From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html | 2167 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 2167 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5572bc5 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html @@ -0,0 +1,2167 @@ + + + +Stallman's Speech at Model Engineering College About Software Patent +Dangers - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

The Danger of Software Patents (2001)

+ +

Richard Stallman

+

Speech given at Model Engineering College, Government of Kerala, +India, 2001 +(audio +recording)

+
+ +

Summary

+ +

Introduction of the speaker

+ +

Stallman's speech

+ + + +

Questions from the audience

+ + +
+ +

Introduction of the speaker

+ +

Prof. Jyothi John, Head of Computer Engineering Department +introduces Stallman:

+ +

It's my privilege and duty to welcome the most distinguished guest +ever we had in this college.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

Stallman's speech

+ +

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 not 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.

+ +

There are two things wrong with the phrase +“intellectual property.”

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

Copyrights and patents have nothing to do with each other.

+ +

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:

+ + + +

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.

+ +

How the patent system works.

+ +

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.

+ +

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?

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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. +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.

+ +

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. +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 all.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

You have to work with a lawyer.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.”

+ +

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?

+ +

Well, you have three options to consider:

+ + + +

Any one of these three is sometimes a viable alternative, and sometimes +not.

+ +

Avoid the patent.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.”

+ +

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. + +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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

License the patent.

+ +

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!”

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.”

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.”

+ +

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.

+ +

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!

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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?”

+ +

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.

+ +

Challenge the validity of the patent.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

Nobody can reinvent the entire field of software.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

The relationship between patents and products varies +between the fields.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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!”

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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 +will crack. +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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

Program development is hampered by software patents.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

Today we have some economic research showing mathematically how this +can happen. You can find it in www.researchoninnovation.org. +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.

+ +

What can a country do to avoid this problem?

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

So what I propose to the United States is to change the criteria +for applying patents, to say that purely software systems running +on general purpose computing hardware are immune from patents. +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.

+ +

Preventing India from having software patents will be +up to the citizens of India.

+ +

That's the solution I propose to the US, but it could be used in +other countries as well.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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!

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

Businesses should demand opposition to software +patents.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

It's important for countries to work together against +this.

+ +

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 no software patents +treaty 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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

So it's important for countries to work together against this.

+ +

For more information about the problem of software patents, +see www.progfree.org [archived] and www.ffii.org. And there is also a petition +to sign, www.noepatents.org [1] +

+ +

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.

+ +

Questions from the audience

+ +

Now I'll answer questions.

+ +

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.

+ +

Questions about software patents

+ +
+
Q: Sir, you said that companies like IBM are harmed +about 10 times as much as they benefit?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: But it is only neutralized, they don't really benefit?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: But for that something will oppose this movement against +patents?
+ +
A: 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. + +

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.

+ +

Is someone else asking?

+ +
Q: Sir, what was the reason for the development of the +software patent?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: So was it not the realization that …
+ +
A: Sorry, I can't … could you try to pronounce your + consonants more clearly, I'm having trouble understanding the words.
+ +
Q: So was it not the realization that copyright is notoriously +weak for protecting software?
+ +
A: Copyright is not only what?
+ +
Q: Notoriously weak…
+ +
A: Well, I think the whole sentence is nonsensical. I don't + understand this term “protecting software,” and I don't + agree with you. + +

Most programmers don't agree with you.

+ +
Q: 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?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Sir I have a question about software patents, the thing is +that how can one protect where there is a functional element …
+ +
A: Protect what?
+ +
Q: Functional element…
+ +
A: What's going to happen to them?
+ +
Q: Sir, how can we get a protection when there is a…
+ +
A: Protection from what? Somebody's gonna come with a + gun?
+ +
Q: No Sir …
+ +
A: Basically the protection you need is the protection against + being sued for the program you wrote. Programmers need protection from + software patents.
+ +
Q: No, it's not the programmers themselves sir, there are +companies who have invested in something.
+ +
A: 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 you develop + a program, you will have the patent. Well, the idea, that very + statement contains a mistake because there is no such thing as the + patent. 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. + +

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.

+ +

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 generally.

+ +

Audience: [applause]

+ +

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.”

+ +
Q: 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…
+ +
A: Well…
+ +
Q: … and we are still going to be mistaken…?
+ +
A: 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 not 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.
+ +
Q: Sir, are you basically against the very concept of +intellectual property rights?
+ +
A: 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. + +

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.

+ +
Q: So there is an argument that if particular intellectual +property right is not protected…
+ +
A: I'm sorry, what you are saying makes no sense at all and + is at this foolish general level…
+ +
Q: Let me complete sir, if that particular intellectual +property right is not protected, it may impede the investment, and this +impediment…
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Sir, will you extend this concept to the physical +property?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: So the basis under which this intellectual property +is protected is “protect the labor,” “intellectual +labor”?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: So why can't we extend the very same principle…
+ +
A: But in any case, your principle is wrong, 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 always, invariably + makes that aspect of life thrive. Well, this is dumb. Occasionally it + might work, and occasionally it causes a lot of trouble.
+ +
Q: Don't you think that the same kind of monopoly is created +in favor of a party when he owns a physical property?
+ +
A: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
+ +
Q: 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?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Sir, what about the LZW patent? Is it…
+ +
A: What about the what?
+ +
Q: LZW patent?
+ +
A: The LZW patent?
+ +
Q: Yeah. Is it still in effect?
+ +
A: Yes, it is. Well, there are actually two LZW patents as + I explained to you, and they are both still in effect.
+ +
Q: Sir, so it's for 20 years?
+ +
A: Yeah, it's not 20 years yet.
+ +
Q: Sir, can you reduce the scope of the problem by reducing +the period of the patent?
+ +
A: 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. + +

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.

+ +
Q: So and patent has also now become victim of…
+ +
A: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you at all, could you speak + louder?
+ +
Q: Sir, patent has now become a way of making money by +businesses rather than promoting inventions?
+ +
A: Yes, a lot of them use it that way.
+ +
Q: So, sir, can we reduce this problem further by assigning +the patent to the actual inventor rather than a business?
+ +
A: 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. + +

Okay, if you gonna pass a note, you'd better read it out loud. + Any other questions?

+ +
Q: 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?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Precisely what I want to know is about: this has something +to do with patents?
+ +
A: Probably not.
+ +
Q: Different countries depending on how much, whether they +are part of WTO or not part of WTO…
+ +
A: No, no.
+ +
Q: …I think matter…
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Sir earlier you've told that…
+ +
A: I'm sorry I can't hear you.
+ +
Q: 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.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: 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…
+ +
A: I'm sorry I didn't say that software should 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.
+ +
Q: 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.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: We've an increasing number of software not being run on +general purpose machines.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: 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…
+ +
A: I'm sorry. Do I see a possibility that people would + do what?
+ +
Q: … of finding loopholes or workarounds of converting +what you would call software patents and to get it actually patented.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: 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.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Excuse me sir, may I ask you a question.
+ +
A: Yes.
+ +
Q: 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…
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Then the idea would be contestable in a court of law as +to whether it's a general purpose or not…
+ +
A: I guess, it will have to be, yeah. The precise details + of drawing those lines, one ends up having to leave to judges.
+ +
Q: Thank you sir.
+ +
Q: Germany and France, the only countries who has said no to +patents in Europe…
+ +
A: 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 no votes, and so they dropped the issue. + And I don't remember the other countries.
+ +
Q: There's no European community decision on this…
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Is there any country that said ‘no’ to software +patents?
+ +
A: Well, there are countries which don't have them, but it's + not clear that there's any country which has affirmed this recently.
+ +
Q: Sir, could you please elaborate on the benefits the software +development community got in European countries from this policy?
+ +
A: 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. + +

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.

+ +
Q: Are there any threats to India not acceding to the software +regime?
+ +
A: Well there's no software regime. The GATT agreement + doesn't require software patents. There is no treaty requiring software + patents.
+ +
Q: 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…
+ +
A: 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. + +

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.

+ +
Q: Being an advocate of this non-patency, have you ever +faced any…
+ +
A: I'm having trouble hearing you. Please try to make an + effort to pronounce every sound clearly that I might understand.
+ +
Q: You being an advocate of this non-patency, have you faced +any problems with these multinationals or something?
+ +
A: Have I faced any problems…
+ +
Q: … so far in your life?
+ +
A: I'm sorry. What did he say?
+ +
Q: Have you faced any problems with multinationals in your +life?
+ +
A: 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. + +

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.

+ +
Q: I think he asked whether you had any threat to you by any +multinational companies…
+ +
A: Well they never threatened my life!
+ +
Q: Yeah that's the question!
+ +
A: No, but they do threaten our work. You know, they do +threaten to sue us.
+
+ +

Questions about free software

+ +
Volunteer: 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?”
+ +
A: 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. + +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +
Q: In the absence of a concrete revenue model for free +software, will this also go bust like the dotcom?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: I understand that companies like IBM are also investing +considerably in making their systems and software compatible with free +source code like Linux…
+ +
A: You mean GNU?
+ +
Q: All right…
+ +
A: Yes, they call it Linux. Actually the system is mainly + GNU and Linux is one of the pieces.
+ +
[From audience] The kernel is hardly eighteen percent.
+ +
A: Well, really, that much? What I saw is three percent.
+ +
[From audience] You can see through a needle. Very +insignificant.
+ +
Q: But, I also understand that they've invested around a +billion dollars in doing so. Now my question is…
+ +
A: Well that's not true.
+ +
Q: 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…
+ +
A: I'm sorry, I can't predict the future. No one can.
+ +
Q: How can I…
+ +
A: There are some God men who claim they can predict the + future. I'm not. I'm a rationalist. + +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

Are there any more questions?

+ +
Q: [...]
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: 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…
+ +
A: No I didn't say that.
+ +
Q: You said that! You said that there isn't any heating +effect. I remember that…
+ +
A: I'm sorry, I know what I said. I said something that's + partly similar to that…
+ +
Q: I'll tell the exact statement: you said there won't any +heating effect.
+ +
A: Any whating effect?
+ +
Q: Heating effect. Heating…
+ +
A: Oh yes we don't have to worry about how much heat the + if statement…
+ +
Q: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Then what is it that cascading effect +is? If I change the structure of the loop, there will be an effect.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: So you admit that there's an effect.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Sir, can you comment on the commercial distributions?
+ +
A: 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. + +

Now, one thing I am unhappy about is when the companies that do this + add some nonfree software to it.

+ +
Q: That's the installation program?
+ +
A: 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. + +

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.

+ +

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?

+ +
Q: No.
+ +
A: Oh well. I gave that speech in Trivandrum. + +

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.

+ +
Q: 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.
+ +
A: Well, a specific community of programmers which I belonged + to. This was not all programmers. It was one specific community. + Continue.
+ +
Q: 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…
+ +
A: 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…
+ +
Q: Yeah, here we work with in an environment where you +are judged according to the tools you use rather than the quality of +work.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: 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.
+ +
A: 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…
+ +
Q: 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.
+ +
A: 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. + +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +
Q: Sorry to continue again on this, but I'm a little persistent +about this. It's…
+ +
A: This is your last chance.
+ +
Q: 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.
+ +
A: I'm sorry… What don't exist in other + environments? I don't know which other environments you're talking about. + I don't understand.
+ +
Q: Other programming environments, other operating +systems.
+ +
A: Well maybe there are some users developing some free + software that runs on Windows, in fact I'm sure there are… + +

Note: At this point, there was a short blackout, and both the +recording and the transcript is incomplete here.

+ +
A: Well, maybe there, are there anymore questions? Could you + speak louder? I can't hear you at all.
+ +
Q: Sir may I ask you a question?
+ +
A: Okay you can, sure.
+ +
Q: 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.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: 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…
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: 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?
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Like, say I have developed a version of…
+ +
A: Did anyone else hear what she said? Could anyone else + tell me what she said?
+ +
Q: The thing is that…
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: 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?
+ +
A: You are saying, take various different applications and + put them together?
+ +
Q: Yes Sir.
+ +
A: 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.
+ +
Q: Excuse me Sir. We have talked lot against patents. In US +conditions have you ever been forced to put forward any applications +for patents?
+ +
A: No. But no one can force me to make a patent application.
+ +
Q: Also do you own any patents?
+ +
A: I do not own any patents. Now, I have considered the + possibility of applying for patents to use them as part of a mutual + strategic defense alliance.
+ +
Q: 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?
+ +
A: 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. + +

So this will be the last question.

+ +
Q: Why can't the Free Software Foundation start its own +distribution?
+ +
A: 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.
+
+ +

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.

+ +

[Applause].

+ + +

Footnote

+ +

[1] +In 2014, this petition against software patents is +archived. +

+

For more information about the problem of software patents, +see also our End Software Patents +campaign.

+
+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3