Re: Fwd: A steering committee for the LPF?

This may well be of interest to SPI, or indivual readers of this list -
please keep discussion of it on gnu.misc.discuss.

Ray

From: ps(at)cam(dot)_nospam_(dot)org (Pierre Sarrazin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: A steering committee for the LPF?
Date: 20 Mar 1999 00:20:57 -0500
Organization: League for Programming Freedom
Lines: 34
Sender: ps(at)CAM(dot)ORG
Message-ID: <7cvb7p$at1(at)ocean(dot)CAM(dot)ORG>

Since October 1998, I have been maintaining the website of the League
for Programming Freedom at <http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/>. On this site,
there is an email address where people can write to offer their help.

A number of people have offered to help, but unfortunately there is no
defined agenda for the LPF. The League has no formal organization
right now and I am limiting myself to the role of a webmaster.

I am posting this article here in hopes of starting a discussion among
people who would be interested in forming a steering committee for the
LPF. These people would have to decide what they specifically want to
do to obtain the abolition of software patents by the
U.S. Congress. The LPF also opposes user interface copyrights, but
since a major 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision, this problem seems to
have receded for now (see the website for details).

The job of the committee would be to define a strategy to eventually
convince Congress of outlawing software patents. Recent news about
Microsoft's patent on style sheets and Sightsound's threats against
MP3.com (regarding patents over downloading audio over a network) may
provide arguments to convince lawmakers that software patents should
be abolished as soon as possible before they become an intolerable
impediment to the software community. A letter-writing campaign might
be a good start; I could post the results on the website.

Greg Aharonian's Internet Patent News Service has published some
issues about the two patents I mentioned:
<http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html#IPNS>

The front page of the LPF website shows an index to the article
"Against Software Patents", which is a very good read for anyone who
wishes to have a reminder of why software patents are a threat.

I would like to see us get involved with this.

Personally, I am curious to see whether we could bring a class action
suit against the United States government under the arguement that
software patents, in their current state, violate a Free Software
programmer's freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a gauranteed
human right and is supposed to be stronger legally than a patent, which
is a tool of convenience. I think it is arguable that many programmers
are as dedicated to the creation of Free Software as any religious person
is to their chosen method of worship.

E

On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 12:24:20PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> This may well be of interest to SPI, or indivual readers of this list -
> please keep discussion of it on gnu.misc.discuss.
>
> Ray
>
> From: ps(at)cam(dot)_nospam_(dot)org (Pierre Sarrazin)
> Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
> Subject: A steering committee for the LPF?
> Date: 20 Mar 1999 00:20:57 -0500
> Organization: League for Programming Freedom
> Lines: 34
> Sender: ps(at)CAM(dot)ORG
> Message-ID: <7cvb7p$at1(at)ocean(dot)CAM(dot)ORG>
>
> Since October 1998, I have been maintaining the website of the League
> for Programming Freedom at <http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/>. On this site,
> there is an email address where people can write to offer their help.
>
> A number of people have offered to help, but unfortunately there is no
> defined agenda for the LPF. The League has no formal organization
> right now and I am limiting myself to the role of a webmaster.
>
> I am posting this article here in hopes of starting a discussion among
> people who would be interested in forming a steering committee for the
> LPF. These people would have to decide what they specifically want to
> do to obtain the abolition of software patents by the
> U.S. Congress. The LPF also opposes user interface copyrights, but
> since a major 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision, this problem seems to
> have receded for now (see the website for details).
>
> The job of the committee would be to define a strategy to eventually
> convince Congress of outlawing software patents. Recent news about
> Microsoft's patent on style sheets and Sightsound's threats against
> MP3.com (regarding patents over downloading audio over a network) may
> provide arguments to convince lawmakers that software patents should
> be abolished as soon as possible before they become an intolerable
> impediment to the software community. A letter-writing campaign might
> be a good start; I could post the results on the website.
>
> Greg Aharonian's Internet Patent News Service has published some
> issues about the two patents I mentioned:
> <http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html#IPNS>
>
> The front page of the LPF website shows an index to the article
> "Against Software Patents", which is a very good read for anyone who
> wishes to have a reminder of why software patents are a threat.
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to spi-general-request(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>

--
___________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler Director of Strategic Weapons Systems
Novare International Inc. A Devices that Kill People company
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.

On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 01:10:26PM -0600, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> I would like to see us get involved with this.
>
> Personally, I am curious to see whether we could bring a class action
> suit against the United States government under the arguement that
> software patents, in their current state, violate a Free Software
> programmer's freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a gauranteed
> human right and is supposed to be stronger legally than a patent, which
> is a tool of convenience. I think it is arguable that many programmers
> are as dedicated to the creation of Free Software as any religious person
> is to their chosen method of worship.
>
> E
>
The problem, of course, is who'll pay... Lawyers don't generally do "no
collect-no fee" at this level

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 11:18:37AM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
> The problem, of course, is who'll pay... Lawyers don't generally do "no
> collect-no fee" at this level

Hmmm, dunno. ACLU? Companies looking for Open Source PR? Crazy rich guy?

--
_______________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler Director of New Products and Technologies
Novare International Inc. The Unstoppable Fist of Digital Action
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:

> I would like to see us get involved with this.
>
> Personally, I am curious to see whether we could bring a class action
> suit against the United States government under the arguement that
> software patents, in their current state, violate a Free Software
> programmer's freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a gauranteed
> human right and is supposed to be stronger legally than a patent, which
> is a tool of convenience. I think it is arguable that many programmers
> are as dedicated to the creation of Free Software as any religious person
> is to their chosen method of worship.
>
> E
>
I don't think we need to contest it on 1st amendment grounds. The
thing is, distributing source code (maybe even binary code) is expression
and can't infringe on a patent. But what does infringe on the patent is
when the software is actually loaded into the computer and executed, which
then makes the computer an instantiation of the patented device. In
essence, you "manufacture" an infringing device each time you execute the
program.
At least, this is what I've gathered. The distinction is a technical
one, but it's consistent with the way the courts have ruled between the
copyrightable parts of software (the actual expression) versus the
patentable parts (the actual functioning).
I don't know if you could be sued for "contributory infringement",
though.
The better grounds for a lawsuit defense (I think) would be to argue
that it's in the public interest to foster free software development.
>From what I've been reading, the courts (particularly the Supreme Court)
consider themselves to be the arbiter of what this is and have
used it in the past as grounds for revoking patents. I'm not sure about
the current SC, though. But Justice O'Connor did make an encouraging
statement in one case that I've seen quoted several times (though of
course I can't find it when I look for it) about how the IP laws exist to
serve the public, not the IP monopolist, and when those two conflict, the
public wins.

I am not a lawyer, I've just taken an active interest in this area,
since it seems to me we have a fundamental interest in making the law work
for us (as opposed to only those who can pay for it).

Lynn

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 11:18:37AM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
> > The problem, of course, is who'll pay... Lawyers don't generally do "no
> > collect-no fee" at this level
>
> Hmmm, dunno. ACLU? Companies looking for Open Source PR? Crazy rich guy?
>
Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology? They have expressed some
interest in Open Source (their choice of words). I think it would be a
good idea to establish a working relationship with some of these other
groups, at least.

Lynn

My point is more to the fact that it is nearly impossible for an independant
programmer to find out if they are infringing on a patent. The patent
database is intractibly large, lacks proper search tools and contains
absurd numbers of patents that are overly broad. What this equates to is
an environment that is uncomfortable, if not openly hostile, to the
independant programmer.

On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 02:57:01PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> I don't think we need to contest it on 1st amendment grounds. The
> thing is, distributing source code (maybe even binary code) is expression
> and can't infringe on a patent. But what does infringe on the patent is
> when the software is actually loaded into the computer and executed, which
> then makes the computer an instantiation of the patented device. In
> essence, you "manufacture" an infringing device each time you execute the
> program.
> At least, this is what I've gathered. The distinction is a technical
> one, but it's consistent with the way the courts have ruled between the
> copyrightable parts of software (the actual expression) versus the
> patentable parts (the actual functioning).
> I don't know if you could be sued for "contributory infringement",
> though.
> The better grounds for a lawsuit defense (I think) would be to argue
> that it's in the public interest to foster free software development.
> >From what I've been reading, the courts (particularly the Supreme Court)
> consider themselves to be the arbiter of what this is and have
> used it in the past as grounds for revoking patents. I'm not sure about
> the current SC, though. But Justice O'Connor did make an encouraging
> statement in one case that I've seen quoted several times (though of
> course I can't find it when I look for it) about how the IP laws exist to
> serve the public, not the IP monopolist, and when those two conflict, the
> public wins.
>
> I am not a lawyer, I've just taken an active interest in this area,
> since it seems to me we have a fundamental interest in making the law work
> for us (as opposed to only those who can pay for it).

--
__________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler A guy running Linux
Novare International Inc. A company running Linux
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke

Previously Darren Benham wrote:
> The problem, of course, is who'll pay... Lawyers don't generally do "no
> collect-no fee" at this level

I know HERT once said they had a lawyer willing to help with things like
this. Then again I don't think they ever thought on this kind of scale.

Wichert.

--
==============================================================================
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: wakkerma(at)cs(dot)leidenuniv(dot)nl
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/