Letter To Abolish Software Patents In Australia

Ben Sturmfels writes "Over 500 members of the Australian software industry have have signed an open letter urging their government to abolish software patents. Signatories include free software luminaries Andrew Tridgell and Jonathan Oxer. In 2008 the Australian government began a Review of Patentable Subject Matter. While we missed the 2009 public consultation period, we hope to influence the government's response to the Review, due in February 2011. The letter will be presented to Minister Kim Carr in early August."

have have

[QuantumG]

no editors.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because software patents really break the patent system. Maybe you just want to watch the FSFs Patent Absurdity [patentabsurdity.com] movie. I'm tired to explain everything again here, and the movie makes the point pretty clear.

NZ was smart enough to do this...

[DiSKiLLeR]

NZ was smart enough to do this... lets hope AU will, too!

Disclaimer: I'm an Aussie living in NZ.

Re:I don't understand this..

[king neckbeard]

The US became the dominant world force in copyright when it had significantly weaker copyright laws than basically all of Europe. We still lack things like 'moral rights' and have some of the most expansive fair use rights in the world (at least before the DMCA, anyway). As for software, there are several issues. The first is that the functional element and the written element are virtually the same. Variable names, outputs strings, and source code comments are about the only non-functional elements. If you had a specific patent claim held to the same degree of scrutiny as say a pharmaceutical, it would have hundreds of claims for even an elementary program or portion thereof. However, most patents are very broad, and thus prevent alternatives that function in a largely different way, but are similar enough to fall into the patent. Another issue is that compatibility is incredibly important in software, and patents get in the way of compatibility. You can have software that is technically superior to your competitor, but if your competitor's product is already in widespread usage and your product isn't compatible, you will probably lose. A final issue is that the field of software has a lot of problems with competition, and software patents give an even bigger advantage to billion dollar companies over startups. Also, you seem to not understand the nature of copyright and patent laws in the US. The constitution clause that allows for patents states that

The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Not only do patents and copyright exist for the benefit of the public, they are simply a means to the end, not an ends to themselves. If we can conclude that some other incentive already in place does the job well enough, we could just end our patent and copyright systems. International treaties make it a bit more complicated than that, but it's not as if the US has a problem with acting unilaterally. As for why Australia would want to do that, they generally don't really have large, established firms, so Australian software companies (and users) are going to be on the losing end of the system with software patents in place.

Re:I don't understand this..

[dov_0]

Isn't ripping other people off how much software development works anyway? How many media players are there that look and feel like iTunes for instance? When IE8 came out it just looked like a sleazy commercial version of Firefox. How many people are there who got rich on the ideas of others? Bill Gates is a prime example.

Re:I don't understand this..

[silentcoder]

> There was slavery for thousands of years in Africa so why isn't it rich?

It WAS rich at the time -at least those who owned the slaves were. It's not rich NOW because every inch of it's wealth was stolen by Europe under the guise of bringing "God and civilization to the barbarians" through a system of mass exploitation and annexation you may have heard of before, it was called colonization.

Ever seen Apocalypse Now? Go read the original book: Heart of Darkness, and while you're at it pick up a copy of "Things fall appart" by Chinua Achebe and then speak of how poor Africa was BEFORE Europe showed up. Hint: it wasn't.

Colonization didn't end all that long ago - the last African country to gain independence was Eritrea and that was only in 1999. The vast majority were independent before the 80's of course -and left as rogue states without much governance at all, ripped apart by years of wars against illegitimate occupation forces (yeah I know that wasn't how the occupiers describe it - the people who chased them out must have been very happy with their "benefactors" to do so right ?) and left in the hands of warlords and dictators who happily continued the patterns of exploitation they learned from their colonial masters - bad cycle stars and is almost impossible to break.

These days indeed the country that makes by far the most money out of exploiting Africa's potential for wealth is the U.S.A. The 4th largest oil reserves in the world belong to Nigeria - yet it's also got the second most worthless currency in the world - all the oil fields are owned by British and American companies... who is surprised ? The largest mining company in Sub-Saharan-Africa is even CALLED Anglo-American corporation.
Your own farmers get PAID to destroy crops rather than compete fairly with African farmers (where the climate would probably mean we could outfarm you a thousand times over... yet we starve while you burn crops)...

Sorry - you are just plain wrong.