998, he received +the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer award, along with Linus +Torvalds. In 1999 he received the Yuri Rubinski Memorial award.</p> + +<p> Today, Stallman will be talking about the danger of software patents. +In fact this is one of the most important aspect of the freedom of +programming because the aspect of software patents may make all programmers +potential lawbreakers because unknowingly they may be violating some of the +patents registered by some other company.</p> + +<h3 id="conf">Stallman's speech</h3> + +<p> After that introduction, I am sure many of you want to know about free +software. But unfortunately that's not what I am supposed to speak about. +In fact, this topic, software patents, is <em>not</em> very closely related +to the issue of free software. Software patents are a danger that affect +all programmers and all computer users. I found out about them, of course, +in working on free software because they are a danger to my project as well +as to every other software project in the world.</p> + +<h4 id="conf1">There are two things wrong with the phrase +“intellectual property.”</h4> + +<p> There is a very unfortunate phrase that you may have heard. It is the +phrase “intellectual property.” Now, there are two things +wrong with this phrase.</p> + +<p> One—it prejudges the most important policy question about how +to treat some kind of ideas or practices or works, or whatever. It assumes +that they are going to be treated as some kind of property. Now, this is a +public policy decision and you should be able to consider various +alternatives to choose the best one. Which means you shouldn't name the +whole field, name the question with a term that prejudges what kind of +answer you use.</p> + +<p> But second and even more fundamental, that term is actually a +catchall for totally different areas of law, including copyrights, +patents, trademarks, trade secrets and various other things as well. Now +these areas of the law in fact have almost nothing in common. What the +laws say is totally different from one to the next. Their origins are +completely independent and the public policy issues they raise are +completely different. So, the only intelligent way to think about them is +to pick one of them and think about it; think about them separately.</p> + +<p> So the intelligent way to talk about them is never to generalize about +them but to talk about a specific one, you know, talk about copyrights, or +talk about patents, or talk about trademarks, but never lump them all +together as intellectual property because that's a recipe for simplistic +conclusions. It's almost impossible to think intelligently about +“intellectual property” and so I refuse to do that. I just tell +people why the term is a mistake, and then if you ask me for my opinion on +copyrights or my opinion on patents, it will take me an hour to tell you +it. But they are two different opinions, and my opinion about trademarks +is something completely different as well.</p> + +<h4 id="conf2">Copyrights and patents have nothing to do with each other.</h4> + +<p> So the most important thing for you to start with is never mix +copyrights and patents as topics. They have nothing to do with each +other. Let me tell you some of the basic differences between copyrights +and patents:</p> + +<ul class="big-list"> + <li> A copyright deals with a particular work, usually a written work, + and it has to do with the details of that work. Ideas are completely + excluded. Patents, by contrast—well, a patent covers an idea. + It's that simple, and any idea that you can describe, that's what a patent might restrict you from doing.</li> - <li> Copyrights have to do with copying. If you wrote something - that was word for word the same as some famous novel, and you could prove - that you did this while you were locked up in a room and you have never - seen that novel, this would not be copyright violation because it's not - copying. But a patent is an absolute monopoly on using a particular idea. - And even if you could show that you thought of it on your own, that + <li> Copyrights have to do with copying. If you wrote something + that was word for word the same as some famous novel, and you could prove + that you did this while you were locked up in a room and you have never + seen that novel, this would not be copyright violation because it's not + copying. But a patent is an absolute monopoly on using a particular idea. + And even if you could show that you thought of it on your own, that would be considered totally irrelevant. It doesn't help you.</li> - <li> Copyrights exist automatically. Whenever anything is written, - it's copyrighted. Patents are issued through an expensive - application process. There is an expensive fee and even more expense - in paying lawyers, which of course tends to be good for big companies. - And the patent office says that it only issues patents for things - that are unobvious. However, practically speaking, in many patent - offices the criterion is unobvious to somebody with an IQ of fifty. - And they have all sorts of excuses to ignore the fact that whenever any - programmer looks at it, his first statement is “this is absurd, - it's obvious.” They say “well, this is hindsight.” So - they just have an excuse to completely ignore the judgment of everybody + <li> Copyrights exist automatically. Whenever anything is written, + it's copyrighted. Patents are issued through an expensive + application process. There is an expensive fee and even more expense + in paying lawyers, which of course tends to be good for big companies. + And the patent office says that it only issues patents for things + that are unobvious. However, practically speaking, in many patent + offices the criterion is unobvious to somebody with an IQ of fifty. + And they have all sorts of excuses to ignore the fact that whenever any + programmer looks at it, his first statement is “this is absurd, + it's obvious.” They say “well, this is hindsight.” So + they just have an excuse to completely ignore the judgment of everybody who really is a programmer.</li> - <li> Copyrights last an extremely long time. In the US today it's - possible for copyrights to last for 150 years, which is absurd. Patents - don't last that long; they merely last for a long time — 20 years, + <li> Copyrights last an extremely long time. In the US today it's + possible for copyrights to last for 150 years, which is absurd. Patents + don't last that long; they merely last for a long time—20 years, which in the field of software, as you can imagine, is a long time.</li> -</ul> - -<p> There are many other differences as well. In fact every detail is -different. So the worst thing you should ever do is learn something about -copyrights and suppose that the same is true of patents. No, more likely -it's not true of patents. If it's true of copyrights, it's not true for -patents. That would be a better guideline if you have to guess.</p> - -<h4 id="conf3">How the patent system works.</h4> - -<p> Now most of the time when people describe how the patent system works, -they are people with a vested interest in the system. And so they describe -the patent system from the point of view of somebody who wants to get a -patent and then point it at programmers and say -“hand me your money.” This is natural, you know; when they -sell lottery tickets, they talk about people who win, not people who lose. -Of course most of the people lose, but they don't want you to think about -that, so they talk about the ones who win. It's the same with patents. -The patent system is a very expensive lottery for its participants. But of -course, the people who run the system want you to think about the small -chance you might win.</p> - -<p> So to redress this imbalance, I am going to explain what the patent -system looks like from the point of view of somebody who might be the -victim of a patent; that is, somebody who wants to develop software. - Suppose that you want to develop a program and you are in a country that -has software patents. How do you have to deal with the patent system? </p> - -<p> Well, the first thing is you have to find out about the patents -that might potentially affect your area. This is impossible, because -patents that are in the pipeline, being considered by the patent office, -are secret. Well, in some countries they are published after 18 months -but that still gives plenty of time for them to be secret. So you might -develop a program this year, which is perfectly legal and safe this year. -And then next year, a patent could be issued and all of a sudden you -could be sued. It happens. Or your users could get sued.</p> - -<p> For instance, in 1984 the Compress program was developed and, since it -was free software, it was distributed by many companies along with Unix -systems. Well, in 1985, a US patent was issued on the LZW compression -algorithm used by Compress, and after a few years Unisys began squeezing -money out of various companies.</p> - -<p> Well, since we in the GNU project needed a data compression program -and since we could not use Compress, we began looking for some other -compression program. We found out about… Somebody came forward -and said: “I have been working on this algorithm for a year and -now I have decided I am going to contribute it to you, and here is -the code.” We were a week away from releasing this program when I -just happened to see a copy of the New York Times, which doesn't happen -very often, and it just happened to have the weekly patents column and -I noted it and so I read it. It said that somebody had got a patent -for inventing a new method, a better method of data compression. Well, +</ul> + +<p> There are many other differences as well. In fact every detail is +different. So the worst thing you should ever do is learn something about +copyrights and suppose that the same is true of patents. No, more likely +it's not true of patents. If it's true of copyrights, it's not true for +patents. That would be a better guideline if you have to guess.</p> + +<h4 id="conf3">How the patent system works.</h4> + +<p> Now most of the time when people describe how the patent system works, +they are people with a vested interest in the system. And so they describe +the patent system from the point of view of somebody who wants to get a +patent and then point it at programmers and say +“hand me your money.” This is natural, you know; when they +sell lottery tickets, they talk about people who win, not people who lose. +Of course most of the people lose, but they don't want you to think about +that, so they talk about the ones who win. It's the same with patents. +The patent system is a very expensive lottery for its participants. But of +course, the people who run the system want you to think about the small +chance you might win.</p> + +<p> So to redress this imbalance, I am going to explain what the patent +system looks like from the point of view of somebody who might be the +victim of a patent; that is, somebody who wants to develop software. + Suppose that you want to develop a program and you are in a country that +has software patents. How do you have to deal with the patent system? </p> + +<p> Well, the first thing is you have to find out about the patents +that might potentially affect your area. This is impossible, because +patents that are in the pipeline, being considered by the patent office, +are secret. Well, in some countries they are published after 18 months +but that still gives plenty of time for them to be secret. So you might +develop a program this year, which is perfectly legal and safe this year. +And then next year, a patent could be issued and all of a sudden you +could be sued. It happens. Or your users could get sued.</p> + +<p> For instance, in 1984 the Compress program was developed and, since it +was free software, it was distributed by many companies along with Unix +systems. Well, in 1985, a US patent was issued on the LZW compression +algorithm used by Compress, and after a few years Unisys began squeezing +money out of various companies.</p> + +<p> Well, since we in the GNU project needed a data compression program +and since we could not use Compress, we began looking for some other +compression program. We found out about… Somebody came forward +and said: “I have been working on this algorithm for a year and +now I have decided I am going to contribute it to you, and here is +the code.” We were a week away from releasing this program when I +just happened to see a copy of the New York Times, which doesn't happen +very often, and it just happened to have the weekly patents column and +I noted it and so I read it. It said that somebody had got a patent +for inventing a new method, a better method of data compression. Well, that was not in fact true. -<span class="gnun-split"></span>When I saw this, I thought we'd better get a -copy of this patent and see if it's a problem, and it turned out to cover -exactly the algorithm that we were about to release. So this program -was killed one week before it was released. And in fact that person, -that patent holder, had not invented a better method, because in fact -it wasn't new. But that doesn't matter, he had a monopoly.</p> - -<p> Eventually we found another compression algorithm which is used in the -program that's known as GZIP. But this illustrates the danger that you -face: even if you had unlimited resources, you couldn't find out about -all the patents that might endanger your project. But you can find out -about the issued patents because they are published by the patent office. -So in principle, you could read them all, and see what they restrict, -what they prohibit you from doing. Practically speaking though, once -there are software patents there are so many of them that you can't +<span class="gnun-split"></span>When I saw this, I thought we'd better get a +copy of this patent and see if it's a problem, and it turned out to cover +exactly the algorithm that we were about to release. So this program +was killed one week before it was released. And in fact that person, +that patent holder, had not invented a better method, because in fact +it wasn't new. But that doesn't matter, he had a monopoly.</p> + +<p> Eventually we found another compression algorithm which is used in the +program that's known as GZIP. But this illustrates the danger that you +face: even if you had unlimited resources, you couldn't find out about +all the patents that might endanger your project. But you can find out +about the issued patents because they are published by the patent office. +So in principle, you could read them all, and see what they restrict, +what they prohibit you from doing. Practically speaking though, once +there are software patents there are so many of them that you can't keep up with them. -<span class="gnun-split"></span>In the US there are over a hundred thousand of -them; maybe two hundred thousand by now. This is just an estimate. -I know that 10 years ago they were issuing 10,000 a year and I believe -that it has accelerated since then. So it's too much for you to keep -track of them unless that's your full-time job. Now you can try to -search for the ones that are relevant to what you are doing, and this -works some of the time. If you search for certain keywords or follow -links, you'll find some patents that are relevant to what you're doing. -You won't find them <em>all</em>.</p> - -<p> A few years ago somebody had a US patent — maybe it's -expired by now — on natural order recalculation in spreadsheets. -Now, what does this mean? It means the original spreadsheets did the -recalculation always from top to bottom. Which meant that if a cell -ever depended on a lower cell, then it wouldn't get recalculated the -first time; you'd have to do another recalculation to get that one. -Clearly it's better to do the recalculation in the order, you know. -If A depends on B, then do B first and then do A. This way a single -recalculation will make everything consistent. Well, that's what the -patent covered.</p> - -<p> Now, if you searched for the term spreadsheet, you would not have -found that patent because that term did not appear in it. The phrase -“natural order recalculation” didn't appear either. This -algorithm — and it was indeed the algorithm that they covered, -basically every imaginable way of coding this algorithm — the -algorithm is called topological sorting, and that term did not appear -in the patent either. It presented itself as a patent on a technique -for compilation. So, reasonable searching would not have found this -patent but it would still have been a basis to sue you.</p> - -<p> In fact you can't tell what a software patent covers even roughly, -except by studying it carefully. This is different from patents in other -areas, because in other areas there is some physical thing happening, -and the details of that physical thing usually give you a sort of anchor -so that you can tell whether it relates or not. But in software there -is no such thing, and so it's easy for two totally different ways of -saying something to cover, in fact, the same computation, and it takes -careful study to see that they cover the same one. Because of this, -even the patent office can't keep track. So, there is not one, but -two patents covering LZW data compression. The first one was issued in -1985 and I think the second one in 1989. But that one I think had been -applied for even earlier. One of these patents belongs to Unisys and -the other belongs to IBM.</p> - -<p> Now, this kind of mistake is not in fact that rare. It's not the -only one. You see, patent examiners don't have a lot of time to spend -on one patent. In the US they have an average of 17 hours per patent. -Now that's not enough to carefully study all the other patents in the -area to see if they are really the same thing. So they are going to -make this kind of mistake over and over.</p> - -<h4 id="conf4">You have to work with a lawyer.</h4> - -<p> So you won't find all the patents that might threaten you but you'll -find some of them. Then what do you do? You have to try to figure out -precisely what these patents prohibit. That is very hard, because patents -are written in tortuous legal language which is very hard for an engineer -to understand. You are going to have to work with a lawyer to do it.</p> - -<p> In the 1980's the Australian government commissioned a study of -the patent system — the patent system in general, not software patents. -This study concluded that Australia would be better off abolishing the -patent system because it did very little good for society and caused a lot -of trouble. The only reason they didn't recommend that was international -pressure. So one of the things they cited was that patents, which were -supposed to disclose information so that it would no longer be secret, -were in fact useless for that purpose. Engineers never looked at -patents to try to learn anything, because it's too hard to read them. -In fact they quoted an engineer saying “I can't recognize my own -inventions in patent deeds.” Now this is not just theoretical.</p> - -<p> A few years ago, an engineer in the US named Paul Heckel was -suing Apple. He got a couple of software patents in the late 80's for -a software package, and then when he saw Hypercard he looked at it and -said “ this is nothing like my program,” and didn't think -anymore of it. But then later on, his lawyer explained to him that if -you read his patents carefully, Hypercard fell into the prohibited area. -So he sued Apple, figuring this was an opportunity to get some money. -Well, once when I gave 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.”</p> - -<p> So you are going to have to spend a lot of time working with a -lawyer and explaining to the lawyer what project you are working on, so -the lawyer can explain to you what the patents imply. This is going to -be expensive, and when you're done the lawyer will tell you something -like this: “If you do something in this area, you are almost -sure to lose a lawsuit. If you do something in this area, you are in -a substantial danger, and if you really want to be safe you'd better -stay out of this area, and, of course there is a substantial element -of chance in the outcome of any lawsuit.” So now that you have -a predictable terrain for doing business, what are you going to do?</p> - -<p> Well, you have three options to consider:</p> +<span class="gnun-split"></span>In the US there are over a hundred thousand of +them; maybe two hundred thousand by now. This is just an estimate. +I know that 10 years ago they were issuing 10,000 a year and I believe +that it has accelerated since then. So it's too much for you to keep +track of them unless that's your full-time job. Now you can try to +search for the ones that are relevant to what you are doing, and this +works some of the time. If you search for certain keywords or follow +links, you'll find some patents that are relevant to what you're doing. +You won't find them <em>all</em>.</p> + +<p> A few years ago somebody had a US patent—maybe it's +expired by now—on natural order recalculation in spreadsheets. +Now, what does this mean? It means the original spreadsheets did the +recalculation always from top to bottom. Which meant that if a cell +ever depended on a lower cell, then it wouldn't get recalculated the +first time; you'd have to do another recalculation to get that one. +Clearly it's better to do the recalculation in the order, you know. +If A depends on B, then do B first and then do A. This way a single +recalculation will make everything consistent. Well, that's what the +patent covered.</p> + +<p> Now, if you searched for the term spreadsheet, you would not have +found that patent because that term did not appear in it. The phrase +“natural order recalculation” didn't appear either. This +algorithm—and it was indeed the algorithm that they covered, +basically every imaginable way of coding this algorithm—the +algorithm is called topological sorting, and that term did not appear +in the patent either. It presented itself as a patent on a technique +for compilation. So, reasonable searching would not have found this +patent but it would still have been a basis to sue you.</p> + +<p> In fact you can't tell what a software patent covers even roughly, +except by studying it carefully. This is different from patents in other +areas, because in other areas there is some physical thing happening, +and the details of that physical thing usually give you a sort of anchor +so that you can tell whether it relates or not. But in software there +is no such thing, and so it's easy for two totally different ways of +saying something to cover, in fact, the same computation, and it takes +careful study to see that they cover the same one. Because of this, +even the patent office can't keep track. So, there is not one, but +two patents covering LZW data compression. The first one was issued in +1985 and I think the second one in 1989. But that one I think had been +applied for even earlier. One of these patents belongs to Unisys and +the other belongs to IBM.</p> + +<p> Now, this kind of mistake is not in fact that rare. It's not the +only one. You see, patent examiners don't have a lot of time to spend +on one patent. In the US they have an average of 17 hours per patent. +Now that's not enough to carefully study all the other patents in the +area to see if they are really the same thing. So they are going to +make this kind of mistake over and over.</p> + +<h4 id="conf4">You have to work with a lawyer.</h4> + +<p> So you won't find all the patents that might threaten you but you'll +find some of them. Then what do you do? You have to try to figure out +precisely what these patents prohibit. That is very hard, because patents +are written in tortuous legal language which is very hard for an engineer +to understand. You are going to have to work with a lawyer to do it.</p> + +<p> In the 1980's the Australian government commissioned a study of +the patent system—the patent system in general, not software patents. +This study concluded that Australia would be better off abolishing the +patent system because it did very little good for society and caused a lot +of trouble. The only reason they didn't recommend that was international +pressure. So one of the things they cited was that patents, which were +supposed to disclose information so that it would no longer be secret, +were in fact useless for that purpose. Engineers never looked at +patents to try to learn anything, because it's too hard to read them. +In fact they quoted an engineer saying “I can't recognize my own +inventions in patent deeds.” Now this is not just theoretical.</p> + +<p> A few years ago, an engineer in the US named Paul Heckel was +suing Apple. He got a couple of software patents in the late 80's for +a software package, and then when he saw Hypercard he looked at it and +said “ this is nothing like my program,” and didn't think +anymore of it. But then later on, his lawyer explained to him that if +you read his patents carefully, Hypercard fell into the prohibited area. +So he sued Apple, figuring this was an opportunity to get some money. +Well, once when I gave 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.”</p> + +<p> So you are going to have to spend a lot of time working with a +lawyer and explaining to the lawyer what project you are working on, so +the lawyer can explain to you what the patents imply. This is going to +be expensive, and when you're done the lawyer will tell you something +like this: “If you do something in this area, you are almost +sure to lose a lawsuit. If you do something in this area, you are in +a substantial danger, and if you really want to be safe you'd better +stay out of this area, and, of course there is a substantial element +of chance in the outcome of any lawsuit.” So now that you have +a predictable terrain for doing business, what are you going to do?</p> + +<p> Well, you have three options to consider:</p> <ul> - <li>you can try to <a href="#conf5">avoid the patent</a>,</li> - <li>you can try to <a href="#conf6">license the patent</a>,</li> - <li>or you can try to <a href="#conf7">challenge its validity</a> + <li>you can try to <a href="#conf5">avoid the patent</a>,</li> + <li>you can try to <a href="#conf6">license the patent</a>,</li> + <li>or you can try to <a href="#conf7">challenge its validity</a> in court</li> -</ul> - -<p> Any one of these three is sometimes a viable alternative, and sometimes -not.</p> - -<h4 id="conf5">Avoid the patent.</h4> - -<p> First, let's consider avoiding the patent. Well, in some cases that's -easy. You know, Unisys was threatening people using the patent on LZW -compression; we just had to find another data compression algorithm and -we could avoid that patent. Well, that was somewhat difficult because -there were many other patents covering lots of other data compression -algorithms. But eventually we found one that was not in the area that -those others' patents cover; eventually we did. So that program was -implemented. It actually gave better compression results and so we now -have GZIP, and a lot of people use GZIP. So, in that one case it was -considerable work but we were able to do it, to avoid that patent.</p> - -<p> But in the 80's, CompuServe defined an image format called GIF and -used LZW compression in defining it. Well, of course once the uproar -about these patents became known, people defined another image format -using a different compression algorithm. They used the GZIP algorithm, -and that format is called PNG format, which I suppose means -“PNG is Not GIF.”</p> - -<p> But there was a problem: lots of people had already started using -GIF format, and there were many programs that could display GIF format -and produce GIF format and they couldn't display PNG format. So the -result was people felt it was too hard to switch. You see, when you -are dealing with a data compression program used by somebody who says -“I want to compress some data,” well, you can give him a -different data compression program; if he can get sued for using this -one and you give him another one, he'll switch; but if what he wants -to do is make images that can be displayed by Netscape, then he can't -switch, unless Netscape handles the other format… and it didn't. - -<span class="gnun-split"></span>It took years, I think, before Netscape started to handle PNG format. -So people essentially said “I can't switch, I just have… -” And so the result was, society had invested so much in this one -format, that the inertia was too great for a switch, even though there -was another superior format available.</p> - -<p> Even when a patent is rather narrow, avoiding it can be very hard. -The PostScript specification includes LZW compression, which we in our -implementation of postScript cannot implement. We support another kind -of compression in some sense that is not correct, even though it does the -useful job. So, even a narrow patent is not always feasible to avoid.</p> - -<p> Now, sometimes a feature gets patented. In that case, you can -avoid the patent by taking out that feature. In the late 80's the users -of the word processor XyWrite got a downgrade in the mail. That word -processor had a feature where you could define a short word or sequence -as an abbreviation. Whenever you typed in that short sequence and then -a space, it would turn into a longer expansion. You could define these -any way you liked. Then somebody patented this, and XyWrite decided to -deal with the patent by removing the feature. They contacted me because -in fact I had put a feature like that into the original Emacs editor back -in the 70's, many years before this patent. So there was a chance that -I could provide evidence that would enable them to fight the patent.</p> - -<p> Well, this showed me that I had at least one patentable idea in -my life. I know because someone else patented it. Now, of course, -you can respond to these patented features by taking the features out. -But once your program starts being missing several features that users -want, it might be useless as a program.</p> - -<p> Now you may have heard of Adobe Photoshop. We have a program called -the GIMP which is more powerful and general than Photoshop. But there -is one important feature that it doesn't have which is Pantone color -matching, which is very important for people who want to actually print -the images on paper and get reliable results. This feature is omitted -because it's patented. And as a result, the program for one substantial -class of users is crippled.</p> - -<p> If you look at programs today, you'll see that they often provide -many features, and the users demand these features. If any important -feature is missing, well, it's easy to leave it out, but the results -may be very bad.</p> - -<p> Of course, sometimes a patent is so broad that it's impossible to -avoid it. Public key encryption is essential for computer users to have -privacy. The whole field was patented. That patent expired just four years -ago; there could be no free software in the US for public key encryption, -until then: many programs, both free and nonfree, were wiped out by the -patent holders. And in fact that whole area of computing was held back -for more than a decade despite strong interest.</p> - -<h4 id="conf6">License the patent.</h4> - -<p> So, that is the possibility of avoiding the patent. Another -possibility that is sometimes available is to license the patent. Now, -the patent holder is not required to offer you a license that's his whim. -The patent holder can say “I'm not licensing this, you're just -out of business, period!”</p> - -<p> In the League for Programming Freedom, we heard in the early 90's -from somebody whose family business was making casino games — -computerized of course — and he had been threatened by somebody -who had a patent on a very broad category of computerized casino games. -The patent covered a network where there is more than one machine, and -each machine supports more than one kind of game and can display more -than one game in progress at a time.</p> - -<p> Now, one thing you should realize is the patent office thinks that -it's really brilliant. If you see that other people implemented doing -one thing and you decide to support doing two or more — you know, -if they made a system that plays one game and if you make it able to -play more than one game — that's an invention. If it can display -one game and you decide to set it up so that it can display two games at -once, that's an invention. If he did it with one computer and you do it -with a network having multiple computers, that's an invention for them. -They think that these steps are really brilliant.</p> - -<p> Of course, we in computer science know that this is just a rule, -you can generalize anything from one to more than one. It's the most -obvious principle there is. Every time you write a subroutine, that's -what you're doing. So this is one of the systematic reasons why the -patent system produces, and then upholds patents that we would all say are -ridiculously obvious. You can't assume, just because it's ridiculously -obvious, that they wouldn't be upheld by a court. They may be legally -valid despite the fact that are utterly stupid.</p> - -<p> So he was faced with this patent and the patent holder was not even -offering him the chance to get a license. “Shutdown!” -is what the patent holder said, and that's what he eventually did. -He couldn't afford to fight it.</p> - -<p> However, many patent holders will offer you a chance of a license. -But it will cost you dearly. The owners of the natural order -recalculation patent were demanding five percent of the gross sales of -every spreadsheet. And that, I was told, was the cheap pre-lawsuit price. -If you insisted on fighting over the matter, they were going to charge -more. Now you could, I suppose, sign a license like that for one patent, -you could do it for two, you could do it for three. But what if there are -twenty different patents in your program, and each patent holder wants -five percent of the gross sales? What if there are twenty one of them? -Then you are pretty badly screwed. But actually business people tell -me that two or three such patents would be such a big burden that they -would make the company fail in practice, even if in theory it might have -a chance.</p> - -<p> So, a license for a patent is not necessarily a feasible thing to do, -and for us, free software developers, we're in an even worse position -because we can't even count the copies, and most licenses demand a fee per -copy, so it's absolutely impossible for us to use one of those licenses. -You know, if a license charged one millionth part of a rupee for each -copy, we would be unable to comply because we can't count the copies. -The total amount of money, I might have in my pocket, but I can't count -it so I can't pay it. So we suffer some special burdens occasionally.</p> - -<p> But there is one kind of organization for which licensing patents -works very well, and that is the large multinational corporations; -the reason is that they own many patents themselves and they use them -to force cross-licensing. What does this mean? Well, essentially the -only defense against patents is deterrence: you have to have patents of -your own, then you hope that if somebody points a patent at you, you will -be able point a patent back and say “don't sue me, because I'll -sue you.”</p> - -<p> However, deterrence doesn't work as well for patents as it does -with nuclear weapons, and the reason is that each patent is pointed in -a fixed direction. It prohibits certain specified activities. So the -result is that most of the companies that are trying to get some patents -to defend themselves with, they have no chance of making this a success. -They might get a few patents, you know. So they might get a patent -that points there, and they might get a patent that points there. OK, -and then, if somebody over here threatens this company, what are they -going to do? They don't have a patent pointing over there, so they have -no defense.</p> - -<p> Meanwhile, sooner or later, somebody else will wander over there -and the executive of the company will think “gee, we're not as -profitable as I would like, why don't I go just squeeze some money out -of them.” So they say first “we're getting this patent for -defensive purposes,” but they often change their minds later when -a tempting victim walks by.</p> - -<p> And this, by the way, is the fallacy in the myth that the patent -system “protects” the “small inventor.” Let me -tell you this myth, it's the myth of the starving genius. It's somebody -who has been working in isolation for years, and starving, and has -a brilliant new idea for how to do something or other. And so, now, -he's starting a company and he is afraid some big company like IBM will -compete with him, and so he gets a patent and this patent is going to -“protect him.”</p> - -<p> Well, of course, this is not the way things work in our field. -People don't make this kind of progress in isolation this way. They are -working with other people and talking with the other people and they -are developing software usually. And so the whole scenario doesn't -make sense, and besides, if he was such a good computer scientist, -there was no need for him to starve. He could have got a job at any -time if he wanted.</p> - -<p> But let's suppose that this happened, and suppose that he has his -patent, and he says “IBM, you can't compete with me 'cause I've got -this patent.” But here is what IBM says: “Well, gee, let's -look at your product, hmm, I have this patent, and this patent and this -patent and this patent and this patent that your product is violating. -So how about if we cross-license?” And the starving genius says -“hmm, I haven't got enough food in my belly to fight these things, -so I'd better give in.” And so they sign a cross-license, and -now guess what — IBM can compete with him. He wasn't protected -at all!</p> - -<p> Now, IBM can do this because they have a lot of patents. They have -patents pointing here, here, here, everywhere. So, anybody from almost -anywhere that attacks IBM is facing a stand-off. A small company can't -do it but a big company can.</p> - -<p> So IBM wrote an article. It was in Think magazine, I believe, issue -number five, 1990 — that's IBM's own magazine — an article -about IBM's patent portfolio. IBM said that it got two kinds of benefit -from its 9000 active US patents. One benefit was collecting royalties -from licenses. But the other benefit, the bigger benefit, was access -to things patented by others. Permission to not be attacked by others -with their patents, through cross-licensing. And the article said that -the second benefit was an order of magnitude greater than the first. -In other words, the benefit to IBM of being able to make things freely, -not being sued, was ten times the benefit of collecting money for all -their patents.</p> - -<p> Now the patent system is a lot like a lottery, in that what happens -with any given patent is largely random and most of them don't bring any -benefits to their owners. But IBM is so big that these things average -out over the scale of IBM. So you could take IBM as measuring what the -average is like. What we see is — and this is a little bit subtle -— the benefit to IBM of being able to make use of ideas that were -patented by others is equal to the harm that the patent system would have -done to IBM if there were no cross-licensing — if IBM really were -prohibited from using all those ideas that were patented by others.</p> - -<p> So what it says is: the harm that the patent system would do is -ten times the benefit, on the average. Now, for IBM though, this -harm doesn't happen, because IBM does have 9000 patents and does force -most of them to cross-license, and avoids the problem. But if you are -small, then you can't avoid the problem that way, and you will really -be facing ten times as much trouble as benefit. Anyway, this is why -the big multinational corporations are in favor of software patents, and -they are lobbying governments around the world to adopt software patents -and saying naive things like “this is a new kind of monopoly for -software developers, it has to be good for them, right?”</p> - -<p> Well, today, after you have heard my speech I hope you understand -why that isn't true. You have to look carefully at how patents affect -software developers to see whether they are good or bad, and explaining -that is my overall purpose.</p> - -<h4 id="conf7">Challenge the validity of the patent.</h4> - -<p> So, that is the possibility of licensing a patent. The third possible -option is to go to court and challenge the validity of the patent.</p> - -<p> Now the outcome of this case will depend largely on technicalities, -which means essentially on randomness, you know. The dice were rolled -a few years ago, and you can investigate and find out what the dice -came up saying, and then you'll find out whether you've got a chance. -So it's mainly historical accident that determines whether the patent -is valid — the historical accident of whether, or precisely which -things, people happen to publish, and when.</p> - -<p> So, sometimes, there is a possibility of invalidating. So even if -a patent is ridiculously trivial, sometimes there is a good chance of -invalidating it and sometimes there is none.</p> - -<p> You can't expect the courts to recognize that it is trivial, because -their standards are generally much lower than we would think are sensible. -In fact, in the United States, this has been a persistent tendency. -I saw a Supreme Court decision from something like 1954, which had a -long list of patents that were invalidated by the Supreme Court starting -in the 1800's. And they were utterly ridiculous, like making a certain -shape of doorknob out of rubber, when previously they'd been made out -of wood. And this decision rebuked the patent system for going far, -far away from the proper standards. And they just keep on doing it.</p> - -<p> So you can't expect sensible results from that, but there are -situations where, when you look at the past record, you see that there is -a chance to invalidate a certain patent. It's worth the try, at least -to investigate. But the actual court cases happen to be extremely -expensive.</p> - -<p> A few years ago, one defendant lost and had to pay 13 million -dollars, of which most went to the lawyers on the two sides. I think -only 5 million dollars was actually taken away by the patent holder, -and so there were 8 million to the lawyers.</p> - -<h4 id="conf8">Nobody can reinvent the entire field of software.</h4> - -<p> Now, these are your possible options. At this point, of course, you -have to write the program. And there, the problem is that you face this -situation not just once but over and over and over, because programs today +</ul> + +<p> Any one of these three is sometimes a viable alternative, and sometimes +not.</p> + +<h4 id="conf5">Avoid the patent.</h4> + +<p> First, let's consider avoiding the patent. Well, in some cases that's +easy. You know, Unisys was threatening people using the patent on LZW +compression; we just had to find another data compression algorithm and +we could avoid that patent. Well, that was somewhat difficult because +there were many other patents covering lots of other data compression +algorithms. But eventually we found one that was not in the area that +those others' patents cover; eventually we did. So that program was +implemented. It actually gave better compression results and so we now +have GZIP, and a lot of people use GZIP. So, in that one case it was +considerable work but we were able to do it, to avoid that patent.</p> + +<p> But in the 80's, CompuServe defined an image format called GIF and +used LZW compression in defining it. Well, of course once the uproar +about these patents became known, people defined another image format +using a different compression algorithm. They used the GZIP algorithm, +and that format is called PNG format, which I suppose means +“PNG is Not GIF.”</p> + +<p> But there was a problem: lots of people had already started using +GIF format, and there were many programs that could display GIF format +and produce GIF format and they couldn't display PNG format. So the +result was people felt it was too hard to switch. You see, when you +are dealing with a data compression program used by somebody who says +“I want to compress some data,” well, you can give him a +different data compression program; if he can get sued for using this +one and you give him another one, he'll switch; but if what he wants +to do is make images that can be displayed by Netscape, then he can't +switch, unless Netscape handles the other format… and it didn't. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>It took years, I think, before Netscape started to handle PNG format. +So people essentially said “I can't switch, I just have… +” And so the result was, society had invested so much in this one +format, that the inertia was too great for a switch, even though there +was another superior format available.</p> + +<p> Even when a patent is rather narrow, avoiding it can be very hard. +The PostScript specification includes LZW compression, which we in our +implementation of postScript cannot implement. We support another kind +of compression in some sense that is not correct, even though it does the +useful job. So, even a narrow patent is not always feasible to avoid.</p> + +<p> Now, sometimes a feature gets patented. In that case, you can +avoid the patent by taking out that feature. In the late 80's the users +of the word processor XyWrite got a downgrade in the mail. That word +processor had a feature where you could define a short word or sequence +as an abbreviation. Whenever you typed in that short sequence and then +a space, it would turn into a longer expansion. You could define these +any way you liked. Then somebody patented this, and XyWrite decided to +deal with the patent by removing the feature. They contacted me because +in fact I had put a feature like that into the original Emacs editor back +in the 70's, many years before this patent. So there was a chance that +I could provide evidence that would enable them to fight the patent.</p> + +<p> Well, this showed me that I had at least one patentable idea in +my life. I know because someone else patented it. Now, of course, +you can respond to these patented features by taking the features out. +But once your program starts being missing several features that users +want, it might be useless as a program.</p> + +<p> Now you may have heard of Adobe Photoshop. We have a program called +the GIMP which is more powerful and general than Photoshop. But there +is one important feature that it doesn't have which is Pantone color +matching, which is very important for people who want to actually print +the images on paper and get reliable results. This feature is omitted +because it's patented. And as a result, the program for one substantial +class of users is crippled.</p> + +<p> If you look at programs today, you'll see that they often provide +many features, and the users demand these features. If any important +feature is missing, well, it's easy to leave it out, but the results +may be very bad.</p> + +<p> Of course, sometimes a patent is so broad that it's impossible to +avoid it. Public key encryption is essential for computer users to have +privacy. The whole field was patented. That patent expired just four years +ago; there could be no free software in the US for public key encryption, +until then: many programs, both free and nonfree, were wiped out by the +patent holders. And in fact that whole area of computing was held back +for more than a decade despite strong interest.</p> + +<h4 id="conf6">License the patent.</h4> + +<p> So, that is the possibility of avoiding the patent. Another +possibility that is sometimes available is to license the patent. Now, +the patent holder is not required to offer you a license that's his whim. +The patent holder can say “I'm not licensing this, you're just +out of business, period!”</p> + +<p> In the League for Programming Freedom, we heard in the early 90's +from somebody whose family business was making casino games— +computerized of course—and he had been threatened by somebody +who had a patent on a very broad category of computerized casino games. +The patent covered a network where there is more than one machine, and +each machine supports more than one kind of game and can display more +than one game in progress at a time.</p> + +<p> Now, one thing you should realize is the patent office thinks that +it's really brilliant. If you see that other people implemented doing +one thing and you decide to support doing two or more—you know, +if they made a system that plays one game and if you make it able to +play more than one game—that's an invention. If it can display +one game and you decide to set it up so that it can display two games at +once, that's an invention. If he did it with one computer and you do it +with a network having multiple computers, that's an invention for them. +They think that these steps are really brilliant.</p> + +<p> Of course, we in computer science know that this is just a rule, +you can generalize anything from one to more than one. It's the most +obvious principle there is. Every time you write a subroutine, that's +what you're doing. So this is one of the systematic reasons why the +patent system produces, and then upholds patents that we would all say are +ridiculously obvious. You can't assume, just because it's ridiculously +obvious, that they wouldn't be upheld by a court. They may be legally +valid despite the fact that are utterly stupid.</p> + +<p> So he was faced with this patent and the patent holder was not even +offering him the chance to get a license. “Shutdown!” +is what the patent holder said, and that's what he eventually did. +He couldn't afford to fight it.</p> + +<p> However, many patent holders will offer you a chance of a license. +But it will cost you dearly. The owners of the natural order +recalculation patent were demanding five percent of the gross sales of +every spreadsheet. And that, I was told, was the cheap pre-lawsuit price. +If you insisted on fighting over the matter, they were going to charge +more. Now you could, I suppose, sign a license like that for one patent, +you could do it for two, you could do it for three. But what if there are +twenty different patents in your program, and each patent holder wants +five percent of the gross sales? What if there are twenty one of them? +Then you are pretty badly screwed. But actually business people tell +me that two or three such patents would be such a big burden that they +would make the company fail in practice, even if in theory it might have +a chance.</p> + +<p> So, a license for a patent is not necessarily a feasible thing to do, +and for us, free software developers, we're in an even worse position +because we can't even count the copies, and most licenses demand a fee per +copy, so it's absolutely impossible for us to use one of those licenses. +You know, if a license charged one millionth part of a rupee for each +copy, we would be unable to comply because we can't count the copies. +The total amount of money, I might have in my pocket, but I can't count +it so I can't pay it. So we suffer some special burdens occasionally.</p> + +<p> But there is one kind of organization for which licensing patents +works very well, and that is the large multinational corporations; +the reason is that they own many patents themselves and they use them +to force cross-licensing. What does this mean? Well, essentially the +only defense against patents is deterrence: you have to have patents of +your own, then you hope that if somebody points a patent at you, you will +be able point a patent back and say “don't sue me, because I'll +sue you.”</p> + +<p> However, deterrence doesn't work as well for patents as it does +with nuclear weapons, and the reason is that each patent is pointed in +a fixed direction. It prohibits certain specified activities. So the +result is that most of the companies that are trying to get some patents +to defend themselves with, they have no chance of making this a success. +They might get a few patents, you know. So they might get a patent +that points there, and they might get a patent that points there. OK, +and then, if somebody over here threatens this company, what are they +going to do? They don't have a patent pointing over there, so they have +no defense.</p> + +<p> Meanwhile, sooner or later, somebody else will wander over there +and the executive of the company will think “gee, we're not as +profitable as I would like, why don't I go just squeeze some money out +of them.” So they say first “we're getting this patent for +defensive purposes,” but they often change their minds later when +a tempting victim walks by.</p> + +<p> And this, by the way, is the fallacy in the myth that the patent +system “protects” the “small inventor.” Let me +tell you this myth, it's the myth of the starving genius. It's somebody +who has been working in isolation for years, and starving, and has +a brilliant new idea for how to do something or other. And so, now, +he's starting a company and he is afraid some big company like IBM will +compete with him, and so he gets a patent and this patent is going to +“protect him.”</p> + +<p> Well, of course, this is not the way things work in our field. +People don't make this kind of progress in isolation this way. They are +working with other people and talking with the other people and they +are developing software usually. And so the whole scenario doesn't +make sense, and besides, if he was such a good computer scientist, +there was no need for him to starve. He could have got a job at any +time if he wanted.</p> + +<p> But let's suppose that this happened, and suppose that he has his +patent, and he says “IBM, you can't compete with me 'cause I've got +this patent.” But here is what IBM says: “Well, gee, let's +look at your product, hmm, I have this patent, and this patent and this +patent and this patent and this patent that your product is violating. +So how about if we cross-license?” And the starving genius says +“hmm, I haven't got enough food in my belly to fight these things, +so I'd better give in.” And so they sign a cross-license, and +now guess what—IBM can compete with him. He wasn't protected +at all!</p> + +<p> Now, IBM can do this because they have a lot of patents. They have +patents pointing here, here, here, everywhere. So, anybody from almost +anywhere that attacks IBM is facing a stand-off. A small company can't +do it but a big company can.</p> + +<p> So IBM wrote an article. It was in Think magazine, I believe, issue +number five, 1990—that's IBM's own magazine—an article +about IBM's patent portfolio. IBM said that it got two kinds of benefit +from its 9000 active US patents. One benefit was collecting royalties +from licenses. But the other benefit, the bigger benefit, was access +to things patented by others. Permission to not be attacked by others +with their patents, through cross-licensing. And the article said that +the second benefit was an order of magnitude greater than the first. +In other words, the benefit to IBM of being able to make things freely, +not being sued, was ten times the benefit of collecting money for all +their patents.</p> + +<p> Now the patent system is a lot like a lottery, in that what happens +with any given patent is largely random and most of them don't bring any +benefits to their owners. But IBM is so big that these things average +out over the scale of IBM. So you could take IBM as measuring what the +average is like. What we see is—and this is a little bit +subtle—the benefit to IBM of being able to make use of ideas that were +patented by others is equal to the harm that the patent system would have +done to IBM if there were no cross-licensing—if IBM really were +prohibited from using all those ideas that were patented by others.</p> + +<p> So what it says is: the harm that the patent system would do is +ten times the benefit, on the average. Now, for IBM though, this +harm doesn't happen, because IBM does have 9000 patents and does force +most of them to cross-license, and avoids the problem. But if you are +small, then you can't avoid the problem that way, and you will really +be facing ten times as much trouble as benefit. Anyway, this is why +the big multinational corporations are in favor of software patents, and +they are lobbying governments around the world to adopt software patents +and saying naive things like “this is a new kind of monopoly for +software developers, it has to be good for them, right?”</p> + +<p> Well, today, after you have heard my speech I hope you understand +why that isn't true. You have to look carefully at how patents affect +software developers to see whether they are good or bad, and explaining +that is my overall purpose.</p> + +<h4 id="conf7">Challenge the validity of the patent.</h4> + +<p> So, that is the possibility of licensing a patent. The third possible +option is to go to court and challenge the validity of the patent.</p> + +<p> Now the outcome of this case will depend largely on technicalities, +which means essentially on randomness, you know. The dice were rolled +a few years ago, and you can investigate and find out what the dice +came up saying, and then you'll find out whether you've got a chance. +So it's mainly historical accident that determines whether the patent +is valid—the historical accident of whether, or precisely which +things, people happen to publish, and when.</p> + +<p> So, sometimes, there is a possibility of invalidating. So even if +a patent is ridiculously trivial, sometimes there is a good chance of +invalidating it and sometimes there is none.</p> + +<p> You can't expect the courts to recognize that it is trivial, because +their standards are generally much lower than we would think are sensible. +In fact, in the United States, this has been a persistent tendency. +I saw a Supreme Court decision from something like 1954, which had a +long list of patents that were invalidated by the Supreme Court starting +in the 1800's. And they were utterly ridiculous, like making a certain +shape of doorknob out of rubber, when previously they'd been made out +of wood. And this decision rebuked the patent system for going far, +far away from the proper standards. And they just keep on doing it.</p> + +<p> So you can't expect sensible results from that, but there are +situations where, when you look at the past record, you see that there is +a chance to invalidate a certain patent. It's worth the try, at least +to investigate. But the actual court cases happen to be extremely +expensive.</p> + +<p> A few years ago, one defendant lost and had to pay 13 million +dollars, of which most went to the lawyers on the two sides. I think +only 5 million dollars was actually taken away by the patent holder, +and so there were 8 million to the lawyers.</p> + +<h4 id="conf8">Nobody can reinvent the entire field of software.</h4> + +<p> Now, these are your possible options. At this point, of course, you +have to write the program. And there, the problem is that you face this +situation not just once but over and over and over, because programs today are complicated. Look at a word processor; you'll see a lot of features, -many different things, each of which could be patented by somebody, or a -combination of two of them could be patented by somebody. British Telecom -has a patent in the US on the combination of following hypertext links -and letting the user dial up through a phone line. Now these are two -basically separate things, but the combination of the two is patented.</p> - -<p> So, that means if there are 100 things in your program, there are -potentially some five thousand pairs of two that might be patented by -somebody already, and there is no law against patenting a combination of -three of them either. That's just the features, you know. There's going -to be many techniques that you use in writing a program, many algorithms, -they could be patented too. So there are lots and lots of things that -could be patented. The result is that developing a program becomes -like crossing a field of land mines. Sure, each step probably will not -step on a patent, each design decision. Chances are it will be safe. -But crossing the whole field becomes dangerous.</p> - -<p> The best way for a nonprogrammer to understand what this is like is -to compare the writing of these large programs with another area in which -people write something very large: symphonies. Imagine if the governments -of Europe in the 1700's had wanted to promote progress in symphonic music -by adopting a system of music patents, so that any idea that could be -described in words could be patented if it seemed to be new and original. -So you'd be able to patent, say, a three-note melodic motif which is -be too short to be copyrightable, but it would have been patentable. -And maybe they could have patented a certain chord progression, and maybe -patented using a certain combination of instruments playing at the same -time, or any other idea that somebody could describe.</p> - -<p> Well, by 1800 there would have been thousands of these music -idea patents. And then imagine that you are Beethoven and you want -to write a symphony. To write a whole symphony, you are going to have -to do lots of different things, and at any point you could be using an -idea that somebody else has patented. Of course, if you do that he'll -say: “Oh! You are just a thief, why can't you write something -original?” Well, Beethoven had more than his share of new musical -ideas, but he used a lot of existing musical ideas. He had to, because -that's the only way to make it recognizable. If you don't do that, -people won't listen at all. Pierre Boulez thought he was going to totally -reinvent the language of music, and he tried, and nobody listens to it, -because it doesn't use all the ideas that they're familiar with.</p> - -<p> So you have to use the old ideas that other people have thought of. -Nobody is such a genius that he can reinvent the entire field of software -and do useful things without learning anything from anybody else. -So in effect, those people, the patent holders and their lawyers, they -are accusing us of being cheaters because we don't totally reinvent the -field from scratch. We have to build on previous work to make progress, -and that is exactly what the patent system prohibits us from doing. -And we have to provide features that the users are accustomed to and -can recognize, or they'll find our software just too difficult to use -no matter how good it is.</p> - -<h4 id="conf9">The relationship between patents and products varies -between the fields.</h4> - -<p> Now, people sometimes ask me: why is software different from other -fields? Sometimes, of course they ask this in a rather nasty fashion, -they say: “the other fields can deal with patents, why should -software be an exception?” Now that's a nasty way of putting it -because it's making the assumption that it's wrong to want to escape -from a problem. I could imagine I am saying: “well, other people -could get cancer, why shouldn't you?” Clearly, if it's a problem, -enabling any field to escape is good. But it is a good and serious -question: are these fields the same issue? Do patents affect all these -fields the same way? Is the right policy for software the same as -the right policy for automobile engines or pharmaceuticals or chemical -processes, you know, this is a serious question which is worth looking -at.</p> - -<p> When you look at it, what you see is that the relationship between -patents and products varies between the fields. At one extreme you have -pharmaceuticals where typically a whole chemical formula is patented. So -if you come up with a new drug, then it's not patented by somebody else. -At the other extreme is software where, when you write a new program, -you are combining dozens or hundreds of ideas, and we can't expect them -all to be new. Even an innovative program, which has a few new ideas, -has to use lots and lots of old ideas too. And in between you find the -other fields. Even in other fields, you can get patent deadlock.</p> - -<p> When the United States entered World War I, nobody in the US could -make a modern airplane. And the reason was that modern airplanes use -several different techniques that were patented by different companies, -and the owners hated each other. So nobody could get a license to -use all these patents. Well, the US government decided that this was -an unacceptable state of affairs, and essentially paid those patent -holders a lump sum and said “we have nationalized these patents; -now, everybody, go make airplanes for us!”</p> - -<p> But the amount to which this happens, the frequency and the -seriousness of it varies according to how many different ideas go in one -product. It varies according to how many points of patent vulnerability -there are in one product. And in that question, software is at the -extreme.</p> - -<p> It's not unusual for a few people working for a couple of years to -write a program that could have a million parts in it, different parts, -which is maybe, say, 300,000 lines of code. To design a physical system -that has a million different parts, that's a mega-project, that's very -rare. Now you'll find many times people make a physical object with a -million parts, but typically it's many copies of the same subunit and -that's much easier to design — that's not a million different -parts in the design.</p> - -<p> So, why is this? The reason is that, in other fields, people have -to deal with the perversity of matter. You are designing circuits -or cars or chemicals, you have to face the fact that these physical -substances will do what they do, not what they are supposed to do. We in -software don't have that problem, and that makes it tremendously easier. -We are designing a collection of idealized mathematical parts which -have definitions. They do exactly what they are defined to do.</p> - -<p> And so there are many problems we don't have. For instance, if we -put an if statement inside of a while statement, we don't have to worry -about whether the if statement can get enough power to run at the speed -it's going to run. We don't have to worry about whether it will run at -a speed that generates radio frequency interference and induces wrong -values in some other parts of the data. We don't have to worry about -whether it will loop at a speed that causes a resonance and eventually -the if statement will vibrate against the while statement and one of them +many different things, each of which could be patented by somebody, or a +combination of two of them could be patented by somebody. British Telecom +has a patent in the US on the combination of following hypertext links +and letting the user dial up through a phone line. Now these are two +basically separate things, but the combination of the two is patented.</p> + +<p> So, that means if there are 100 things in your program, there are +potentially some five thousand pairs of two that might be patented by +somebody already, and there is no law against patenting a combination of +three of them either. That's just the features, you know. There's going +to be many techniques that you use in writing a program, many algorithms, +they could be patented too. So there are lots and lots of things that +could be patented. The result is that developing a program becomes +like crossing a field of land mines. Sure, each step probably will not +step on a patent, each design decision. Chances are it will be safe. +But crossing the whole field becomes dangerous.</p> + +<p> The best way for a nonprogrammer to understand what this is like is +to compare the writing of these large programs with another area in which +people write something very large: symphonies. Imagine if the governments +of Europe in the 1700's had wanted to promote progress in symphonic music +by adopting a system of music patents, so that any idea that could be +described in words could be patented if it seemed to be new and original. +So you'd be able to patent, say, a three-note melodic motif which is +be too short to be copyrightable, but it would have been patentable. +And maybe they could have patented a certain chord progression, and maybe +patented using a certain combination of instruments playing at the same +time, or any other idea that somebody could describe.</p> + +<p> Well, by 1800 there would have been thousands of these music +idea patents. And then imagine that you are Beethoven and you want +to write a symphony. To write a whole symphony, you are going to have +to do lots of different things, and at any point you could be using an +idea that somebody else has patented. Of course, if you do that he'll +say: “Oh! You are just a thief, why can't you write something +original?” Well, Beethoven had more than his share of new musical +ideas, but he used a lot of existing musical ideas. He had to, because +that's the only way to make it recognizable. If you don't do that, +people won't listen at all. Pierre Boulez thought he was going to totally +reinvent the language of music, and he tried, and nobody listens to it, +because it doesn't use all the ideas that they're familiar with.</p> + +<p> So you have to use the old ideas that other people have thought of. +Nobody is such a genius that he can reinvent the entire field of software +and do useful things without learning anything from anybody else. +So in effect, those people, the patent holders and their lawyers, they +are accusing us of being cheaters because we don't totally reinvent the +field from scratch. We have to build on previous work to make progress, +and that is exactly what the patent system prohibits us from doing. +And we have to provide features that the users are accustomed to and +can recognize, or they'll find our software just too difficult to use +no matter how good it is.</p> + +<h4 id="conf9">The relationship between patents and products varies +between the fields.</h4> + +<p> Now, people sometimes ask me: why is software different from other +fields? Sometimes, of course they ask this in a rather nasty fashion, +they say: “the other fields can deal with patents, why should +software be an exception?” Now that's a nasty way of putting it +because it's making the assumption that it's wrong to want to escape +from a problem. I could imagine I am saying: “well, other people +could get cancer, why shouldn't you?” Clearly, if it's a problem, +enabling any field to escape is good. But it is a good and serious +question: are these fields the same issue? Do patents affect all these +fields the same way? Is the right policy for software the same as +the right policy for automobile engines or pharmaceuticals or chemical +processes, you know, this is a serious question which is worth looking +at.</p> + +<p> When you look at it, what you see is that the relationship between +patents and products varies between the fields. At one extreme you have +pharmaceuticals where typically a whole chemical formula is patented. So +if you come up with a new drug, then it's not patented by somebody else. +At the other extreme is software where, when you write a new program, +you are combining dozens or hundreds of ideas, and we can't expect them +all to be new. Even an innovative program, which has a few new ideas, +has to use lots and lots of old ideas too. And in between you find the +other fields. Even in other fields, you can get patent deadlock.</p> + +<p> When the United States entered World War I, nobody in the US could +make a modern airplane. And the reason was that modern airplanes use +several different techniques that were patented by different companies, +and the owners hated each other. So nobody could get a license to +use all these patents. Well, the US government decided that this was +an unacceptable state of affairs, and essentially paid those patent +holders a lump sum and said “we have nationalized these patents; +now, everybody, go make airplanes for us!”</p> + +<p> But the amount to which this happens, the frequency and the +seriousness of it varies according to how many different ideas go in one +product. It varies according to how many points of patent vulnerability +there are in one product. And in that question, software is at the +extreme.</p> + +<p> It's not unusual for a few people working for a couple of years to +write a program that could have a million parts in it, different parts, +which is maybe, say, 300,000 lines of code. To design a physical system +that has a million different parts, that's a mega-project, that's very +rare. Now you'll find many times people make a physical object with a +million parts, but typically it's many copies of the same subunit and +that's much easier to design—that's not a million different +parts in the design.</p> + +<p> So, why is this? The reason is that, in other fields, people have +to deal with the perversity of matter. You are designing circuits +or cars or chemicals, you have to face the fact that these physical +substances will do what they do, not what they are supposed to do. We in +software don't have that problem, and that makes it tremendously easier. +We are designing a collection of idealized mathematical parts which +have definitions. They do exactly what they are defined to do.</p> + +<p> And so there are many problems we don't have. For instance, if we +put an <code>if</code> statement inside of a <code>while</code> statement, we don't have to worry +about whether the <code>if</code> statement can get enough power to run at the speed +it's going to run. We don't have to worry about whether it will run at +a speed that generates radio frequency interference and induces wrong +values in some other parts of the data. We don't have to worry about +whether it will loop at a speed that causes a resonance and eventually +the <code>if</code> statement will vibrate against the <code>while</code> statement and one of them will crack. -<span class="gnun-split"></span>We don't have to worry that chemicals in the environment -will get into the boundary between the if statement and the while -statement and corrode them, and cause a bad connection. We don't have -to worry that other chemicals will get on them and cause a short-circuit. -We don't have to worry about whether the heat can be dissipated from this -if statement through the surrounding while statement. We don't have -to worry about whether the while statement would cause so much voltage -drop that the if statement won't function correctly. When you look at -the value of a variable you don't have to worry about whether you've -referenced that variable so many times that you exceed the fan-out limit. -You don't have to worry about how much capacitance there is in a certain -variable and how much time it will take to store the value in it.</p> - -<p> All these things are defined a way, the system is defined to function -in a certain way, and it always does. The physical computer might -malfunction, but that's not the program's fault. So, because of all these -problems we don't have to deal with, our field is tremendously easier.</p> - -<p> If we assume that the intelligence of programmers is the same as -the intelligence of mechanical engineers, and electrical engineers and -chemical engineers and so on, what's going to happen? Those of us with -the easiest field, fundamentally, are going to push it further. We make -bigger and bigger things and eventually it becomes hard again. That's why -we can develop much bigger systems than the people in the other fields. -They just have these hard problems to deal with all the time. In the -other fields, it may be necessary to develop an idea. You may have the -idea, but then you may have to try out lots of different ways to get -it to work at all. In software it's not like that, you have the idea -and what you go and do is you write a program which uses this idea, -and then the users may like it or not. And if they don't like it, -probably you can just fix some details and get it to work.</p> - -<p> There is another problem that we don't have to worry about: -manufacturing of copies. When we put this if statement inside the -while statement, we don't have to worry about how the if statement is -going to be inserted into the while statement as a copy is being built. -We don't have to worry either about making sure we have access to remove -and replace this if statement if it should burn out. So all we have to do -is type “copy” and it's an all-purpose copy-anything facility. -People making physical equipment and physical products, they can't do -that, these things have to be built piece by piece each time.</p> - -<p> The result is that for them, the cost of designing a system of a -certain complexity may be (gesturing) this much and the factory may -take this much to set up. So they have to deal with this much from the -patent system. It's a level of overhead they can live with. For us, -designing it may cost (gesturing) this much and manufacturing it may cost -this much, so this much overhead from the patent system is crushing.</p> - -<p> Another way to look at it is that because we can — a few of -us can — make a much bigger system, there are many more points -of vulnerability where somebody might have patented something already. -We have to walk a long distance through the mine field, whereas they -they only have to walk a few feet through the minefield. So it's much -more of a dangerous system for us.</p> - -<h4 id="conf10">Program development is hampered by software patents.</h4> - -<p> Now, you have to realize that the ostensible purpose of the patent -system is to promote progress. This is something that is often forgotten -because the companies that benefit from patents like to distract you -from it. They like to give you the idea that patents exist because they -deserve special treatment. But this is not what the patent system says. -The patent system says: the goal is to promote progress for society, -by encouraging certain behavior like publishing new ideas; and after a -certain — originally that was fairly short — time, everyone -could use them.</p> - -<p> Of course there is a certain price that society pays as well, and so -we have to ask the question: which is bigger, the benefit or the price? -Well, in other fields, I am not sure. I am not an expert on other -fields of engineering, I've never done them and I don't know whether -having patents is good for progress in those fields.</p> - -<p> I have been in software since before software patents existed, and -I know that software patents do a lot of harm and essentially no good. -In the old days, ideas came along. Either people in a university had -an idea, or somebody had an idea while he was working on developing -software. And either way, these ideas got published, and then everyone -could use them. Now why did the software publishers publish these ideas? -Because they knew that the big job was writing the program.</p> - -<p> They knew that publishing the ideas would get them credit from the -community, and meanwhile anybody else who wanted to compete with them -would still have to write a program, which is the big job. So they -typically kept the details of the program secret — of course some -of us think that's wrong, but that's a different issue. They kept the -details of the program secret and they published the ideas, and meanwhile -the software development — because software development was going -on — That provided the field with a steady stream of ideas, so -ideas were not the limiting factor. The limiting factor was the job of -writing programs that would work and that people would like using.</p> - -<p> So, in effect, applying the patent system to software focuses on -facilitating a thing which is not the limiting factor, while causing -trouble for the thing which is the limiting factor. You see the software -patents encourage somebody to have an idea, but at the same time they -encourage people to restrict its use, so in fact we are actually worse -off now in terms of having ideas we could use, because in the past people -had the ideas and published them and we could use them, and now they -have the ideas and patent them and we can't use them for twenty years. -In the mean time, the real limiting factor — which is developing -the programs — this is hampered by software patents because of -other dangers that I explained to you in the first half of this talk.</p> - -<p> So the result is that, while the system is supposed to be promoting -progress in software, actually it is so screwed up it's just obstructing -progress.</p> - -<p> Today we have some economic research showing mathematically how this -can happen. You can find it in <a -href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org">www.researchoninnovation.org</a>. -I am not completely sure of the name of the paper, but it's one -that shows that in a field where incremental innovation is typical, -having a patent system can result in slower progress. In other words the -system produces counter-intuitive results that are the opposite of what it -was intended to do. This backs up the intuitive conclusion of every -programmer who sees that software patents are absurd.</p> - -<h4 id="conf11">What can a country do to avoid this problem?</h4> - -<p> So, what can a country do to avoid this problem? Well, there are -two approaches: one is to address the problem at the issue of granting -patents, and the other is to approach it at the point where patents are -being enforced.</p> - -<p> Doing this at the stage of granting patents is not quite as easy -as you might think. Now, I have been talking about software patents -but strictly speaking you can't classify patents into hardware patents -and software patents, because one patent might cover both hardware and -software. So in fact my definition of a software patent is: a patent -that can restrict software development.</p> - -<p> And if you look at many software patents you often find that the -system they describe has a large part of the computer itself as part of -the description of what's going on. That's a great way of making the -whole thing seem complicated when it is really trivial. So it's a way -they can get the patent office to decide it's unobvious.</p> - -<p> But there is a different criterion that can be used, a slightly -different place to draw the line that still does a reasonable job, and -that is between processes that transform matter in a specific way, and -processes where the result is just calculation and display of information, -or a combination of data processing and display steps — or others -have put it as: mental steps being carried out by equipment. There are -various ways of formulating this, which are more or less equivalent.</p> - -<p> Now this is not exactly the same as prohibiting software patents, -because in some cases computers are used as part of specific physical -equipment to make it do a specific thing. And software patents might be -allowed if they are part of a specific physical activity. But that's not -really a disaster. After all, once people are involved in a specific -physical activity or a specific physical product, they are bringing -into their whole business all those complexities of dealing with matter. -So it's more like those other fields of engineering. Maybe it's okay to -have patents on that narrow kind of software. As long as we can keep the -core areas of software, the purely software activities safe from patents, -we have solved the bulk of the problem.</p> - -<p> So that is a feasible approach and that's what people are working -towards in Europe. However, that is not going to be any use in the -United States because the United States already has tens of thousands, -probably hundreds of thousands of software patents. Any change in the -criteria for issuing patents does not help at all with the patents that -already exist.</p> - -<p> So what I propose to the United States is to change the criteria -for applying patents, to say that <em>purely software systems running -on general purpose computing hardware are immune from patents</em>. -They by definition cannot infringe a patent. And this way the patents -can still be granted exactly the way they are now, and they can still, -in a formal sense, cover both hardware implementations and software -implementations as they do now. But software will be safe.</p> - -<h4 id="conf12">Preventing India from having software patents will be -up to the citizens of India.</h4> - -<p> That's the solution I propose to the US, but it could be used in -other countries as well.</p> - -<p> Now, one of the tremendous dangers facing most countries today -is the World Trade Organization, which sets up a system of corporate -regulated trade — not free trade as its proponents like to call -it, but corporate regulated trade. It replaces the regulation of trade -by governments, that are somewhat democratic and might listen to the -interest of their citizens, with regulation of trade by businesses, -which don't pretend to listen to the citizens. So it's fundamentally -antidemocratic and ought to be abolished.</p> - -<p> But it's crucial to note that the part of the GATT agreement which -deals with patents does not require software patents. Many experts who -have studied this, for instance in Europe, make this claim. And the -reason is that they interpret technical effect as: there is a specific -physical consequence or physical system going on. And so the software -that doesn't do that doesn't have to be in the domain that patents -can cover.</p> - -<p> So, at least you don't have to worry about the Word Trade Organization -causing problems here, despite the tremendous problems they cause in -other areas of life.</p> - -<p> Preventing India from having software patents will be up to you -— to the citizens of India. I am a foreigner, I have no influence -except when I can convince other people through the logic of what I say. -There is a chance that you can do this. When the US started to have -software patents, the public policy question was not considered at all. -Nobody even asked whether it was a good idea to have software patents. -The Supreme Court made a decision which was then twisted around by an -appeals court, and ever since then, there were software patents.</p> - -<p> But when Europe started to consider officially authorizing software -patents a few years ago, public opposition started to rise and became -so strong that the politicians and the parties began paying attention -to it, and started saying they were against it. In fact two attempts -to authorize software patents have been blocked already in Europe. -The French Minister of Industry says that software patents would be a -disaster and under no circumstances should they be allowed in France. -All of the German political parties have taken a stand against software -patents.</p> - -<p> The battle is not yet over, you know. We have not conclusively -blocked software patents in Europe, because the multinational companies -and their servant, the United States government, is lobbying very hard, -and they have ignorance on their side. It's so easy for somebody with -a naive neo-liberal view to be persuaded that a new kind of monopoly -has to be good!</p> - -<p> You have to look at the details of how software patents affect -software development to see that they cause a problem. You have to -study that economic research in its mathematics in order to see why you -shouldn't assume that patents always promote progress. So, it's easy -for IBM to send a lobbyist to someone and say: “You should really -adopt software patents, they are great for programming. And look, the US -is ahead and the US has software patents. If you have software patents -too, you might catch up.” Well, you can't get more dominant than -that, and the US was ahead in computers before it had software patents, -it can't be because of software patents.</p> - -<p> It's important to understand that each country has its own patent -system and its own patent laws and what you do in a certain country is -under the jurisdiction of that country's patent law. So the result is, -that if the US has software patents, the US becomes a sort of battleground -where anybody using computers might get sued. If India avoids software -patents, then India is not a battleground, and computer users in India -do not face this danger of getting sued.</p> - -<p> It turns out that each country will issue patents to foreigners, -just as to its own citizens. So in fact, in a place which has this -scourge of software patents, foreigners can own those patents. There are -lots of non-US companies that own US software patents, so they are all -welcome to get involved in the fighting in the US. Of course it's we -Americans who become the victims of this. Meanwhile, in India, if there -are no software patents, that means both Indian companies and foreign -companies are prevented from coming into India and attacking people with -software patents.</p> - -<p> So, yes it is important that each country has its own patent law. -That makes a big difference, but you've got to understand what difference -it makes. Having software patents in a certain country is not an -advantage for the developers in that country. It's a problem for anybody -distributing and using software in that country.</p> - -<p> Now, if you in India are developing a program for use in the US, -you may face the problem — or at least your client will face the -problem — of US software patents. At least probably you can't -get sued here. The client who commissioned the program and tries to use -it might get sued in the US, and indeed you will have to deal with the -problem — the US's problems — when you try doing business -in the US. But at least you'll be safe here. You know, at least it is -a big difference between your client got sued because your client told -you to make a product and that product is patented, versus you get sued -for making that product.</p> - -<p> If there are software patents in India, then you will get sued. -Whereas in the current situation, at least you can say to the client: -“You told us to make this and we made it. So, I'm sorry this -happened to you but it's not our fault.” Whereas if there are -software patents in India, you'll get sued yourself and there is nothing -you can say about that.</p> - -<h4 id="conf13">Businesses should demand opposition to software -patents.</h4> - -<p> So the ultimate conclusion is that software patents tie all software -developers, all computer users and essentially all businesses in a -new kind of bureaucracy, which serves no beneficial social purpose. -So it's a bad policy and it should be avoided.</p> - -<p> Businesses don't like bureaucracy. If businesses knew that they were -threatened with a new kind of bureaucracy, they would oppose software -patents very strongly. But most of them aren't aware of this.</p> - -<p> In the US, software patents have led directly to business method -patents. What does this mean? A business method is basically how -you make decisions about what to do in the business. And in the past, -these decisions were made by humans but now sometimes they are made by -computers, and that means they are carried out by software, and that means -the decision policies can be patented. Software patents imply business -method patents and business procedure patents. The result is that any -business could find itself, you know, once they decide “we're -going to automate the way we carry out our procedures,” now they -get sued with a software patent.</p> - -<p> So if businesses only knew, they would be organizing through things -like the chamber of commerce to demand opposition to software patents. -But mostly they don't know, and therefore it's going to be your job -to inform them. Make sure they understand the danger that they are -facing.</p> - -<h4 id="conf14">It's important for countries to work together against -this.</h4> - -<p> And then India may be able, with the help of other countries like -France and Germany, to reject software patents. It is important for -people in the Indian government to make contact with officials in European -countries, so that this battle against software patents doesn't have to be -fought one country at a time, so that countries can work together to adopt -an intelligent policy. Maybe there should be a <em>no software patents -treaty</em> that various countries can sign and promise each other aid, -when they are threatened by economic pressure from the United States, -as part of its economic imperialism.</p> - -<p> Because the United States likes to do that, you know. One of -the provisions in the GATT agreement is that countries have the right -to make compulsory licenses for making medicine, to address a public -health crisis. And the South-African government proposed to do this for -medicine against AIDS. Now, South-Africa has a very bad problem with -AIDS; the figures I've heard was that a quarter of the adult population -is infected. And of course, most of them can't afford to buy these -medicines at the prices charged by the US companies.</p> - -<p> So the South-African government was going to issue compulsory licenses -which, even under GATT, it's allowed to do. But the US government -threatened economic sanctions. Vice-President Gore was directly involved -with this. And then, about a year before the presidential election, -he realized that this was going to look bad, so he dropped out of the -effort.</p> - -<p> But this kind of thing is what the US government does all the time -in regard to patents and copyrights. They don't even mind if people get -patented to death.</p> - -<p> So it's important for countries to work together against this.</p> - -<p> For more information about the problem of software patents, -see <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150329202214/http://www.progfree.org/Patents/Gif/Gif.html">www.progfree.org</a> [archived] and <a -href="http://www.ffii.org">www.ffii.org</a>. And there is also a petition -to sign, www.noepatents.org <a href="#Note1" id="Note1-rev">[1]</a> -</p> - -<p> Please talk with all executives of businesses — any kind -of businesses — about this issue. Make sure they understand -the extent of the problems they face, and that they think of going to -business organizations to have them lobby against software patents.</p> - -<h3 id="questions">Questions from the audience</h3> - -<p>Now I'll answer questions.</p> - -<p> Oh, by the way to any journalists who are here, I recommend writing -articles about software patents separately from articles about free -software. If you cover them in one article together, people may get the -idea that software patents are only bad for free software developers -and they are okay for other software developers. This is not true. -If you think back of what I have said, hardly any of it relates to the -question of whether the programs are free or not; the dangers are the -same for all software developers. So please don't take the risk, the -people will get confused. Write separate articles.</p> - -<h4 id="questions1">Questions about software patents</h4> - -<dl> -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, you said that companies like IBM are harmed -about 10 times as much as they benefit?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: No. What I said is the harm that would have happened to - them is 10 times the benefit, but this harm is purely theoretical, - it doesn't occur. You see, they avoid it through cross-licensing. - So in fact, the harm does not happen.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: But it is only neutralized, they don't really benefit?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, they do you see, because the bad aspect, they avoid - through cross-licensing, and meanwhile they do collect money from some - other licenses. So they are benefiting in total. There is the small - benefit which happens and the big potential harm which does not happen. - So you have zero plus something for the benefit.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: But for that something will oppose this movement against -patents?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Right, IBM favors software patents. I had with trouble - one, I couldn't hear all the words in your sentence. I don't know - whether there was a ‘not’ in it. I couldn't tell, there are - two diametrically opposite meanings for what you just said, so what you - can do is make sure that the situation is clear. IBM favors software - patents, IBM thinks it stands to gain a lot from software patents. So - what it stands to gain is that the IBM and the other very big companies - would basically control software development, because it will be very - hard to do independent software development. - - <p> To develop nontrivial programs you're going to have to infringe - patents of IBM's. Now if you are big and often lucky enough, you might - have some patents of your own and make IBM cross-license with you. - Otherwise you are completely at their mercy and you have to hope that - they just let you pay the money.</p> - - <p> Is someone else asking?</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, what was the reason for the development of the -software patent?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, in the US, there was no reason. Somebody tried to - get a patent that was a software patent, and, I think, the patent office - said no, so he took it to court and eventually went to the Supreme Court - and they, they didn't judge it as a public policy question, they judged - it in terms of what does the law say.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So was it not the realization that …</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Sorry, I can't … could you try to pronounce your - consonants more clearly, I'm having trouble understanding the words.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So was it not the realization that copyright is notoriously -weak for protecting software?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Copyright is not only what?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Notoriously weak…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, I think the whole sentence is nonsensical. I don't - understand this term “protecting software,” and I don't - agree with you. - - <p> Most programmers don't agree with you.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So when you are saying that you are not favoring protection -of software and you yourself is giving General Public License, where do -you get that power to issue General Public License?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: OK, you are asking questions about copyright and free - software which is not the topic now, I will accept questions about that - later on, but I gave a speech about software patents and I want to answer - questions about software patents.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir I have a question about software patents, the thing is -that how can one protect where there is a functional element …</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Protect what?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Functional element…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: What's going to happen to them?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, how can we get a protection when there is a…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Protection from what? Somebody's gonna come with a - gun?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: No Sir …</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Basically the protection you need is the protection against - being sued for the program you wrote. Programmers need protection from - software patents.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: No, it's not the programmers themselves sir, there are -companies who have invested in something.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: And do you want the company to get sued because in your - large program there are five different things that somebody, that five - different people already patented? Now it's clear to see the myth that - you are operating on, it's the naive idea that, when <em>you</em> develop - a program, <em>you</em> will have the patent. Well, the idea, that very - statement contains a mistake because there is no such thing as <em>the - patent.</em> When you develop a program with many different things in it, - there are many things, each of which might be patented by somebody else - already, and you find out about them one by one when they come to you, - saying: “either pay us a lot of money, or else shut down.” - And when you dealt with five of them, you never know when number six is - going to come along. It's much safer to be in the software field if you - know you are not going to get sued as long as you wrote the program - yourself. - - <p> That's the way it was before software patents. If you wrote the - program yourself there was nothing to sue you about. Today you can - write the program yourself, it may even be a useful and innovative - program, but because you didn't reinvent the whole field, you use some - ideas that were already known, other people sue you. Now, of course, - those people who wanna go around suing you, they are going to pretend - that this extortion is protection for them. Protection from what? - Protection from having competitors, I guess. They don't believe in - competition, they want monopolies.</p> - - <p> Well, to hell with them. It's not good for the public that they - should get what they want. This is a question of public policy. We have +<span class="gnun-split"></span>We don't have to worry that chemicals in the environment +will get into the boundary between the <code>if</code> statement and the <code>while</code> +statement and corrode them, and cause a bad connection. We don't have +to worry that other chemicals will get on them and cause a short-circuit. +We don't have to worry about whether the heat can be dissipated from this +<code>if</code> statement through the surrounding <code>while</code> statement. We don't have +to worry about whether the <code>while</code> statement would cause so much voltage +drop that the <code>if</code> statement won't function correctly. When you look at +the value of a variable you don't have to worry about whether you've +referenced that variable so many times that you exceed the fan-out limit. +You don't have to worry about how much capacitance there is in a certain +variable and how much time it will take to store the value in it.</p> + +<p> All these things are defined a way, the system is defined to function +in a certain way, and it always does. The physical computer might +malfunction, but that's not the program's fault. So, because of all these +problems we don't have to deal with, our field is tremendously easier.</p> + +<p> If we assume that the intelligence of programmers is the same as +the intelligence of mechanical engineers, and electrical engineers and +chemical engineers and so on, what's going to happen? Those of us with +the easiest field, fundamentally, are going to push it further. We make +bigger and bigger things and eventually it becomes hard again. That's why +we can develop much bigger systems than the people in the other fields. +They just have these hard problems to deal with all the time. In the +other fields, it may be necessary to develop an idea. You may have the +idea, but then you may have to try out lots of different ways to get +it to work at all. In software it's not like that, you have the idea +and what you go and do is you write a program which uses this idea, +and then the users may like it or not. And if they don't like it, +probably you can just fix some details and get it to work.</p> + +<p> There is another problem that we don't have to worry about: +manufacturing of copies. When we put this <code>if</code> statement inside the +<code>while</code> statement, we don't have to worry about how the <code>if</code> statement is +going to be inserted into the <code>while</code> statement as a copy is being built. +We don't have to worry either about making sure we have access to remove +and replace this <code>if</code> statement if it should burn out. So all we have to do +is type <kbd>copy</kbd> and it's an all-purpose copy-anything facility. +People making physical equipment and physical products, they can't do +that, these things have to be built piece by piece each time.</p> + +<p> The result is that for them, the cost of designing a system of a +certain complexity may be <i>[gesturing]</i> this much and the factory may +take this much to set up. So they have to deal with this much from the +patent system. It's a level of overhead they can live with. For us, +designing it may cost <i>[gesturing]</i> this much and manufacturing it may cost +this much, so this much overhead from the patent system is crushing.</p> + +<p> Another way to look at it is that because we can—a few of +us can—make a much bigger system, there are many more points +of vulnerability where somebody might have patented something already. +We have to walk a long distance through the mine field, whereas they +they only have to walk a few feet through the minefield. So it's much +more of a dangerous system for us.</p> + +<h4 id="conf10">Program development is hampered by software patents.</h4> + +<p> Now, you have to realize that the ostensible purpose of the patent +system is to promote progress. This is something that is often forgotten +because the companies that benefit from patents like to distract you +from it. They like to give you the idea that patents exist because they +deserve special treatment. But this is not what the patent system says. +The patent system says: the goal is to promote progress for society, +by encouraging certain behavior like publishing new ideas; and after a +certain—originally that was fairly short—time, everyone +could use them.</p> + +<p> Of course there is a certain price that society pays as well, and so +we have to ask the question: which is bigger, the benefit or the price? +Well, in other fields, I am not sure. I am not an expert on other +fields of engineering, I've never done them and I don't know whether +having patents is good for progress in those fields.</p> + +<p> I have been in software since before software patents existed, and +I know that software patents do a lot of harm and essentially no good. +In the old days, ideas came along. Either people in a university had +an idea, or somebody had an idea while he was working on developing +software. And either way, these ideas got published, and then everyone +could use them. Now why did the software publishers publish these ideas? +Because they knew that the big job was writing the program.</p> + +<p> They knew that publishing the ideas would get them credit from the +community, and meanwhile anybody else who wanted to compete with them +would still have to write a program, which is the big job. So they +typically kept the details of the program secret—of course some +of us think that's wrong, but that's a different issue. They kept the +details of the program secret and they published the ideas, and meanwhile +the software development—because software development was going +on—That provided the field with a steady stream of ideas, so +ideas were not the limiting factor. The limiting factor was the job of +writing programs that would work and that people would like using.</p> + +<p> So, in effect, applying the patent system to software focuses on +facilitating a thing which is not the limiting factor, while causing +trouble for the thing which is the limiting factor. You see the software +patents encourage somebody to have an idea, but at the same time they +encourage people to restrict its use, so in fact we are actually worse +off now in terms of having ideas we could use, because in the past people +had the ideas and published them and we could use them, and now they +have the ideas and patent them and we can't use them for twenty years. +In the mean time, the real limiting factor—which is developing +the programs—this is hampered by software patents because of +other dangers that I explained to you in the first half of this talk.</p> + +<p> So the result is that, while the system is supposed to be promoting +progress in software, actually it is so screwed up it's just obstructing +progress.</p> + +<p> Today we have some economic research showing mathematically how this +can happen. You can find it in <a +href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org">www.researchoninnovation.org</a>. +I am not completely sure of the name of the paper, but it's one +that shows that in a field where incremental innovation is typical, +having a patent system can result in slower progress. In other words the +system produces counter-intuitive results that are the opposite of what it +was intended to do. This backs up the intuitive conclusion of every +programmer who sees that software patents are absurd.</p> + +<h4 id="conf11">What can a country do to avoid this problem?</h4> + +<p> So, what can a country do to avoid this problem? Well, there are +two approaches: one is to address the problem at the issue of granting +patents, and the other is to approach it at the point where patents are +being enforced.</p> + +<p> Doing this at the stage of granting patents is not quite as easy +as you might think. Now, I have been talking about software patents +but strictly speaking you can't classify patents into hardware patents +and software patents, because one patent might cover both hardware and +software. So in fact my definition of a software patent is: a patent +that can restrict software development.</p> + +<p> And if you look at many software patents you often find that the +system they describe has a large part of the computer itself as part of +the description of what's going on. That's a great way of making the +whole thing seem complicated when it is really trivial. So it's a way +they can get the patent office to decide it's unobvious.</p> + +<p> But there is a different criterion that can be used, a slightly +different place to draw the line that still does a reasonable job, and +that is between processes that transform matter in a specific way, and +processes where the result is just calculation and display of information, +or a combination of data processing and display steps—or others +have put it as: mental steps being carried out by equipment. There are +various ways of formulating this, which are more or less equivalent.</p> + +<p> Now this is not exactly the same as prohibiting software patents, +because in some cases computers are used as part of specific physical +equipment to make it do a specific thing. And software patents might be +allowed if they are part of a specific physical activity. But that's not +really a disaster. After all, once people are involved in a specific +physical activity or a specific physical product, they are bringing +into their whole business all those complexities of dealing with matter. +So it's more like those other fields of engineering. Maybe it's okay to +have patents on that narrow kind of software. As long as we can keep the +core areas of software, the purely software activities safe from patents, +we have solved the bulk of the problem.</p> + +<p> So that is a feasible approach and that's what people are working +towards in Europe. However, that is not going to be any use in the +United States because the United States already has tens of thousands, +probably hundreds of thousands of software patents. Any change in the +criteria for issuing patents does not help at all with the patents that +already exist.</p> + +<p> So what I propose to the United States is to change the criteria +for applying patents, to say that <em>purely software systems running +on general purpose computing hardware are immune from patents</em>. +They by definition cannot infringe a patent. And this way the patents +can still be granted exactly the way they are now, and they can still, +in a formal sense, cover both hardware implementations and software +implementations as they do now. But software will be safe.</p> + +<h4 id="conf12">Preventing India from having software patents will be +up to the citizens of India.</h4> + +<p> That's the solution I propose to the US, but it could be used in +other countries as well.</p> + +<p> Now, one of the tremendous dangers facing most countries today +is the World Trade Organization, which sets up a system of corporate +regulated trade—not free trade as its proponents like to call +it, but corporate regulated trade. It replaces the regulation of trade +by governments, that are somewhat democratic and might listen to the +interest of their citizens, with regulation of trade by businesses, +which don't pretend to listen to the citizens. So it's fundamentally +antidemocratic and ought to be abolished.</p> + +<p> But it's crucial to note that the part of the GATT agreement which +deals with patents does not require software patents. Many experts who +have studied this, for instance in Europe, make this claim. And the +reason is that they interpret technical effect as: there is a specific +physical consequence or physical system going on. And so the software +that doesn't do that doesn't have to be in the domain that patents +can cover.</p> + +<p> So, at least you don't have to worry about the Word Trade Organization +causing problems here, despite the tremendous problems they cause in +other areas of life.</p> + +<p> Preventing India from having software patents will be up to you—to +the citizens of India. I am a foreigner, I have no influence +except when I can convince other people through the logic of what I say. +There is a chance that you can do this. When the US started to have +software patents, the public policy question was not considered at all. +Nobody even asked whether it was a good idea to have software patents. +The Supreme Court made a decision which was then twisted around by an +appeals court, and ever since then, there were software patents.</p> + +<p> But when Europe started to consider officially authorizing software +patents a few years ago, public opposition started to rise and became +so strong that the politicians and the parties began paying attention +to it, and started saying they were against it. In fact two attempts +to authorize software patents have been blocked already in Europe. +The French Minister of Industry says that software patents would be a +disaster and under no circumstances should they be allowed in France. +All of the German political parties have taken a stand against software +patents.</p> + +<p> The battle is not yet over, you know. We have not conclusively +blocked software patents in Europe, because the multinational companies +and their servant, the United States government, is lobbying very hard, +and they have ignorance on their side. It's so easy for somebody with +a naive neo-liberal view to be persuaded that a new kind of monopoly +has to be good!</p> + +<p> You have to look at the details of how software patents affect +software development to see that they cause a problem. You have to +study that economic research in its mathematics in order to see why you +shouldn't assume that patents always promote progress. So, it's easy +for IBM to send a lobbyist to someone and say: “You should really +adopt software patents, they are great for programming. And look, the US +is ahead and the US has software patents. If you have software patents +too, you might catch up.” Well, you can't get more dominant than +that, and the US was ahead in computers before it had software patents, +it can't be because of software patents.</p> + +<p> It's important to understand that each country has its own patent +system and its own patent laws and what you do in a certain country is +under the jurisdiction of that country's patent law. So the result is, +that if the US has software patents, the US becomes a sort of battleground +where anybody using computers might get sued. If India avoids software +patents, then India is not a battleground, and computer users in India +do not face this danger of getting sued.</p> + +<p> It turns out that each country will issue patents to foreigners, +just as to its own citizens. So in fact, in a place which has this +scourge of software patents, foreigners can own those patents. There are +lots of non-US companies that own US software patents, so they are all +welcome to get involved in the fighting in the US. Of course it's we +Americans who become the victims of this. Meanwhile, in India, if there +are no software patents, that means both Indian companies and foreign +companies are prevented from coming into India and attacking people with +software patents.</p> + +<p> So, yes it is important that each country has its own patent law. +That makes a big difference, but you've got to understand what difference +it makes. Having software patents in a certain country is not an +advantage for the developers in that country. It's a problem for anybody +distributing and using software in that country.</p> + +<p> Now, if you in India are developing a program for use in the US, +you may face the problem—or at least your client will face the +problem—of US software patents. At least probably you can't +get sued here. The client who commissioned the program and tries to use +it might get sued in the US, and indeed you will have to deal with the +problem—the US's problems—when you try doing business +in the US. But at least you'll be safe here. You know, at least it is +a big difference between your client got sued because your client told +you to make a product and that product is patented, versus you get sued +for making that product.</p> + +<p> If there are software patents in India, then you will get sued. +Whereas in the current situation, at least you can say to the client: +“You told us to make this and we made it. So, I'm sorry this +happened to you but it's not our fault.” Whereas if there are +software patents in India, you'll get sued yourself and there is nothing +you can say about that.</p> + +<h4 id="conf13">Businesses should demand opposition to software +patents.</h4> + +<p> So the ultimate conclusion is that software patents tie all software +developers, all computer users and essentially all businesses in a +new kind of bureaucracy, which serves no beneficial social purpose. +So it's a bad policy and it should be avoided.</p> + +<p> Businesses don't like bureaucracy. If businesses knew that they were +threatened with a new kind of bureaucracy, they would oppose software +patents very strongly. But most of them aren't aware of this.</p> + +<p> In the US, software patents have led directly to business method +patents. What does this mean? A business method is basically how +you make decisions about what to do in the business. And in the past, +these decisions were made by humans but now sometimes they are made by +computers, and that means they are carried out by software, and that means +the decision policies can be patented. Software patents imply business +method patents and business procedure patents. The result is that any +business could find itself, you know, once they decide “we're +going to automate the way we carry out our procedures,” now they +get sued with a software patent.</p> + +<p> So if businesses only knew, they would be organizing through things +like the chamber of commerce to demand opposition to software patents. +But mostly they don't know, and therefore it's going to be your job +to inform them. Make sure they understand the danger that they are +facing.</p> + +<h4 id="conf14">It's important for countries to work together against +this.</h4> + +<p> And then India may be able, with the help of other countries like +France and Germany, to reject software patents. It is important for +people in the Indian government to make contact with officials in European +countries, so that this battle against software patents doesn't have to be +fought one country at a time, so that countries can work together to adopt +an intelligent policy. Maybe there should be a <em>no software patents +treaty</em> that various countries can sign and promise each other aid, +when they are threatened by economic pressure from the United States, +as part of its economic imperialism.</p> + +<p> Because the United States likes to do that, you know. One of +the provisions in the GATT agreement is that countries have the right +to make compulsory licenses for making medicine, to address a public +health crisis. And the South-African government proposed to do this for +medicine against AIDS. Now, South-Africa has a very bad problem with +AIDS; the figures I've heard was that a quarter of the adult population +is infected. And of course, most of them can't afford to buy these +medicines at the prices charged by the US companies.</p> + +<p> So the South-African government was going to issue compulsory licenses +which, even under GATT, it's allowed to do. But the US government +threatened economic sanctions. Vice-President Gore was directly involved +with this. And then, about a year before the presidential election, +he realized that this was going to look bad, so he dropped out of the +effort.</p> + +<p> But this kind of thing is what the US government does all the time +in regard to patents and copyrights. They don't even mind if people get +patented to death.</p> + +<p> So it's important for countries to work together against this.</p> + +<p> For more information about the problem of software patents, +see <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150329202214/http://www.progfree.org/Patents/Gif/Gif.html">www.progfree.org</a> [archived] and <a +href="http://www.ffii.org">www.ffii.org</a>. And there is also a petition +to sign, www.noepatents.org <a href="#Note1" id="Note1-rev">[1]</a> +</p> + +<p> Please talk with all executives of businesses—any kind +of businesses—about this issue. Make sure they understand +the extent of the problems they face, and that they think of going to +business organizations to have them lobby against software patents.</p> + +<h3 id="questions">Questions from the audience</h3> + +<p>Now I'll answer questions.</p> + +<p> Oh, by the way to any journalists who are here, I recommend writing +articles about software patents separately from articles about free +software. If you cover them in one article together, people may get the +idea that software patents are only bad for free software developers +and they are okay for other software developers. This is not true. +If you think back of what I have said, hardly any of it relates to the +question of whether the programs are free or not; the dangers are the +same for all software developers. So please don't take the risk, the +people will get confused. Write separate articles.</p> + +<h4 id="questions1">Questions about software patents</h4> + +<dl> +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, you said that companies like IBM are harmed +about 10 times as much as they benefit?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: No. What I said is the harm that would have happened to + them is 10 times the benefit, but this harm is purely theoretical, + it doesn't occur. You see, they avoid it through cross-licensing. + So in fact, the harm does not happen.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: But it is only neutralized, they don't really benefit?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, they do you see, because the bad aspect, they avoid + through cross-licensing, and meanwhile they do collect money from some + other licenses. So they are benefiting in total. There is the small + benefit which happens and the big potential harm which does not happen. + So you have zero plus something for the benefit.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: But for that something will oppose this movement against +patents?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Right, IBM favors software patents. I had with trouble + one, I couldn't hear all the words in your sentence. I don't know + whether there was a “not” in it. I couldn't tell, there are + two diametrically opposite meanings for what you just said, so what you + can do is make sure that the situation is clear. IBM favors software + patents, IBM thinks it stands to gain a lot from software patents. So + what it stands to gain is that the IBM and the other very big companies + would basically control software development, because it will be very + hard to do independent software development. + + <p> To develop nontrivial programs you're going to have to infringe + patents of IBM's. Now if you are big and often lucky enough, you might + have some patents of your own and make IBM cross-license with you. + Otherwise you are completely at their mercy and you have to hope that + they just let you pay the money.</p> + + <p> Is someone else asking?</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, what was the reason for the development of the +software patent?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, in the US, there was no reason. Somebody tried to + get a patent that was a software patent, and, I think, the patent office + said no, so he took it to court and eventually went to the Supreme Court + and they, they didn't judge it as a public policy question, they judged + it in terms of what does the law say.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So was it not the realization that…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Sorry, I can't … could you try to pronounce your + consonants more clearly, I'm having trouble understanding the words.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So was it not the realization that copyright is notoriously +weak for protecting software?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Copyright is not only what?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Notoriously weak…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, I think the whole sentence is nonsensical. I don't + understand this term “protecting software,” and I don't + agree with you. + + <p> Most programmers don't agree with you.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So when you are saying that you are not favoring protection +of software and you yourself is giving General Public License, where do +you get that power to issue General Public License?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: OK, you are asking questions about copyright and free + software which is not the topic now, I will accept questions about that + later on, but I gave a speech about software patents and I want to answer + questions about software patents.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir I have a question about software patents, the thing is +that how can one protect where there is a functional element…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Protect what?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Functional element…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: What's going to happen to them?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, how can we get a protection when there is a…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Protection from what? Somebody's gonna come with a + gun?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: No Sir…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Basically the protection you need is the protection against + being sued for the program you wrote. Programmers need protection from + software patents.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: No, it's not the programmers themselves sir, there are +companies who have invested in something.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: And do you want the company to get sued because in your + large program there are five different things that somebody, that five + different people already patented? Now it's clear to see the myth that + you are operating on, it's the naive idea that, when <em>you</em> develop + a program, <em>you</em> will have the patent. Well, the idea, that very + statement contains a mistake because there is no such thing as <em>the + patent.</em> When you develop a program with many different things in it, + there are many things, each of which might be patented by somebody else + already, and you find out about them one by one when they come to you, + saying: “either pay us a lot of money, or else shut down.” + And when you dealt with five of them, you never know when number six is + going to come along. It's much safer to be in the software field if you + know you are not going to get sued as long as you wrote the program + yourself. + + <p> That's the way it was before software patents. If you wrote the + program yourself there was nothing to sue you about. Today you can + write the program yourself, it may even be a useful and innovative + program, but because you didn't reinvent the whole field, you use some + ideas that were already known, other people sue you. Now, of course, + those people who wanna go around suing you, they are going to pretend + that this extortion is protection for them. Protection from what? + Protection from having competitors, I guess. They don't believe in + competition, they want monopolies.</p> + + <p> Well, to hell with them. It's not good for the public that they + should get what they want. This is a question of public policy. We have to decide what is good for the citizens <em>generally</em>.</p> - - <p><b>Audience</b>: [applause]</p> - - <p>Not have somebody saying “I wanna have a monopoly - because I think I am so important I should have one, so protect me from - anybody else being allowed to develop software.”</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: You are suggesting that we should avoid making a -battleground for patents, don't we still have to deal with the problem -that there are a lot of American products being sold here and…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well…</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: … and we are still going to be mistaken…?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: No! No, you misunderstood. US developers may be in - trouble because of the patent system, and what effect will that have? - It means that there are certain products that won't be coming from the - US, and therefore they won't be sold in the US, or here. You see, - if a developer is in the US and there is a US software patent, that - software developer is going to get sued there, whether or not he tries - to deal with anybody in India, he is going to get sued. But the fact - that he is distributing the program in India is not going to cause him - an additional problem, because that's under the jurisdiction of India. - That's the one thing he will <em>not</em> get sued for. So, basically, - what it means is, whatever exists can be distributed in India, safely, - and the developers who are lucky enough to be in India will be safe - from this kind of gang warfare, and those who are unlucky enough to be - in the US will not be safe.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, are you basically against the very concept of -intellectual property rights?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: As I said at the beginning, it is foolish to even - think about that topic. That topic is an overgeneralization. It lumps - together totally different things like copyrights and patents, and so any - opinion about “intellectual property” is a foolish one. I - don't have an opinion about intellectual property, I have opinions about - copyrights, and I have completely different opinions about patents, and - even in the area of patents, you know, I have different opinions in - different fields. Even that area is a big area. And then there are - trademarks which are also “intellectual property”; I think - trademarks are basically a good idea. The US has taken trademarks all - little too far but, basically it is reasonable to have labels that you - can rely on. - - <p> So you shouldn't try to have an opinion about intellectual property. - If you are thinking about intellectual property, you are thinking at a - simplistic level. And any conclusions you reach will be simplistic. So, - do as I do, you know, pick one topic at a time and focus on it, and find - out the details about that one area, then you can think intelligently - about that area, and later on you can think intelligently about the - other areas too.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So there is an argument that if particular intellectual -property right is not protected…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, what you are saying makes no sense at all and - is at this foolish general level…</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Let me complete sir, if that particular intellectual -property right is not protected, it may impede the investment, and this -impediment…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: This generalistic thinking is so simplistic, it's totally - stupid. It makes no sense at all. There is no principle of intellectual - property. Copyrights and patents and trademarks originated completely - separately, they have nothing in common, except later somebody else - made up this term “intellectual property” to call them all - by it.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, will you extend this concept to the physical -property?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: No, I'm sorry, none of these things has anything to do with - physical property rights, they are totally different. What do you say - extend “this concept”? Which is “this concept”? - The idea that the term “intellectual property” is a - generalization that leads you into simplistic thinking, should we apply - that to physical property? No, they are totally different. They have - nothing in common.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So the basis under which this intellectual property -is protected is “protect the labor,” “intellectual -labor”?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: No! No, you are totally wrong, you are totally wrong. - The purpose of… You have been brainwashed, you have been listening to - the propaganda of the companies that want to have these monopolies. - If you ask what legal scholars say is the basis of these systems, - they say that they are attempts — for copyrights and for patents - — they are attempts to manipulate the behavior of people to get - benefit for the public. Trademarks are a different issue, I think the - issues for trademark are completely different. So you are making an - overgeneralization also.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So why can't we extend the very same principle…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: But in any case, your principle is <em>wrong</em>, and if - you take a look at that economic research on www.researchoninnovation.org, - you will see that you are making naive statements, naive blanket - statements that are simply not true. You got the silly idea that creating - a monopoly over some aspect of life <em>always</em>, <em>invariably</em> - makes that aspect of life thrive. Well, this is dumb. Occasionally it - might work, and occasionally it causes a lot of trouble.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Don't you think that the same kind of monopoly is created -in favor of a party when he owns a physical property?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, don't you think that the same kind of monopoly rights -are created if a particular physical property is allowed to be owned by -a person, just like an intellectual property?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Physical property can only be in one place at a time. - You know, only one person can sit in a chair at a time in the normal way. - [Applause] You know these are totally different issues. You know, - trying to generalize to the utmost is a foolish thing to do. We're - dealing with complicated laws that have many, many, many complicated - details and you are asking us to ignore all these details. We're dealing - with laws that have complicated effects in various fields and you are - asking us to ignore the details of their effects. Don't bother - judging… I think that if we are talking about a public policy - issue, we've got to look at the actual results of the policy, not some - myth as to what results a certain ideology would predict. I'm telling - you the real results, I'm telling you what I have seen and what other - programmers have seen.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, what about the LZW patent? Is it…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: What about the <em>what</em>?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: LZW patent?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: The LZW patent?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Yeah. Is it still in effect?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Yes, it is. Well, there are actually two LZW patents as - I explained to you, and they are both still in effect.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, so it's for 20 years?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Yeah, it's not 20 years yet.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, can you reduce the scope of the problem by reducing -the period of the patent?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Definitely, you could. If there were software patents, - but they only lasted for, say, 5 years or three years, that would mostly - solve the problem. Yes it's a pain to have to wait 3 or 5 years, but - it's much, much less of a pain. But, but there is a difficulty there. - The GATT agreement says that patents must last 20 years. So, the only - way you could have something like software patents which lasted for 3 - or 5 years is as follows. - - <p> First, make it clear that ordinary patents do not apply, and second, - if you wish, you could create a different system of five-year software - idea monopolies. Well, it's not clear that there is any particular - benefit in these five-year software monopolies but it would be much - better than the current situation. So if you found the government - prepared to make this deal, well, I would say, we should take it. But, - but we have to realize, though, that the first step is to abolish - software patents strictly speaking, and that has to be part of this - deal.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So and patent has also now become victim of…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you at all, could you speak - louder?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, patent has now become a way of making money by -businesses rather than promoting inventions?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Yes, a lot of them use it that way.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So, sir, can we reduce this problem further by assigning -the patent to the actual inventor rather than a business?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Not really. What you'll find is that, that aspect of the - relationship between the employee and the business is something that gets - negotiated; and the business has more clout, so they are always going to - end up arranging to have the employee hand the patent to the company. - The other thing is that it doesn't make a big difference who owns the - patent. The point is that you are prohibited from developing a program - using that idea, and it may make some difference precisely who has the - power to sue you. But what you really want is not to be sued at all. - So why look for a half-measure like this? It's much better just to say - that software shouldn't have patents. - - <p> Okay, if you gonna pass a note, you'd better read it out loud. - Any other questions?</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: People who are being to Malaysia say that, if we buy a PC -there, the amount of money we would pay for all the standard software -is about a tenth of what we should pay in this country. In Malaysia -they are little more relaxed about patents and copyrights?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, are you not sure what you are talking about? - Because you seem to mixing together copyrights and patents. I'm not - sure if what you are talking about has anything to do with the issue of - software patents.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Precisely what I want to know is about: this has something -to do with patents?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Probably not.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Different countries depending on how much, whether they -are part of WTO or not part of WTO…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: No, no.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: …I think matter…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: You see, I don't know for certain because I don't know - what's going on there. I've never been there. But I suspect that it's - a matter of copyright and has nothing to do with patents, because if you - are talking about the same programs… Remember, software patents - are primarily a restriction on software developers. So if it's the - same program and it was developed, say, in the US, the patent problems - they have are independent of, you know… the patent problems they - have are biggest in the US, not in either India or Malaysia. So, that - probably has to do with copyright, not patents, and that's a totally - different issue. We mustn't lump these issues together.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir earlier you've told that…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry I can't hear you.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Earlier in your speech you've told that software that -should be brought under the purvey of patents is what you defined that -as what can be run on a general purpose machine.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm afraid I can't… Can anyone understand what - he's saying? I cannot understand your words. If you make an effort to - enunciate more clearly, I may be able to understand.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: You had spoken earlier that software that should be patented -is, you defined that as, software that can be run on a general purpose -machine…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry I didn't say that software <em>should</em> be - patented, so I just can't make out these words. Maybe if you tell that - to someone else, the other person could say it and I could understand.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Software patents, like whatever you call software patents, -like those are what can be run on a general purpose machine. So if some -algorithm or some piece of software is capable of being executed on a -general purpose machine, it should not be patented.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Yes. Now I can hear you, yes. One of the things I - proposed was that patent should not apply to software for general - purpose machines or the use of it on those general purpose machines. - So that if you develop that program or if you are using that program, - you couldn't be sued.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: We've an increasing number of software not being run on -general purpose machines.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, then that would be covered still by software patents, - so it wouldn't be a total a solution, but at least it would be a partial - solution.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So if the defining line is general purpose machines, don't -you see there's a possibility that people could find loopholes in it, -like, to find workarounds for…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry. Do I see a possibility that people would - do what?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: … of finding loopholes or workarounds of converting -what you would call software patents and to get it actually patented.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I do not understand. Loopholes to do… - I'm sorry. What people would do, what software developers would do in - that situation is use general purpose machines more.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Some algorithm can be run on a general purpose machine -— what I'd say that, that algorithm, I'm using it for some embedded -device and go ahead and patent it.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Why you could try it, you misunderstood. The point is - that, you misunderstood what the solution is. The solution is that - if I am developing and using the software on general purpose machines, - then nobody can sue me for patent infringement. So yes, somebody could - get a patent, and maybe he could sue others who are doing specialized - things which involve particular hardware. But they couldn't sue me.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Excuse me sir, may I ask you a question.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Yes.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, you spoke of general purpose machines. In the sense, -how would you define these machines, because these days you have a lot -of custom made handheld devices etc. Now some way…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: No, handheld computers are general purpose when they are - not designed to carry out a specific computation or a specific physical - process. They're general purpose computers. They have general purpose - computer chips in them.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Then the idea would be contestable in a court of law as -to whether it's a general purpose or not…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I guess, it will have to be, yeah. The precise details - of drawing those lines, one ends up having to leave to judges.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Thank you sir.</dt> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Germany and France, the only countries who has said no to -patents in Europe…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, I don't know the full situation. Those are the just - the ones I know of. The last time there was a vote, there were going - to be a majority of <em>no</em> votes, and so they dropped the issue. - And I don't remember the other countries.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: There's no European community decision on this…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Not yet. In fact, the European Commission itself is - divided. One of the agencies — the one which unfortunately is the - lead agency on this issue — has been won over by the multinationals - and is in favor of software patents, and then the agency that tries to - encourage software development is against them, and so they're trying to - work against it. So if there is somebody who wants to get in touch with - the official in charge of the agency that is opposed to software patents, - I can put them in touch.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Is there any country that said ‘no’ to software -patents?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, there are countries which don't have them, but it's - not clear that there's any country which has affirmed this recently.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, could you please elaborate on the benefits the software -development community got in European countries from this policy?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, the benefit is that you don't have to be afraid - someone will sue you, because of one of the ideas or a combination of - ideas that you used in a program that you wrote. Basically software - patents mean that if you write a program, somebody else might sue you - and say “you're not allowed to write that program.” The - benefit of not having software patents is you're safe from that. - - <p> Now in India you have probably taken for granted that you are safe - from that. But that will only last as long as there are no software - patents in India.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Are there any threats to India not acceding to the software -regime?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well there's no software regime. The GATT agreement - doesn't require software patents. There is no treaty requiring software - patents.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Most people, if they had a chance to get a patent and make -a lot of money out of it, they wouldn't pass it up…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, many people if they had a chance to get a gun and - make a lot of money from, they wouldn't pass it up. - - <p>The point is, therefore, let we try not to hand them that opportunity. - For instance, we don't have a government agency handing out guns to - people on the street, and we should not have a government agency handing - out software patents to people on the street either.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Being an advocate of this non-patency, have you ever -faced any…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm having trouble hearing you. Please try to make an - effort to pronounce every sound clearly that I might understand.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: You being an advocate of this non-patency, have you faced -any problems with these multinationals or something?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Have I faced any problems…</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: … so far in your life?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry. What did he say?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Have you faced any problems with multinationals in your -life?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, there are many. In the community where I develop - software, there are many examples of programs that had their features - taken out, programs that didn't have the feature put in the first place, - programs that were not even written for many years, because of this. - There are many examples of jobs we can't do, because we're not allowed - to do them. - - <p> Now we collected examples of this, and we are looking for people to - write them up — you know, to look at each example and investigate - it fully and write down a clear description of what happened and what - the harm was and so on. We have had trouble finding people to do this. - We're looking for more. So someone who is really good at writing clear - English might want to volunteer for this.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: I think he asked whether you had any threat to you by any -multinational companies…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well they never threatened my life!</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Yeah that's the question!</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: No, but they do threaten our work. You know, they do + + <p><b>Audience</b>: <i>[applause]</i></p> + + <p>Not have somebody saying “I wanna have a monopoly + because I think I am so important I should have one, so protect me from + anybody else being allowed to develop software.”</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: You are suggesting that we should avoid making a +battleground for patents, don't we still have to deal with the problem +that there are a lot of American products being sold here and…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well…</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: … and we are still going to be mistaken…?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: No! No, you misunderstood. US developers may be in + trouble because of the patent system, and what effect will that have? + It means that there are certain products that won't be coming from the + US, and therefore they won't be sold in the US, or here. You see, + if a developer is in the US and there is a US software patent, that + software developer is going to get sued there, whether or not he tries + to deal with anybody in India, he is going to get sued. But the fact + that he is distributing the program in India is not going to cause him + an additional problem, because that's under the jurisdiction of India. + That's the one thing he will <em>not</em> get sued for. So, basically, + what it means is, whatever exists can be distributed in India, safely, + and the developers who are lucky enough to be in India will be safe + from this kind of gang warfare, and those who are unlucky enough to be + in the US will not be safe.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, are you basically against the very concept of +intellectual property rights?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: As I said at the beginning, it is foolish to even + think about that topic. That topic is an overgeneralization. It lumps + together totally different things like copyrights and patents, and so any + opinion about “intellectual property” is a foolish one. I + don't have an opinion about intellectual property, I have opinions about + copyrights, and I have completely different opinions about patents, and + even in the area of patents, you know, I have different opinions in + different fields. Even that area is a big area. And then there are + trademarks which are also “intellectual property”; I think + trademarks are basically a good idea. The US has taken trademarks all + little too far but, basically it is reasonable to have labels that you + can rely on. + + <p> So you shouldn't try to have an opinion about intellectual property. + If you are thinking about intellectual property, you are thinking at a + simplistic level. And any conclusions you reach will be simplistic. So, + do as I do, you know, pick one topic at a time and focus on it, and find + out the details about that one area, then you can think intelligently + about that area, and later on you can think intelligently about the + other areas too.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So there is an argument that if particular intellectual +property right is not protected…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, what you are saying makes no sense at all and + is at this foolish general level…</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Let me complete sir, if that particular intellectual +property right is not protected, it may impede the investment, and this +impediment…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: This generalistic thinking is so simplistic, it's totally + stupid. It makes no sense at all. There is no principle of intellectual + property. Copyrights and patents and trademarks originated completely + separately, they have nothing in common, except later somebody else + made up this term “intellectual property” to call them all + by it.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, will you extend this concept to the physical +property?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: No, I'm sorry, none of these things has anything to do with + physical property rights, they are totally different. What do you say + extend “this concept”? Which is “this concept”? + The idea that the term “intellectual property” is a + generalization that leads you into simplistic thinking, should we apply + that to physical property? No, they are totally different. They have + nothing in common.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So the basis under which this intellectual property +is protected is “protect the labor,” “intellectual +labor”?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: No! No, you are totally wrong, you are totally wrong. + The purpose of… You have been brainwashed, you have been listening to + the propaganda of the companies that want to have these monopolies. + If you ask what legal scholars say is the basis of these systems, + they say that they are attempts—for copyrights and for + patents—they are attempts to manipulate the behavior of people to get + benefit for the public. Trademarks are a different issue, I think the + issues for trademark are completely different. So you are making an + overgeneralization also.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So why can't we extend the very same principle…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: But in any case, your principle is <em>wrong</em>, and if + you take a look at that economic research on www.researchoninnovation.org, + you will see that you are making naive statements, naive blanket + statements that are simply not true. You got the silly idea that creating + a monopoly over some aspect of life <em>always</em>, <em>invariably</em> + makes that aspect of life thrive. Well, this is dumb. Occasionally it + might work, and occasionally it causes a lot of trouble.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Don't you think that the same kind of monopoly is created +in favor of a party when he owns a physical property?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, don't you think that the same kind of monopoly rights +are created if a particular physical property is allowed to be owned by +a person, just like an intellectual property?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Physical property can only be in one place at a time. + You know, only one person can sit in a chair at a time in the normal way. + <i>[Applause]</i> You know these are totally different issues. You know, + trying to generalize to the utmost is a foolish thing to do. We're + dealing with complicated laws that have many, many, many complicated + details and you are asking us to ignore all these details. We're dealing + with laws that have complicated effects in various fields and you are + asking us to ignore the details of their effects. Don't bother + judging… I think that if we are talking about a public policy + issue, we've got to look at the actual results of the policy, not some + myth as to what results a certain ideology would predict. I'm telling + you the real results, I'm telling you what I have seen and what other + programmers have seen.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, what about the LZW patent? Is it…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: What about the <em>what</em>?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: LZW patent?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: The LZW patent?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Yeah. Is it still in effect?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Yes, it is. Well, there are actually two LZW patents as + I explained to you, and they are both still in effect.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, so it's for 20 years?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Yeah, it's not 20 years yet.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, can you reduce the scope of the problem by reducing +the period of the patent?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Definitely, you could. If there were software patents, + but they only lasted for, say, 5 years or three years, that would mostly + solve the problem. Yes it's a pain to have to wait 3 or 5 years, but + it's much, much less of a pain. But, but there is a difficulty there. + The GATT agreement says that patents must last 20 years. So, the only + way you could have something like software patents which lasted for 3 + or 5 years is as follows. + + <p> First, make it clear that ordinary patents do not apply, and second, + if you wish, you could create a different system of five-year software + idea monopolies. Well, it's not clear that there is any particular + benefit in these five-year software monopolies but it would be much + better than the current situation. So if you found the government + prepared to make this deal, well, I would say, we should take it. But, + but we have to realize, though, that the first step is to abolish + software patents strictly speaking, and that has to be part of this + deal.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So and patent has also now become victim of…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you at all, could you speak + louder?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, patent has now become a way of making money by +businesses rather than promoting inventions?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Yes, a lot of them use it that way.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So, sir, can we reduce this problem further by assigning +the patent to the actual inventor rather than a business?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Not really. What you'll find is that, that aspect of the + relationship between the employee and the business is something that gets + negotiated; and the business has more clout, so they are always going to + end up arranging to have the employee hand the patent to the company. + The other thing is that it doesn't make a big difference who owns the + patent. The point is that you are prohibited from developing a program + using that idea, and it may make some difference precisely who has the + power to sue you. But what you really want is not to be sued at all. + So why look for a half-measure like this? It's much better just to say + that software shouldn't have patents. + + <p> Okay, if you gonna pass a note, you'd better read it out loud. + Any other questions?</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: People who are being to Malaysia say that, if we buy a PC +there, the amount of money we would pay for all the standard software +is about a tenth of what we should pay in this country. In Malaysia +they are little more relaxed about patents and copyrights?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, are you not sure what you are talking about? + Because you seem to mixing together copyrights and patents. I'm not + sure if what you are talking about has anything to do with the issue of + software patents.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Precisely what I want to know is about: this has something +to do with patents?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Probably not.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Different countries depending on how much, whether they +are part of WTO or not part of WTO…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: No, no.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: …I think matter…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: You see, I don't know for certain because I don't know + what's going on there. I've never been there. But I suspect that it's + a matter of copyright and has nothing to do with patents, because if you + are talking about the same programs… Remember, software patents + are primarily a restriction on software developers. So if it's the + same program and it was developed, say, in the US, the patent problems + they have are independent of, you know… the patent problems they + have are biggest in the US, not in either India or Malaysia. So, that + probably has to do with copyright, not patents, and that's a totally + different issue. We mustn't lump these issues together.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir earlier you've told that…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry I can't hear you.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Earlier in your speech you've told that software that +should be brought under the purvey of patents is what you defined that +as what can be run on a general purpose machine.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm afraid I can't… Can anyone understand what + he's saying? I cannot understand your words. If you make an effort to + enunciate more clearly, I may be able to understand.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: You had spoken earlier that software that should be patented +is, you defined that as, software that can be run on a general purpose +machine…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry I didn't say that software <em>should</em> be + patented, so I just can't make out these words. Maybe if you tell that + to someone else, the other person could say it and I could understand.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Software patents, like whatever you call software patents, +like those are what can be run on a general purpose machine. So if some +algorithm or some piece of software is capable of being executed on a +general purpose machine, it should not be patented.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Yes. Now I can hear you, yes. One of the things I + proposed was that patent should not apply to software for general + purpose machines or the use of it on those general purpose machines. + So that if you develop that program or if you are using that program, + you couldn't be sued.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: We've an increasing number of software not being run on +general purpose machines.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, then that would be covered still by software patents, + so it wouldn't be a total a solution, but at least it would be a partial + solution.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So if the defining line is general purpose machines, don't +you see there's a possibility that people could find loopholes in it, +like, to find workarounds for…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry. Do I see a possibility that people would + do what?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: … of finding loopholes or workarounds of converting +what you would call software patents and to get it actually patented.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I do not understand. Loopholes to do… + I'm sorry. What people would do, what software developers would do in + that situation is use general purpose machines more.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Some algorithm can be run on a general purpose machine—what +I'd say that, that algorithm, I'm using it for some embedded +device and go ahead and patent it.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Why you could try it, you misunderstood. The point is + that, you misunderstood what the solution is. The solution is that + if I am developing and using the software on general purpose machines, + then nobody can sue me for patent infringement. So yes, somebody could + get a patent, and maybe he could sue others who are doing specialized + things which involve particular hardware. But they couldn't sue me.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Excuse me sir, may I ask you a question.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Yes.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, you spoke of general purpose machines. In the sense, +how would you define these machines, because these days you have a lot +of custom made handheld devices etc. Now some way…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: No, handheld computers are general purpose when they are + not designed to carry out a specific computation or a specific physical + process. They're general purpose computers. They have general purpose + computer chips in them.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Then the idea would be contestable in a court of law as +to whether it's a general purpose or not…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I guess, it will have to be, yeah. The precise details + of drawing those lines, one ends up having to leave to judges.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Thank you sir.</dt> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Germany and France, the only countries who has said no to +patents in Europe…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, I don't know the full situation. Those are the just + the ones I know of. The last time there was a vote, there were going + to be a majority of <em>no</em> votes, and so they dropped the issue. + And I don't remember the other countries.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: There's no European community decision on this…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Not yet. In fact, the European Commission itself is + divided. One of the agencies—the one which unfortunately is the + lead agency on this issue—has been won over by the multinationals + and is in favor of software patents, and then the agency that tries to + encourage software development is against them, and so they're trying to + work against it. So if there is somebody who wants to get in touch with + the official in charge of the agency that is opposed to software patents, + I can put them in touch.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Is there any country that said no to software +patents?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, there are countries which don't have them, but it's + not clear that there's any country which has affirmed this recently.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, could you please elaborate on the benefits the software +development community got in European countries from this policy?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, the benefit is that you don't have to be afraid + someone will sue you, because of one of the ideas or a combination of + ideas that you used in a program that you wrote. Basically software + patents mean that if you write a program, somebody else might sue you + and say “you're not allowed to write that program.” The + benefit of not having software patents is you're safe from that. + + <p> Now in India you have probably taken for granted that you are safe + from that. But that will only last as long as there are no software + patents in India.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Are there any threats to India not acceding to the software +regime?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well there's no software regime. The GATT agreement + doesn't require software patents. There is no treaty requiring software + patents.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Most people, if they had a chance to get a patent and make +a lot of money out of it, they wouldn't pass it up…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, many people if they had a chance to get a gun and + make a lot of money from, they wouldn't pass it up. + + <p>The point is, therefore, let we try not to hand them that opportunity. + For instance, we don't have a government agency handing out guns to + people on the street, and we should not have a government agency handing + out software patents to people on the street either.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Being an advocate of this non-patency, have you ever +faced any…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm having trouble hearing you. Please try to make an + effort to pronounce every sound clearly that I might understand.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: You being an advocate of this non-patency, have you faced +any problems with these multinationals or something?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Have I faced any problems…</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: … so far in your life?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry. What did he say?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Have you faced any problems with multinationals in your +life?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, there are many. In the community where I develop + software, there are many examples of programs that had their features + taken out, programs that didn't have the feature put in the first place, + programs that were not even written for many years, because of this. + There are many examples of jobs we can't do, because we're not allowed + to do them. + + <p> Now we collected examples of this, and we are looking for people to + write them up—you know, to look at each example and investigate + it fully and write down a clear description of what happened and what + the harm was and so on. We have had trouble finding people to do this. + We're looking for more. So someone who is really good at writing clear + English might want to volunteer for this.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: I think he asked whether you had any threat to you by any +multinational companies…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well they never threatened my life!</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Yeah that's the question!</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: No, but they do threaten our work. You know, they do threaten to sue us.</dd> -</dl> - -<h4 id="questions2">Questions about free software</h4> - -<dl><dt><b>Volunteer</b>: There's a question from a gentleman at the -back: “If the multinational companies that produce hardware, like -Intel, coming to a contract with big software companies to restrict free -software by changing the microprocessor patents, how will you overcome -such a hazard?”</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I see very little danger of that. Intel recently - developed a new computer architecture, and far from trying to stop us - from supporting it, they hired people to implement it. - - <p> So it looks like we have now moved to free software questions. - I'd like to remind people that, until this last answer, I was not - speaking for the Free Software movement. I was speaking about something - of vital interest to every programmer which is: to be free to write - programs and not get sued for having written them, as long as you wrote - it yourself. And that is a freedom that you've taken for granted until - now, and it's a freedom you will lose if you have software patents.</p> - - <p> Now however we're moving to the topic of free software, which is - what I spent most of my time working on, and the individual, the actual - software development project that I've lead, which is developing the GNU - operating system, which is a free software, Unix-like operating system - used by some twenty million people estimated today. So I am now going - to start answering questions about free software and GNU.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: In the absence of a concrete revenue model for free -software, will this also go bust like the dotcom?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I can't predict the future but I want to remind you - that the dotcoms were businesses. And free software is not primarily - a business. There are some free software businesses. Whether they - will succeed or ultimately fail, I don't know. But those businesses, - while they contribute to our community, they are not what our community - is all about. What our community is all about is having the freedom to - redistribute and study and change software. A lot of free software is - developed by volunteers, and the amount is increasing. No matter what - happens with the companies, that's not going away.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: I understand that companies like IBM are also investing -considerably in making their systems and software compatible with free -source code like Linux…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: You mean GNU?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: All right…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Yes, they call it Linux. Actually the system is mainly - GNU and Linux is one of the pieces.</dd> - -<dt><b>[From audience]</b> The kernel is hardly eighteen percent.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, really, that much? What I saw is three percent.</dd> - -<dt><b>[From audience]</b> You can see through a needle. Very -insignificant.</dt> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: But, I also understand that they've invested around a -billion dollars in doing so. Now my question is…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well that's not true.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: My question is: for a service that has no revenue model, -will this be sustainable in the future, and if I change my business -into…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I can't predict the future. No one can.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: How can I…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: There are some God men who claim they can predict the - future. I'm not. I'm a rationalist. - - <p> I can't tell you what's going to happen. What I can tell you is - that when IBM claims to have put a billion dollars into the GNU plus - Linux operating system, that is not entirely true. You have to look - carefully at what they're spending this money on, and you'll find they - are spending this money on various different things, some contribute - and some don't.</p> - - <p> For instance, they are funding some work on developing the GNU/Linux - system. That's good, that contributes. They do develop some other free - software packages that they've contributed to the community. That's a - real contribution.</p> - - <p> They are also developing many nonfree programs to make them run - with the GNU/Linux system and that is not a contribution. And they - are publicizing the system, well, it's not a primary contribution but - it does help, you know. Having more users is not our primary goal. - But it's nice, if more people would try our software, so that does help, - but then they're mistakenly calling this Linux which is not quite right, - and they're lobbying for software patents in Europe, which is bad. So, - you know, IBM is doing many different things. Some are good and some - are bad, and if you want to have a thoughtful view, it's important to - look at the individual actions. Do not try to add it up because that - just means you're missing the important aspects of the situation.</p> - - <p> Are there any more questions?</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: [...]</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I can't hear you at all, I'm sorry [...] whispering. - I'm a little bit hard of hearing, and when you combine that with the - noise of the fans, and with the unusual accent, all three of those things +</dl> + +<h4 id="questions2">Questions about free software</h4> + +<dl><dt><b>Volunteer</b>: There's a question from a gentleman at the +back: “If the multinational companies that produce hardware, like +Intel, coming to a contract with big software companies to restrict free +software by changing the microprocessor patents, how will you overcome +such a hazard?”</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I see very little danger of that. Intel recently + developed a new computer architecture, and far from trying to stop us + from supporting it, they hired people to implement it. + + <p> So it looks like we have now moved to free software questions. + I'd like to remind people that, until this last answer, I was not + speaking for the Free Software movement. I was speaking about something + of vital interest to every programmer which is: to be free to write + programs and not get sued for having written them, as long as you wrote + it yourself. And that is a freedom that you've taken for granted until + now, and it's a freedom you will lose if you have software patents.</p> + + <p> Now however we're moving to the topic of free software, which is + what I spent most of my time working on, and the individual, the actual + software development project that I've lead, which is developing the GNU + operating system, which is a free software, Unix-like operating system + used by some twenty million people estimated today. So I am now going + to start answering questions about free software and GNU.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: In the absence of a concrete revenue model for free +software, will this also go bust like the dotcom?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I can't predict the future but I want to remind you + that the dotcoms were businesses. And free software is not primarily + a business. There are some free software businesses. Whether they + will succeed or ultimately fail, I don't know. But those businesses, + while they contribute to our community, they are not what our community + is all about. What our community is all about is having the freedom to + redistribute and study and change software. A lot of free software is + developed by volunteers, and the amount is increasing. No matter what + happens with the companies, that's not going away.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: I understand that companies like IBM are also investing +considerably in making their systems and software compatible with free +source code like Linux…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: You mean GNU?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: All right…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Yes, they call it Linux. Actually the system is mainly + GNU and Linux is one of the pieces.</dd> + +<dt><b>[From audience]</b> The kernel is hardly eighteen percent.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, really, that much? What I saw is three percent.</dd> + +<dt><b>[From audience]</b> You can see through a needle. Very +insignificant.</dt> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: But, I also understand that they've invested around a +billion dollars in doing so. Now my question is…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well that's not true.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: My question is: for a service that has no revenue model, +will this be sustainable in the future, and if I change my business +into…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I can't predict the future. No one can.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: How can I…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: There are some God men who claim they can predict the + future. I'm not. I'm a rationalist. + + <p> I can't tell you what's going to happen. What I can tell you is + that when IBM claims to have put a billion dollars into the GNU plus + Linux operating system, that is not entirely true. You have to look + carefully at what they're spending this money on, and you'll find they + are spending this money on various different things, some contribute + and some don't.</p> + + <p> For instance, they are funding some work on developing the GNU/Linux + system. That's good, that contributes. They do develop some other free + software packages that they've contributed to the community. That's a + real contribution.</p> + + <p> They are also developing many nonfree programs to make them run + with the GNU/Linux system and that is not a contribution. And they + are publicizing the system, well, it's not a primary contribution but + it does help, you know. Having more users is not our primary goal. + But it's nice, if more people would try our software, so that does help, + but then they're mistakenly calling this Linux which is not quite right, + and they're lobbying for software patents in Europe, which is bad. So, + you know, IBM is doing many different things. Some are good and some + are bad, and if you want to have a thoughtful view, it's important to + look at the individual actions. Do not try to add it up because that + just means you're missing the important aspects of the situation.</p> + + <p> Are there any more questions?</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: […]</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I can't hear you at all, I'm sorry […] whispering. + I'm a little bit hard of hearing, and when you combine that with the + noise of the fans, and with the unusual accent, all three of those things together make very hard for me to make out the words.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: This question is not about patent or copyright or anything -like that. But this is one example what you said about — if -statement and while statement — that you said something about the -differences in the field of computer science and differences with other -sciences, that is other engineering sciences. You said that if I change -something in the if loop that's if statement, there won't be any effect, -that you said…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: No I didn't say that.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: You said that! You said that there isn't any heating -effect. I remember that…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I know what I said. I said something that's - partly similar to that…</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: I'll tell the exact statement: you said there won't any -heating effect.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Any whating effect?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Heating effect. Heating…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Oh yes we don't have to worry about how much heat the - if statement…</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Then what is it that cascading effect -is? If I change the structure of the loop, there will be an effect.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Oh sure. The program will behave differently when you - change it, but I'm not saying that writing every program is easy, or that - we never make mistakes. I listed a lot of specific kinds of problems, - that would plague a mechanical or electrical engineer at every little - detail. Even each one detail gets to be very hard for them. Whereas for - us, the problems are because we do so much, we're doing it so fast, - we don't think carefully about each one thing. So we make mistakes.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: So you admit that there's an effect.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Of course. I never said otherwise, I'm sorry if you - thought so. Sure if you change your program it's going to do different - things.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, can you comment on the commercial distributions?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, you asked me to comment on the commercial - distribution of GNU/Linux systems? Well, I think that's fine. That's one - of the freedoms that free software gives you — the freedom to use - it in business, the freedom to distribute it as part of a business, the - freedom to sell copies in exchange for money. These are all legitimate. - - <p> Now, one thing I am unhappy about is when the companies that do this - add some nonfree software to it.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: That's the installation program?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Yeah, any nonfree software. Because the goal was: you - should be able to get a completely free operating system. Well, if - they have a thing in a store which says I'm the GNU/Linux system — - of course it says Linux — but inside of it there are some nonfree - programs, now you're not getting something that is entirely free anymore. - It doesn't entirely respect your freedom. So the real goal for which - we wrote the system is being lost. - - <p> So that's a major problem that our community faces now, the tendency - to put free software together with nonfree software and make these - nonfree overall systems. And then, you know, it might seem that our - software is a success because there are many people using it. But if - you look at our real goal, our real goal is not popularity. Our real - goal is to spread a community of freedom, and we're not succeeding in - doing that if the people are using nonfree software still.</p> - - <p> Unfortunately, I couldn't give both speeches. I can give a - speech about software patents, or I can give a speech about free - software. They're very different and each one of them is a long speech. - So unfortunately what that means is that I can't fully explain about free - software and the GNU project here. Am I giving another speech in Kochi? - Am I giving the free software speech in Kochi?</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: No.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Oh well. I gave that speech in Trivandrum. - - <p> So I'll answer five more questions and then I'll have to call it - quits because it gets to be quite draining to answer so many.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Excuse me sir, question from me again. Sir, this is a -personal question. Me, as such, I love programming. I spend a lot -of time in front of my system. And I was listening to some of your -earlier speeches where you said that back in the 70's, the community of -programmers had a sense of goodwill among them. They used to share code, -they used to develop on it.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, a specific community of programmers which I belonged - to. This was not all programmers. It was one specific community. - Continue.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Yes sir. In that context, I feel particularly, me as such, -I feel very hurt when I see the so-called interaction among programmers -today. Because many of us are very good programmers, but we look at -each other in different colors depending upon the tools we use — -“hey, he's a windows guy,” “hey, he's a GNU/Linux -guy,” “hey, he's into Solaris systems,” “he's a -network programmer.” And unfortunately most of this prejudice comes -from a lot of misinterpretation out of things like this. None of these -people promote free software as such, and it hurts me as a programmer -and many of my colleagues, and I work in an environment…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Could you speak a bit more slowly, I am hearing most - of it, but there was one point that I miss, so if you speak slowly I - will…</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Yeah, here we work with in an environment where you -are judged according to the tools you use rather than the quality of -work.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: To me that, well, in one sense there is a situation where - in a limited way that is rational. If there is a tool which is normally - used for doing fairly easy jobs and there are lot of people who now had - to do it, then I would imagine now, I wouldn't want, I might not pay as - much to them as somebody who does very hard jobs with a different tool - that's used for hard jobs. But it's true if you're talking about hard - jobs, it makes no sense that you'd be prejudiced about what tools people - are using. The good programmers can use any tools.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: That was not the focus here. The focus was that here it is -a question of goodwill. Goodwill amongst programmers these days seems -to be, you know, melted out into these little boxes of this system and -that system, and that hurts.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I agree we should encourage people to learn about more - different things and we should never be prejudiced against people because - of some detail, you know the fact that this person likes Perl and this - person likes C, why should they hate each other…</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: It's not even that distinct. It's like this person works -on GNU/Linux and this person works on Windows, which are the two major -operating systems today in India at least.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, in that case, though, it's not just a prejudice, - you see. Windows is a system, a social system, that keeps people - helpless and divided [applause], whereas GNU/Linux is an alternative - that was created specifically to liberate people and to encourage them - to cooperate. So to some extent, this is not like: “where you - born in this country or that country?” No, this is like your - choice of politics. And it does make sense to criticize people for - their choices about important issues. - - <p> So, I would say, a person who's using Windows, well, either he is - actively supporting this power structure, or at least maybe he's trapped - in it and doesn't have the courage to get out. In that case you can - forgive him, I guess, and encourage him. You know, there are different - situations of people; in any place there are people… different. - Some people are making more or less effort to try to improve things. - I believe in judging people as individuals, not as lumping them together - by their groups.</p> - - <p> But this is, in this one case it is, somewhat of a political choice - with political consequences for society, and that's exactly where it - makes sense to criticize people.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sorry to continue again on this, but I'm a little persistent -about this. It's…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: This is your last chance.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Yes sir, thank you. Generally when statements like these -are made, people who are not so much, you know, in connection with -these things tend to assume that cooperative communities and sharing -of source code and sharing of ideas and things like that don't exist in -other environments, but they do, and that's very unfortunate that they -think so.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry… <em>What</em> don't exist in other - environments? I don't know which other environments you're talking about. - I don't understand.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Other programming environments, other operating -systems.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well maybe there are some users developing some free - software that runs on Windows, in fact I'm sure there are… - -<p><em>Note: At this point, there was a short blackout, and both the -recording and the transcript is incomplete here.</em></p></dd> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, maybe there, are there anymore questions? Could you - speak louder? I can't hear you at all.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir may I ask you a question?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Okay you can, sure.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: In free software system we will be distributing the source -code also together with the software. So a person is entitled to change -whatever he can in the source code. So don't you think there will be -too many software versions of a particular software and this will in turn -cause problems for a layman to find out which will suit him the most.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Practical experience is that this is not a problem. - And occasionally it happens, but not very often. Now, you see, the - reason is that the users want interoperability and with free software the - users are ultimately in control, and what they want they tend to get. The - free software developers realize that they had better — if they are - going to make incompatible changes they are likely to make users unhappy - and their versions are not going to be used. So they generally draw the - obvious conclusion and pay a lot of attention to interoperability.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: What I feel is that like I'll be just loading a software -into my computer and the next morning I'll find a better version then -again I'll have to change it. The next morning again something has -been done to the source code and that's a better version, so don't -you…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: In general you are not going be finding a better version - every day and the reason is that typically for any given program, there - is usually only one version that is widely used. Maybe there will be - two, once in a while there will be three — when there is no good - maintainer that might happen. So you are just not going to keep finding - out about more versions that are good every day; there aren't so many. - There won't be that many popular versions. There is one situation - where you can get a new version every day. That is when there is one - team doing a lot of work on development then every day you can get their - latest version. That you can do. But that's only one version at any - given time.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, don't you think we will have to implement an -organization which will take into consideration all these updations and -it will just provide a single software which will have all the updations -right?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Shouldn't we have an - organization that would do something with all these versions, but I - don't know what.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Like, say I have developed a version of…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Did anyone else hear what she said? Could anyone else - tell me what she said?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: The thing is that…</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: It's a very valuable skill to learn to speak slowly and - clearly. If you ever want to give a speech, which as part of your career - you will, it's very helpful to learn to enunciate clearly and slowly.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Thank you, Sir. Sir, the thing is that, don't you feel that -we require an organization which will just perform a number of updations -together and make available a software which will club all the updations -up to that date?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: You are saying, take various different applications and - put them together?</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Yes Sir.</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I will tell you. A lot of organizations are doing that; - in fact every one of the GNU/Linux distributions is exactly that. - Debian does that, Red Hat does that… We to some extent do that - also for the GNU packages. We work on making sure they work together.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Excuse me Sir. We have talked lot against patents. In US -conditions have you ever been forced to put forward any applications -for patents?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: No. But no one can force me to make a patent application.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Also do you own any patents?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: I do not own any patents. Now, I have considered the - possibility of applying for patents to use them as part of a <em>mutual - strategic defense alliance</em>.</dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Do you mean to say that if I have twenty patents with me, -I donate it to the FSF and you maintain it for me?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Well, not the FSF. It would be a separate specialized - organization that would exist specifically, so that we would all - contribute our patents and the organization would use all of these - patents to shelter anyone who wishes shelter. So anyone can join the - organization, even somebody who has no patents. And that person gets the - shelter of this organization. But then we all do try to get patents so - as to make the organization stronger so it can protect us all better. - That's the idea, but so far no one has been able to get this started. - It's not an easy thing to do, and part of the reason is that applying - for a patent is very expensive — and a lot of work as well. - - <p>So this will be the last question.</p></dd> - -<dt><b>Q</b>: Why can't the Free Software Foundation start its own -distribution?</dt> - - <dd><b>A</b>: Oh well, the reason is that Debian is almost what we want, - and it seems better to be friends with Debian and try to convince them - to change it a little, rather than say “well, we are not going to - use it; we are going to make our own thing.” And also it seems - likely to be more successful too because, after all, there are a lot - of people working on Debian already. Why try to make an alternative to - that large community. Much better to work with them and convince them - to support our goals better — if it works, of course, and we have - our ways to go on that.</dd> -</dl> - -<p> So that was the last question, I can't stay all day answering -questions, I'm sorry. So at this point I am going to have to call a halt -and get going, and go have lunch. So thank you for listening.</p> - -<p>[Applause].</p> - - -<h3>Footnote</h3> - -<p> <a href="#Note1-rev" id="Note1">[1]</a> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: This question is not about patent or copyright or anything +like that. But this is one example what you said about—<code>if</code> +statement and <code>while</code> statement—that you said something about the +differences in the field of computer science and differences with other +sciences, that is other engineering sciences. You said that if I change +something in the <code>if</code> loop that's <code>if</code> statement, there won't be any effect, +that you said…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: No I didn't say that.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: You said that! You said that there isn't any heating +effect. I remember that…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I know what I said. I said something that's + partly similar to that…</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: I'll tell the exact statement: you said there won't any +heating effect.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Any whating effect?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Heating effect. Heating…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Oh yes we don't have to worry about how much heat the + <code>if</code> statement…</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Then what is it that cascading effect +is? If I change the structure of the loop, there will be an effect.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Oh sure. The program will behave differently when you + change it, but I'm not saying that writing every program is easy, or that + we never make mistakes. I listed a lot of specific kinds of problems, + that would plague a mechanical or electrical engineer at every little + detail. Even each one detail gets to be very hard for them. Whereas for + us, the problems are because we do so much, we're doing it so fast, + we don't think carefully about each one thing. So we make mistakes.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: So you admit that there's an effect.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Of course. I never said otherwise, I'm sorry if you + thought so. Sure if you change your program it's going to do different + things.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, can you comment on the commercial distributions?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, you asked me to comment on the commercial + distribution of GNU/Linux systems? Well, I think that's fine. That's one + of the freedoms that free software gives you—the freedom to use + it in business, the freedom to distribute it as part of a business, the + freedom to sell copies in exchange for money. These are all legitimate. + + <p> Now, one thing I am unhappy about is when the companies that do this + add some nonfree software to it.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: That's the installation program?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Yeah, any nonfree software. Because the goal was: you + should be able to get a completely free operating system. Well, if + they have a thing in a store which says I'm the GNU/Linux system— + of course it says Linux—but inside of it there are some nonfree + programs, now you're not getting something that is entirely free anymore. + It doesn't entirely respect your freedom. So the real goal for which + we wrote the system is being lost. + + <p> So that's a major problem that our community faces now, the tendency + to put free software together with nonfree software and make these + nonfree overall systems. And then, you know, it might seem that our + software is a success because there are many people using it. But if + you look at our real goal, our real goal is not popularity. Our real + goal is to spread a community of freedom, and we're not succeeding in + doing that if the people are using nonfree software still.</p> + + <p> Unfortunately, I couldn't give both speeches. I can give a + speech about software patents, or I can give a speech about free + software. They're very different and each one of them is a long speech. + So unfortunately what that means is that I can't fully explain about free + software and the GNU project here. Am I giving another speech in Kochi? + Am I giving the free software speech in Kochi?</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: No.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Oh well. I gave that speech in Trivandrum. + + <p> So I'll answer five more questions and then I'll have to call it + quits because it gets to be quite draining to answer so many.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Excuse me sir, question from me again. Sir, this is a +personal question. Me, as such, I love programming. I spend a lot +of time in front of my system. And I was listening to some of your +earlier speeches where you said that back in the 70's, the community of +programmers had a sense of goodwill among them. They used to share code, +they used to develop on it.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, a specific community of programmers which I belonged + to. This was not all programmers. It was one specific community. + Continue.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Yes sir. In that context, I feel particularly, me as such, +I feel very hurt when I see the so-called interaction among programmers +today. Because many of us are very good programmers, but we look at +each other in different colors depending upon the tools we use— +“hey, he's a windows guy,” “hey, he's a GNU/Linux +guy,” “hey, he's into Solaris systems,” “he's a +network programmer.” And unfortunately most of this prejudice comes +from a lot of misinterpretation out of things like this. None of these +people promote free software as such, and it hurts me as a programmer +and many of my colleagues, and I work in an environment…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Could you speak a bit more slowly, I am hearing most + of it, but there was one point that I miss, so if you speak slowly I + will…</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Yeah, here we work with in an environment where you +are judged according to the tools you use rather than the quality of +work.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: To me that, well, in one sense there is a situation where + in a limited way that is rational. If there is a tool which is normally + used for doing fairly easy jobs and there are lot of people who now had + to do it, then I would imagine now, I wouldn't want, I might not pay as + much to them as somebody who does very hard jobs with a different tool + that's used for hard jobs. But it's true if you're talking about hard + jobs, it makes no sense that you'd be prejudiced about what tools people + are using. The good programmers can use any tools.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: That was not the focus here. The focus was that here it is +a question of goodwill. Goodwill amongst programmers these days seems +to be, you know, melted out into these little boxes of this system and +that system, and that hurts.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I agree we should encourage people to learn about more + different things and we should never be prejudiced against people because + of some detail, you know the fact that this person likes Perl and this + person likes C, why should they hate each other…</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: It's not even that distinct. It's like this person works +on GNU/Linux and this person works on Windows, which are the two major +operating systems today in India at least.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, in that case, though, it's not just a prejudice, + you see. Windows is a system, a social system, that keeps people + helpless and divided <i>[applause]</i>, whereas GNU/Linux is an alternative + that was created specifically to liberate people and to encourage them + to cooperate. So to some extent, this is not like: “where you + born in this country or that country?” No, this is like your + choice of politics. And it does make sense to criticize people for + their choices about important issues. + + <p> So, I would say, a person who's using Windows, well, either he is + actively supporting this power structure, or at least maybe he's trapped + in it and doesn't have the courage to get out. In that case you can + forgive him, I guess, and encourage him. You know, there are different + situations of people; in any place there are people… different. + Some people are making more or less effort to try to improve things. + I believe in judging people as individuals, not as lumping them together + by their groups.</p> + + <p> But this is, in this one case it is, somewhat of a political choice + with political consequences for society, and that's exactly where it + makes sense to criticize people.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sorry to continue again on this, but I'm a little persistent +about this. It's…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: This is your last chance.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Yes sir, thank you. Generally when statements like these +are made, people who are not so much, you know, in connection with +these things tend to assume that cooperative communities and sharing +of source code and sharing of ideas and things like that don't exist in +other environments, but they do, and that's very unfortunate that they +think so.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry… <em>What</em> don't exist in other + environments? I don't know which other environments you're talking about. + I don't understand.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Other programming environments, other operating +systems.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well maybe there are some users developing some free + software that runs on Windows, in fact I'm sure there are… + +<p><em>Note: At this point, there was a short blackout, and both the +recording and the transcript is incomplete here.</em></p></dd> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, maybe there, are there anymore questions? Could you + speak louder? I can't hear you at all.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir may I ask you a question?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Okay you can, sure.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: In free software system we will be distributing the source +code also together with the software. So a person is entitled to change +whatever he can in the source code. So don't you think there will be +too many software versions of a particular software and this will in turn +cause problems for a layman to find out which will suit him the most.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Practical experience is that this is not a problem. + And occasionally it happens, but not very often. Now, you see, the + reason is that the users want interoperability and with free software the + users are ultimately in control, and what they want they tend to get. The + free software developers realize that they had better—if they are + going to make incompatible changes they are likely to make users unhappy + and their versions are not going to be used. So they generally draw the + obvious conclusion and pay a lot of attention to interoperability.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: What I feel is that like I'll be just loading a software +into my computer and the next morning I'll find a better version then +again I'll have to change it. The next morning again something has +been done to the source code and that's a better version, so don't +you…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: In general you are not going be finding a better version + every day and the reason is that typically for any given program, there + is usually only one version that is widely used. Maybe there will be + two, once in a while there will be three—when there is no good + maintainer that might happen. So you are just not going to keep finding + out about more versions that are good every day; there aren't so many. + There won't be that many popular versions. There is one situation + where you can get a new version every day. That is when there is one + team doing a lot of work on development then every day you can get their + latest version. That you can do. But that's only one version at any + given time.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Sir, don't you think we will have to implement an +organization which will take into consideration all these updations and +it will just provide a single software which will have all the updations +right?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Shouldn't we have an + organization that would do something with all these versions, but I + don't know what.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Like, say I have developed a version of…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Did anyone else hear what she said? Could anyone else + tell me what she said?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: The thing is that…</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: It's a very valuable skill to learn to speak slowly and + clearly. If you ever want to give a speech, which as part of your career + you will, it's very helpful to learn to enunciate clearly and slowly.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Thank you, Sir. Sir, the thing is that, don't you feel that +we require an organization which will just perform a number of updations +together and make available a software which will club all the updations +up to that date?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: You are saying, take various different applications and + put them together?</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Yes Sir.</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I will tell you. A lot of organizations are doing that; + in fact every one of the GNU/Linux distributions is exactly that. + Debian does that, Red Hat does that… We to some extent do that + also for the GNU packages. We work on making sure they work together.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Excuse me Sir. We have talked lot against patents. In US +conditions have you ever been forced to put forward any applications +for patents?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: No. But no one can force me to make a patent application.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Also do you own any patents?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: I do not own any patents. Now, I have considered the + possibility of applying for patents to use them as part of a <em>mutual + strategic defense alliance</em>.</dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Do you mean to say that if I have twenty patents with me, +I donate it to the FSF and you maintain it for me?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Well, not the FSF. It would be a separate specialized + organization that would exist specifically, so that we would all + contribute our patents and the organization would use all of these + patents to shelter anyone who wishes shelter. So anyone can join the + organization, even somebody who has no patents. And that person gets the + shelter of this organization. But then we all do try to get patents so + as to make the organization stronger so it can protect us all better. + That's the idea, but so far no one has been able to get this started. + It's not an easy thing to do, and part of the reason is that applying + for a patent is very expensive—and a lot of work as well. + + <p>So this will be the last question.</p></dd> + +<dt><b>Q</b>: Why can't the Free Software Foundation start its own +distribution?</dt> + + <dd><b>A</b>: Oh well, the reason is that Debian is almost what we want, + and it seems better to be friends with Debian and try to convince them + to change it a little, rather than say “well, we are not going to + use it; we are going to make our own thing.” And also it seems + likely to be more successful too because, after all, there are a lot + of people working on Debian already. Why try to make an alternative to + that large community. Much better to work with them and convince them + to support our goals better—if it works, of course, and we have + our ways to go on that.</dd> +</dl> + +<p> So that was the last question, I can't stay all day answering +questions, I'm sorry. So at this point I am going to have to call a halt +and get going, and go have lunch. So thank you for listening.</p> + +<p><i>[Applause]</i></p> +<div class="column-limit"></div> + +<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3> + +<p> <a href="#Note1-rev" id="Note1">[1]</a> In 2014, this petition against software patents is <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061205023601/http://noepatents.org/index_html?NO_COOKIE=true"> archived</a><!-- [Dead as of 2019-03-23], and a more recent one (now closed) can be found at <a href="http://stopsoftwarepatents.eu/">stopsoftwarepatents.eu</a> -->. -</p> -<p>For more information about the problem of software patents, -see also our <a href="http://endsoftpatents.org">End Software Patents</a> +</p> +<p>For more information about the problem of software patents, +see also our <a href="https://endsoftwarepatents.org">End Software Patents</a> campaign.</p> -</div> +</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 @@ -2120,13 +2129,13 @@ 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> @@ -2137,31 +2146,30 @@ of this article.</p> Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the document was modified, or published. - + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). - + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> - -<p> Copyright © 2001, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019 -Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> - + +<p> Copyright © 2001, 2008, 2012, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative -Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> <p class="unprintable">Updated: -<!-- timestamp start --> -$Date: 2019/03/23 11:26:56 $ -<!-- timestamp end --> -</p> -</div> +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2021/12/25 21:07:06 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> </div> -</body> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> </html> |