[d@DCC] Quick introduction from Canada to fightthepatent.co.nz

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: Russell Holland <russell (at) webfoot.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:43:13 -0400 (EDT)

(Copy to list at http://www.fightthepatent.co.nz/ and list at 
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ )

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Russell Holland wrote:

> Hi Russell,
> 
> I'm helping lead the defence over here in NZ - saw your link in
> ITBusiness.ca

  For other readers, that article is linked via my weblog at:
http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=442


> Any help you can bring to this is much appreciated - we've set up the
> website:- www.fightthepatent.co.nz and are also running a Listserve (details
> on the site)
> 
> Please join and let us know your thoughts,
> 
> We are also working with the Australians to try and through the patent out
> there via pressure on the Australian Gov.
> 
> Keep up the fight...!
> 
> Cheers and thanks
> Rus


  While the ITBusienss.ca article mentions that I have "taken up New
Zealand's cause", I should indicate that I am taking a different approach
than only fighting this particular business model patent.  I am actively
opposed to "information process" patents of all types, including software
and business model patents.

  While I am doing this as a private citizen, I am also part of a
worldwide movement that includes the (USA based) League for Programming
Freedom <http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/> and the (European) Foundation for a Free
Information Infrastructure <http://www.ffii.org/> <http://swpat.ffii.org/>
, among others.


  Like LPF I am also not just working only on patent policy, but also
interface copyright whether that be human-software (user interfaces),
hardware-software or software-software (API, communications protocol)  
interfaces.  This includes active opposition to "Legal protection for
Technological Protection Measures", which is more commonly known as the
nasty-parts of the USA's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

  It is in opposition to interface copyright that I created "Canada DMCA
opponents" which later became the http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ forum.


  My most recent work included being hired by ICT branch of Industry
Canada to do a report and a presentation on Software Patents
<http://www.flora.ca/patent2003/>.  The idea was not to deal with specific
patents as a vast majority are expected to be invalid even by current
patent requirements, but to encourage policy makers in this area to 
evaluate the utility of patent policy existing in this area at all.

  When you move away from patents on manufacturing processes, to patenting 
processes entirely outside of a manufacturing context, the fundamentals of 
patent policy quickly break down.  Each type of subject matter exists in a 
different economic context, but in information processes you have 
particularly extreme problems.

  a) Having high quality appears to be nearly impossible given the
complexity of evaluating whether an information process is useful, novel
and unobvious.  I have suggested that if patent quality can not be brought
to as high as 90-95% that patents should simply not be offered in that
subject matter.  United States Patent Office quality on software patents
is between 5-40%, depending on which study you trust.

  b) Whether patenting is helpful or harmful has been inadequately 
evaluated by governments.  The evidence I have researched indicates 
that they are harmful in information processes.

  If patents are intended to provide a temporary monopoly to encourage
innovation, testing whether innovation is helped or harmed in a given
subject matter should be a requirement for the policy.

  c) Whether patenting encourages or discourages disclosure of inventions
should be evaluated.  Patents tend not to be written by people skilled in
the art, but by patent lawyers.  The question as to whether inventions are
being disclosed by patents is also fairly unknown.  Those skilled in
information processes, such as with software, do not generally read
patents to learn new things about their art.  In fact, most of those I
know in software creation specifically avoid reading patents as to not be
tainted by them.

  As a demonstration of a clear alternative, there is full and accountable
disclosure of software via Free/Libre and Open Source Software
<http://www.flora.ca/floss.shtml>.  Not only is a monopoly not granted
with these royalty-free business models, but patent monopolies are
incompatible with FLOSS.  FLOSS business models are not the only
businesses harmed as only a very few incumbent "software manufacturing"
businesses benefit from this form of protectionism, while the rest of the
industry and economy as a whole is harmed.


  I hope this is helpful as an introduction.  I don't know if I will be
able to stay in this mailing list as the policy areas I am involved in are
quite active.  Business model patents, including e-commerce patents, is
just one aspect of the work I am doing to try to protect innovation and
innovative business models from government intervention.  Patent policy
has expanded and in some subject matter is not only not an incentive for
innovation, but government protectionism of legacy and snake-oil business
models.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca