LWN: Comments on "OSS and software patents: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em (ars technica)"

I'd keep the focus on abolition

coriordan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:04:04 +0000

Eben's time and a conference session are resources. I'm surprised they were used to promote OIN instead of abolition.

But, Eben's a knowledgeable guy with experience in strategy, which is why I'd be interested to hear a recording of that talk.

I'd keep the focus on abolition

drag — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:35:32 +0000

I do not think that the efforts on creating OIN have taken away any sort of resources, in a measurable way, that could be redirected at abolishing patents. I don't think that Eben or FSF or anybody else involved has ran into a situation were they were given a opportunity to work politically against patents, but OIN was taking up to much of their time so they couldn't.

But that's just my opinion.

I'd keep the focus on abolition

coriordan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:57:30 +0000

It's not either/or, but it's a question of where we should focus.

OIN is an industry consortium that spends millions on projects that are in the interest of the shareholders of IBM, Novell, Philips, etc. If we do nothing, this work still gets done. It's a small part of the solution, and it's already getting massive resources.

Meanwhile, they won't work on abolition. If we do nothing about abolition, who'll work on that? It's an under-resourced goal, and it's a real solution, so I think abolition should be our focus.

I'd keep the focus on abolition

drag — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:39:57 +0000

> Again, OIN is great, but I'd like to hear more about why they (and similar market-based solutions) should be a focus. Abolition will take years, but we have to continue working on it because it's the only real solution.

I don't see how it's a either/or situation here. In what way does having a organization like OIN take away from trying to apply political pressure to remove software patents?

It's quite possible to keep working on the elimination of software patents while using a solution to mitigate the negative effects of their existence.

The mere existence and increase in popularity of mitigation solutions like OIN can be used as proof of how broken the system was. If the patent system worked correctly then there would be no need for OIN.

I'd keep the focus on abolition

coriordan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:25:28 +0000

For an example of a better suggestion, also from Eben Moglen, here's an interview where he says the whole patent system needs a "public interest" test added:

Eben Moglen on Bilski, software patents, and big pharma

I'd keep the focus on abolition

coriordan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:12:39 +0000

A recording of that would be interesting.

The existence of OIN is great, but there are hard limits on what they can help with.

The biggest problem caused by software patents is that developers can't read and write file formats that users see as essential. Mpeg/h.264 for example. I don't see how groups like OIN can help that situation. (WebM is a real help, but it can't fix the problem of there being millions of videos online already in h.264.)

Someone said they were a big help to TomTom, but I never heard the details of that. How did they help? The end result was the TomTom had to pay Microsoft.

Again, OIN is great, but I'd like to hear more about why they (and similar market-based solutions) should be a focus. Abolition will take years, but we have to continue working on it because it's the only real solution.

Related info at en.swpat.org: