WIPO Pressured to Kill Meeting on Open Source 323
panthan writes "The Washington Post has has an article about a proposed meeting of the WIPO concerning open source having been removed from consideration, apparently due to pressure from the US State Department and the USPTO. 'In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth.'" Lawrence Lessig has some comments.
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Be interesting if the Government players most opposed to Open Source are those gaining political power by others NOT using it, when they themselves are.
Or have I watched too many X-Files?
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
If a government agency's operating costs go up (due to software costs in this case), then when it goes and asks Congress for a budget increase it's likely that they will receive a larger amount in discretionary funding (they receive the same percentage of a new, larger budget). Discretionary funding is the stuff agency heads love to have, since they can spend it on their department in whatever fashion they see fit: office parties, fancy artwork, whatever. So, when choosing between two equally functional but differently-priced solutions, a depressingly large amount of the time, the government chooses the costlier product. The vendor and the department both win, and as usual taxpayers get stuck holding the bag.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly the thing that can give OSS a political advantage. Few things are as much political risk as having wasted taxpayer money and not being able to provide a reason why. This is where OSS has the clear, publically-understandable attribute of "free" working for it; it's much harder to bury an uneconomical decision in this arena than one in another field where there are two approximately-equal bids with a subjective difference of quality between them.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
If I need to do something, it is far easier to grab a free implementation than to go through channels to get budgeted and all the hassle that goes along with that.
We use lots of proprietary software too, often because it's the only thing that does the trick. Sometimes because we started using it before a free alternative was viable. I am migrating my Splus applications to R (mostly for technical reasons). We use MS Office because everyone else does.
I have Linux on my desktop.
How the government handles software (Score:3, Interesting)
Because of the incredibly long life-cycle these gover
What better place to bring up Linux than WIPO (Score:5, Insightful)
States Goals vs. Actual Goals (Score:5, Insightful)
While this is true, we can observe WIPO's actual goals by their ACTIONS. WIPO's ACTIONS show that WIPO intends to protect and expand Intellectual Property rights when they result in profits for WIPO's member states and their corporations.
Conversly, WIPO can be counted on to act against Intellectual Property rights that do not result in profits for WIPO's member state corporations.
On a seperate note, is it reasonable to increase the cost of BSA's lobbyists by causing them to recieve more snail mail? Would anyone like Emery Simon to be treated like a spam king, and for Emery Simon to recieve a spam king's snail mail load? I don't suppose anyone has access to Emery's personal information? Or is this an overused solution already?
-EtA
Re:States Goals vs. Actual Goals (Score:2, Informative)
Re:States Goals vs. Actual Goals (Score:3, Insightful)
Except, of course, that open source products help everyone, including WIPO members, by allowing them to leverage open source to produce their products more cheaply. See the recent TiVo article for an example. The problem is that they haven't pulled their heads sufficiently out of their asses yet to realize this.
Re:States Goals vs. Actual Goals (Score:5, Insightful)
More people need to know that this is how politics work. Most are taught that voting is doing their part in politics, but that isn't even half of it. People need to "associate" with others of like mind or like profession to help exert influence. This is the ideal behind which political parties were created.
I actually wish more people would become members of an association if only to vote for who the Board Members of their PAC should be. This is the real way to effect laws in the US as it is the Board Members who have oversite of the PAC's lobbyist(s). I wish more geeks (no offense, to me it's a compliment) would think of that next time they're at Frys buying yet another $30 hub or wireless mouse. It's not money itself that is the key, it's where the money goes. If you're sick of stuff like this bullroading and want to change it, you know how to do it.
I'll step off the soapbox now...
Free software is here to stay (Score:4, Insightful)
We may experience some bumps along the way, but our government can't ignore the millions of people who depend on Free software to earn their pay, run their businesses, and educate their minds. I doubt that in the long run, the legal system will continue to favor restrictive licenses heavily over non-restrictive ones.
You can run, Microsoft/Adobe/BSA/etc, but you can't hide! Of course you are also welcomed to join us!
Yes, I am optimistic...
IP (Score:5, Insightful)
> One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth.
Given that the US Constitution justifies IP on the basis of promoting progress, we can't be asking the question of whether our laws actually do that, now can we?
IP law has become nothing more than an authorization for a gold rush, as everyone hurries to stake their claims until there's nothing left that you can do for free.
Re:IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, it costs a lot of money to exercise free speech in America.
The motto of the VFW: "Freedom isn't Free."
Millions of Americans have paid with more than money to protect this freedom. It is an absolute disgrace to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to allow international corporations to throw so much money and influence at destroying the freedoms others have died to preserve.
And people worry about hurting their careers by promoting open source. Not exactly the face of courage, is it.
Dying for IP (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mean to hurt your patriotic feelings, but isn't it very possible that many of those millions dies exactly for tho right of those huge corporations to trample over poverty stricken bodies?
I still have no idea today as to why exactly the US invaded Iraq. It might have been WMD or just plainly Saddam, but it could just as well have been for Halliburton, Bechtel and other well connected companies to do some business over the dead carcasses of Iraqis and US soldiers.
Re:Dying for IP (Score:4, Insightful)
From today's perspective it sure seems like freedom was once high on the list of motivations for the power-brokers and that it's importance has steadily declined through the centuries. But, as the saying goes - the victors write the history, so I'm willing to bet that greed was just as much of a disproportionate motivation back in 1776 as it is today.
Re:Dying for IP (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't mean to hurt your patriotic feelings, but isn't it very possible that many of those millions dies exactly for tho right of those huge corporations to trample over poverty stricken bodies?
The people that put their lives on the line did not do it for IBM or Microsoft or Bechtel, or Halliburton -- they did do it for their country and what they believed their country stood for -- freedom.
That some corporations connected to some reigning power elites have seized opportunities to usurp and pervert the freedoms that so many have died for, is the very sad irony and disgrace that I identified.
And there appears to be a similar theme between the corporate power that would usurp, pervert, monopolise and profit from the nascent freedom of the Iraqi people, and the corporate power that would usurp, pervert, monopolise and profit from control over the means of distribution and certification of intellectual property.
That common theme is corporate power perverting democratic institutions for their own gain.
So, in a sense, we actually agree with one another.
The UN on the other hand, is actively promoting both Linux and WiFi in developing countries -- so it would appear that supporting and developing open source software is a way of eroding corporate power and corruption in both the foreign and domestic arenas.
And it's something we can each actually do . If we dare, in the face of potential reprisals--it's "a career-limiting move" after all.
Scared? There is no pump more efficient than a scared man with a bucket.
-- Patrick HenryRe:IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked there was approximately zero support for a revolutionary movement in the US.
Get a couple of military divisions willing to turn against the command because the government is out of control, and then we can start talking about "paying the price of freedom."
At the moment, it's either live under the tyranny, or leave the country. Things are not bad enough for people to start thinking in terms of the more ugly alternatives.
Re:IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad as things may seem, we do still live in a democracy. Why not vote the bastards out of office next year? This time around we even have some decent replacements [deanforamerica.com] for them.
Re:IP (Score:3, Informative)
Before you run to vote for him, you should know his positions, most of which are not compatible with liberty.
Dean fully supports [issues2000.org] the failed War on Drugs.
Dean wants "More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War".
Dean supports a socialist command economy for medical services [issues2000.org].
Dean even calls [issues2000.org] Bush Jr. "isolationist" in regard to his foreign policy! If Bush Jr. is an isolationist, I don't want to find out what Dean thinks is going to far in interfering with other
Re:IP (Score:3, Interesting)
What they have now isn't voting, it's poorly run statistics. Illinois has xxx people in it, if
Re:IP (Score:4, Interesting)
There really isn't an opportunity to offer the price for freedom in this case.
Well this wasn't really a call to revolt -- more an observation that a whole lot of people have put their very lives on the line for the cause of freedom, only to allow those same freedoms to be taken away, bit by bit, by administrative maneuvers.
It is ironic -- and very, very sad -- that a people with the courage to put their lives on the line for freedom will cower in terror when reprisals are threatened for merely speaking out against the erosion of those same freedoms.
Now clearly there is a road (no simple highway), which is to support open source software, run linux yourself, and promote its adoption in the public sector, in schools, in community organisations, and in small businesses. And when you find yourself being criticised or penalised for it, remember that keeping to your own path despite the reprisals is a very very small sacrifice compared to what others have already sacrificed.
Freedom is like a muscle. You have to exercise it just a little bit more every day in order for it to grow stronger -- and if you don't, it gets flabby and weak and useless. If you push it too hard too fast (revolution) it tears. So I think that it's a false dilemma to say:
At the moment, it's either live under the tyranny, or leave the country.
When we have freedoms we can exercise, just a little bit more every day, to unmask and weaken the forces of tyranny -- bit by bit, just as tyrants would limit our freedom bit by bit.
Goddam well I declare
Have you seen the like?
Their walls are built of cannon-balls
Their motto is "Don't Tread on Me."
Freedom of speech applies to Microsoft too... (Score:4, Insightful)
And the second they say anything they can't outright prove, the same body of laws deems that slander and is grounds for legal action. I hope they slip up with the open source community there to greet them, but until then we *grudgingly* have to respect their rights to free speech, even if that includes lobbying Congress with barrels of cash (since bribery in that form is somehow considered "free speech" under current law).
Re:IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I'm not talking about tons of money, just enough to live on.
This kind of took me back. I've been quite broke, more than broke, ain't got no home broke, when I was a younger (and more than once to different degrees). After those experiences, I find that I am pretty sure I can cope with any money woes. It's easier than a personal loss of a loved one, for instance.
There are many things in life worse than starting over broke. I am glad I'm not broke now, but in this world, you never know what the future will bring. You fearing poverty more than death indicates you have no faith or confidence in yourself, which is not good for your wallet, in the long run.
You have no IP rights! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's worse than that. A US Governemet representative has spouted some of Microsft's more outrageous and stupid anti-GPL FUD. This, from Lessing, is absolutly incredible:
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights."
If I don't have the right to share my IP as I please, what rights do I have? If I can't take my software and release it so that others can use it and share their insights to make it better, what can I do with it? Do I have to keep it to myself and hope that Microsoft will make me an offer for it?
This is total bullshit, I have every right to do as I please with my own work. If the government will back me up when I put silly restrictions on my users, it had better back me up when I put reasonable ones or none at all on them.
Louis Boland, for such a stupid statement, should be removed from her post imediatly. It shows a complete disregard for copyright law, free speech and even lacks common sense. It does not follow that the US government would spend my tax money to protect a restrictive publisher or author, but not one that is less restrictive and more directly meeting the purpose of copyright laws: to promote the state of the art and expand the public domain. Some people do not need government protection or direct monetary reward to share their ideas. It's as American as Ben Franklin's newspapers. Louis, I hope you have been taken out of context and will work to reverse this cancellation. WIPO needs to consider the issue and should encourage it because it is in everyone's best interest. If you really think free software is somehow counter to Intelectual Property rights, I hope that you are removed tomorrow and never see another public appointment.
This message was composed and posted on free software that is arguably better than Microsoft crap. It cost me less money to aquire and continues to cost me less money to maintain as well as enriching my knowledge of software and enabling me to contribute to the state of the art. Non-free software vendors won't even let me understand their inner workings, much less contribute to it's improvement.
Re:You have no IP rights! (Score:3, Interesting)
You, sir, without realizing it, have hit the nail on the head.
This is something that organizations like the WIPO fail to understand. Because of the FUD that has been promulgated by companies like Microsoft and SCO, one would get the impression that open source is a black hole su
Of course not, silly. (Score:4, Interesting)
Lois, she is implying that either Open-Source is based on the destruction/weakening of IP rights, or encourages the violation of IP rights, and you wouldn't want to be one of those kinds of people, now would you?
Nice troll, the whole question only makes sense if you don't examine it.
Some of what Microsoft and others consider "IP rights" deserve to be destroyed. Microsoft should not have the right to tell you how to use their software. I can do what I want with any of my other property. I can read a book anyway I want including out loud in a room full of friends, lend it to friends and sell it. These are things Microsoft does not allow you to do with your software. How copyright law was perverted into this strange, one user at a time, non transferable, you can't say bad things about Microsoft, straight jacket is beyond me. How Microsoft considers the restrictions they put on their users a "right" they have is also beyond me. The free software foundation has a much better idea about what your rights are, check it out yourself [fsf.org], you might learn something, even if you are an evil troll.
I certianly do not encourage the violation of any law, regardless of how silly. When that law is morraly wrong, I will violate it myself and encourage others to do so. Never let bad laws make you a bad person.
Fortunately, I'm not caught in any of Microsfot's evil snares and I don't have to figure out ways to defeat them, because free software is all about sharing methods of getting things done. I don't need Microsoft's crap and I don't recomend it to anyone. Free software has produced whole operating systems that are easy to use and of exceptional quality. I own my computer and all the softare that runs on it in a way that terrifies the likes of Microsoft. The few restrictions the authors place on my distribution of that software has little effect on me. The whole "IP rights" you think of make no sense whatsoever to me because I don't need anything from people who would violate what I consider my rights.
What Lois says implies a violation of my ability to distribute code under the GPL. That would be a terrible violation of everyone's IP rights.
Re:IP (Score:2, Funny)
It doesn't matter, once IPv6 comes around, we won't have to worry about justifying IPs anymore.
So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that the only way that some businesses (read: Microsoft) are able to keep up the pressure against Linux is by trying to do it with laws. Why don't we have an Open Source DVD player for Linux? Oh - well, the MPAA helped get a law passed that makes it basically illegal to create. Sorry about that, but that's just how it works.
Yes, I'm a little irritated, and if I discover that my local senator/congressman was involved in this in any way, they can expect a nastygram listed as "voting for the other guy come election day".
I find it interesting how the major players (aka "Microsoft") are trying to keep out their real competition. What if Open Source was part of the Intellectual Property decisions? Wouldn't that be a good thing for everybody if every OS supported Intellectual Property in a truly fair and just matter? Well, good for everyone except Microsoft - can't have a level playing field if we can keep the competition out, right?
Re:So.... (Score:3, Informative)
xine [xinehq.de]
mplayer [mplayerhq.hu]
VideoLAN client [videolan.org]
The only thing that's illegal is the CSS decryption libraries needed to play most (but not all) CSS "protected" DVDs.
Re:So.... (Score:2)
Though - having those decryption libraries would be nice too.
Re:So.... (Score:2)
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/index.html [cmu.edu]
He also has all of the scientology documents that slashdot removed.
They're probably legal now (Score:2)
Now that the ported libcss is a component part of every Linux DVD player, it will be harder for anyone to try and prosecute D
Re:So.... (Score:3, Interesting)
are you really willing to do what this takes?
Someone above mentioned that "freedom is not free" and many MANY people Died to protect what you have today.
so what kind of effort are you going to put into what you believe in? Are you going to just silently vote against the candidate that upsets you?
Are you goin
Write your Senator! (Score:4, Interesting)
Write - don't email! Re:Write your Senator! (Score:5, Insightful)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, consider writing a real letter!
Um, this is not necessarily true (Score:3, Interesting)
Fully agree with the sentiment expressed, but...
Interesting factoid supplied by a lobbyist recently interviewed [slashdot.org] on Slashdot:
Senator letter writing 101 (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to nitpick here, and I apologize for having to use your post to do it, but people, before you write your senator, know how to do it right. Do it right, and you'll sound intelligent and erudite. Do it wrong, and you'll sound like a crackpot.
So I'm going to take this post as an example and show you what I believe makes a good letter. First off, this part is right out:
The BSA, in case you didn't know, is essentially just a division of Microsoft.Baseless allegation. Makes it sound like you have an axe to grind specifically against Microsoft. Stick to the facts.
The full Washington Post article is here:Very good. Back up your facts with documentation. Most likely than not this task of tracking down info will be handed to an intern, so make sure your references are very clear. Use direct sources (like this one did) and avoid google caches.
Just so you don't think open source is some kind of "hippy thing", I work for the largest private equity firm in the world that is focused exclusively on information technologyAnother good one. Cite personal experience. Better if you could name the company (you can always include a disclaimer that these views are your own and not your company). You may get lucky and work for a company that contributed to his campaign. However, lose the "hippy thing" phrase. Makes it look like you're assuming what the senator thinks already. May want to leave out "the largest" and substitute "a prominent". Being the "the largest" may be a matter of opinion.
Companies like IBM and Apple have wholeheartedly embraced open source. The only companies opposed to open source are those that currently enjoy relative monopolies in their areas. I.e., Microsoft.Might be a good place to include some references to press releases or interviews that back this up. Makes it look like you seriously did your research.
By the way, if you don't know much about the BSA and open source, here is an article that describes the BSA's strong arm tactics used in bullying small businesses:Excellent. You back up an otherwise harsh allegation with documented fact.
Now, I did not take the time to follow all the links, but you want to make sure they come from reliable sources. Major news and media outlets like the Washington Post or the NY Times are better than "niche" groups like Linux Journal. CNET is kind of in between. And, yes, I know perfectly well that these sources may vary for differing definitions of "reliable". We know the media puts their own spin on it. But remember that politicians rely on the media for much of their information, so you have to use that to your advantage.
Sorry to sound pedantic in all this, but many of us know we are intelligent, but we need to convince the politicians of that as well. If anyone else has any other suggestions on good letter-writing, feel free to add.
WIPO's strained budget ?? (Score:5, Interesting)
or next century, they're on such a tight budget. There are only 179 member world states after all
What a shitty excuse. Who do they take people for ?
Politics and uh ... stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, and foremost, it was the political lobbying. Hey, if I had that kind of money, I sure as hell would use it to my advantage.
Secondly, and not as prominetly, it was also a fear of this just turning into a political flamewar
Third, the bitch needs to be sacked. To say that Opensource undercuts the ideals of "intellectual property" just goes to show either how incompetant she is, or to what degreee she has been bought.
--LordKaT
Re:Politics and uh ... stuff? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or it simply betrays her ignorance.
Never attribute malice where incompetence is sufficient ... and never attribute incometence when ignorance is sufficient.
Granted, I'm sure now that her email has been posted on Slashdot (see other thread), she'll be pretty convinced she made the right decision. The flamers
Betrays her ignorance? (Score:3, Insightful)
stuff (Score:2)
Yeah, you might be a dick, but my govenrment should not listen to you. Your lobiest can make their point and be on their way. The level of ignorance diplayed by Louis, the US government repreentative who quashed this meeting, is egrevious. If I don't have the right to give my work away with few or no restrictions, why would the government protect the many restrictions I'd place on my work? She's nuts, bought or just stupid.
US Patent and Trademark Office quote (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.
"To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.
They obviously don't get it.
Or, maybe I don't.. Is there a broader assumption behind "intellectual property rights"? Is this assumed to be only the right to restrict your IP as much as possible? Or, the right to protect the IP of big businesses only?
Wouldn't the right to control how my IP is used, and demand that it remain open, and any changes remain open, fall neatly into Intellectual Property Rights? Perhaps Lois should read the GPL some time.
Re:US Patent and Trademark Office quote (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an insidious equating of the concepts of "rights" and "profits" going on both here and with SCO's arguments.
It's important to mentally note the cases when an argument says "the right to make a profit", but actually means "denying the right of someone else to choose not to". The rights of a work's creator is not limited to pursuing financial profit; one may choose to do so to benefit others, for their own edification, or any number of other reasons, which are solely theirs to determine.
You may have hit the nail on the head. (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe a large multinational corporation has done just that. IBM tossed a billion with a "B" dollars into marketing and developing Linux. They claim to have "more than made it back". Perhaps it isn't the vaunted FOSS community that's led MS and Sun to create a kamikaze company. IBM makes money from sales, service, and hardware. It is almost no skin off their backs to be good Open Source citizens....if they can give Sun and especially MS a good hard screwing in the process so much the better. On the other hand, Sun and MS
I think you've just figured out why IBM has cheerfully marketed OSS to the utter mortification of Sun and MS. The obvious next step for IBM is to quietly do some lobbying of their own.
email her (Score:5, Informative)
from an old link [uspto.gov].
Re:email her (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask IBM why they are paying lobbyists to attack their own business model. (IBM belongs to the BSA).
Re:email her (Score:2)
Re:email her (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle, Real Audio, Sun, and Netscape were pushing for the anti-trust suit against Microsoft when they had the same business practices as everyone else...the only difference is that they were larger.
SCO sues everyone.
IBM sues SCO.
Sun sues Microsoft.
Microsoft sues Sun.
There are so many lawsuits, I think that only people making money off of high-tech are the lawyers!
Re:email her (Score:2)
Re:email her (Score:2)
That isn't even very funny. The damn thing is parked not 5 miles from my house. Shit.
Thaks, I did. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:email her (Score:3, Informative)
Why do they care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, MS lobbies, and gives money to keep MS in the government. .
Except for a select few, the U.S. reps in power don't really go off idealism. They like their power, the money they get, and all the comps, until we get them to reform their own system, we don't have a choice
To all americans .... (Score:5, Insightful)
No! No! No! (Score:3, Offtopic)
No sir! I'm in California, and come October 7, I'm going to vote for someone who can kick some { commie | French | Al Qaeda | People who don't invest in lobbyists } ass! That means you you { fuckin' | goddamn } { foreign | wimp-ass} piece of shit!
Vote for The Terminator for Governor. Come 2008, he'll be back!
Sigh.
Actually, I'd sooner shoot myself. My vote is for Georgy [georgyforgov.com].
Re:To all americans .... (Score:3, Funny)
To be slightly more serious, most people seem to equate intelectual property with "good for the economy" so finding someone who doesn't support "strong IP laws" is rather difficult. Especially if you add "who can actually win" as a require
Old news (Score:2)
I posted this yesterday [slashdot.org] I don't know what's going on maybe I have to GPL my posts and demand compensation for it or so. Don't worry michael my lawyer will contact j00
reply to my own reply (Score:2)
So basically... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open-source allows each country to be less dependant on the United States for advances in computer technology, because they won't be tied down to Microsoft. This is just the same game the U.S. plays with all other things; we want complete domination of the world market.
IP is ok if only the United States exists in the world, but once you get the whole world involved, open-source becomes much more attractive as a computing solution.
People will probably say, "Without IP, you can't survive if you write programs etc." Well, there must be a way to set up a system that WILL allow you to make money, without invoking IP. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than me can say what that is.
Re:So basically... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The ridiculous situation at the USPTO. Patents need to be restricted to actual inventions, not business methods, obvious inventions, etc. The USPTO needs to be wiped out and replaced with a new system where examiners are encouraged to reject patent applications instead of granting them, and the number of patents filed should be severely limited so they're not overworked.
2) Perpetual copyright. Copyright terms need to be shortened back
Re:So basically... (Score:3, Interesting)
Off the top of my head, I'd suggest answering this by indicating that it isn't an either/or situation. As a simple example, you can both do a good job for your paycheck and do valuable charitable work. And the skills learned from each can reinforce the quality of the other.
Beyond that, there's all the activities that c
Why pass laws... (Score:2)
May be I'm wrong, but . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Very discouraging (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not like I can't understand their concern - I work for a company selling proprietary software (running on open-source OSes), and I'm not thrilled about the notion of someone else fielding a product we can't compete with (assuming feature parity).
If someone does, however, then more power to them. They went to the effort, and they decided that all should benefit from the fruits of their labor.
That's downright noble.
What big business seems to be doing here is using process rather than product to beat down the barbarian hordes. Why shouldn't the intellectual property concerns of open source advocates be taken into consideration when formulating a world IP policy?
sloth jr
Re: Very discouraging (Score:2)
> What big business seems to be doing here is using process rather than product to beat down the barbarian hordes.
Neo-mercantilism, I name thee.
Intellectual Property (Score:5, Insightful)
"As he was seeking political favors, a friend of Sen. Orrin Hatch bought a whopping 1,200 copies of Hatch's largely self-produced music CDs, for which Hatch receives $3 to $7 each.
Hatch, R-Utah, and his friend, Monzer Hourani, a Houston developer who twice before has landed Hatch into major ethics controversies, say he wasn't trying to buy political help with those CDs and they merely share a love of his music."
This is the asshole that wants to let the RIAA/MPAA 'destroy' your computer if they suspect your of violating their IP rights. Nice to see how he skirts campaign finance rules.
Re:Intellectual Property (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice to see how he skirts campaign finance rules.
By my interpretation skirting campaign finance rules would be finding ways to contribute more money than you are allowed to a candidate's campaign. Contributing several thousand dollars directly to the candidate on the other hand would be bribery.
Property Rights vs. Property Creation (Score:5, Insightful)
open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.
In his weblog, Lessig mistakenly turned this paraphrase into a direct quotation from Boland. He then continued, this time with an actual quotation from Boland taken from the same article:
To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO.
I'm not at all saying that the Post mischaracterized what Boland was saying, but it's important that words aren't put in her mouth, which is what Lessig inadvertently did.
Now, on to Lessig's analysis:
If Lois Boland said this, then she should be asked to resign. The level of ignorance built into that statement is astonishing, and the idea that a government official of her level would be so ignorant is an embarrassment. First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights. It can't exist (and free software can't have its effect) without it.
Lessig makes a good point about property rights, and how free software does not subvert them.
But free software is nevertheless deeply subversive. What it subverts is not property rights, but the ability of corporations to corner the market in a variety of software applications. Whether Microsoft builds it, or OpenOffice.org builds it, something of value is being created whenever people sit down to code software. The only question is whether this labor enriches society as a whole, or whether a significant part of that labor extracts wealth from society for the benefit of Microsoft's shareholders.
It seems to me that Boland's view of WIPO is that it exists to serve the interests of companies who create proprietary software. One of the drawbacks to free software is that it is, well, free. And unless a company (like IBM) gets a vested interest in selling hardware and services to accompany this free software, there's not going to be money to counter the lobbyists who steer WIPO's agenda in a pro-Microsoft direction.
Re:Property Rights vs. Property Creation (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the drawbacks to free software is that it is, well, free
You mention one of the drawbacks, but that isn't the biggest one in my view. Fragmentation is the huge problem. That's why I refer to all of the *nix distros as UNware. All noble in purpose, but not consistent enough to become massively effective. GNU/Linux has to be free to overcome the cost of this fragmentation.
One only has to think back the days of the first Mac and Jobs' pronouncement that "All apps will follow a standard menu bar layout.
Re:Property Rights vs. Property Creation (Score:3, Interesting)
My point is that Thiz has put a product out there that translates to horrible experience for a non-tech consumer. This is yet another problem for OSS - no quality control, at least in terms of packaging.
It sounds to me like Thiz is a second rate distro. There was a Slashdot discussion about those Fry's Thiz machines last week. It seemed to me that Fry's true intention is to sell a bare box that customers will install Windows on themselves. Thiz is just a way to make it boot up into something. They wou
This is interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
I find it odd that America is considered a "Democratic Republic" when decisions relevant to government security are made in the best interest of one company.
Truly the land of the free (enterprise).
So what.... (Score:5, Interesting)
FOSS is here to stay and will continue to be adopted whether or not the WIPO sit around and talk about it.
So, let me get this straight: (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it's open source that drives our society to technological and economical stagnation! I mean, of course $100.000+ fines [slashdot.org], crooked CEOs bent on stock fraud wearing the IP sword (+3, +5 vs trolls) [slashdot.org] and the fact that users get nailed up the arse in the name of piracy [slashdot.org] are all good signs of a healthy economy where any technological advancement is sued into oblivion and where economic growth is humongous -- for a select few.
I must cry but there aren't enough tears.
Change Happens and Innovation will win .... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope y'all understand we are politically outnumbered, under-funded, poorly organized,
We have lost the war, but not surrendered, we have not failed, we have not been defeated, dinosaurs go extinct, aristocrats pass into insignificant, but interesting reading, news shorts, and box-office dud movies.
We should never expect the ruling elite to embrace or control the future. In other words
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Bad move for WIPO (Score:2)
Game on. (Score:5, Interesting)
oh dear (Score:2, Troll)
There's a lot more at stake than most realize... (Score:5, Interesting)
The key to this article was in the second-to-last paragraph:
"But open-source is not just a political challenge. It strikes a starkly different, and sometimes opposite, pose from that of traditional capitalist systems."
Many companies are afraid of what this might mean to their current business model. What could open source eventually do the global economy as a whole? This "quiet war" against open source is being waged mostly by corporations in the U.S. that feel they probably have the most to lose.
Consider possible long term effects for them: The U.S. economy has seen absolutely stunning growth during the past 100 years. It has doubled in size six times during that period. Economic theory suggests that this happened because of the technological advancements. Now in the Internet age, any person in even third world countries can get online and instantly have all of the knowledge of a highly professional college graduate from the U.S. Open source gives them the opportunity to have access to information, tools, and concepts which normally would have been accessible only by the traditional business model in first world countries at a price. With the open information revolution it is "free". This concept alone could revolutionize economies around the world: suddenly they have access to the same information, but without the price. This over time will lessen the technological dominance the U.S. has held traditionally. Any new developments made within the U.S. can easily be copied and re-produced in other countries, and possibly even countries with a better comparative advantage than the U.S. (meaning they can do the same for less).
- Case in point:
it took technology companies many years to reach the point where hard drives, CPU's, memory, etc. in a PC are so fast and big as they are today. Now, anyone in a poor country could get a computer, and instantly have the benefit of all those years of development. Then with that computer, they can start downloading open source software and accessing information that they would never have been able to do otherwise. A relatively poor Ecuadorian could learn skills to rival his U.S. counterparts, start programming and outsource at a much cheaper price!This is scary for U.S. companies because it means the competition would suddenly increase, and given the relatively high cost of labor in the U.S., it could mean harder economic times for us. I imagine there would be sort of an "evening out" effect economically between the U.S. and other countries.
On top of this, when consumers are faced between the choice of two products, one that is free and one that is $100 (for example), the closer they are to being just as good, the less the consumers will buy the commercial product. To have to compete with open source would mean large profit losses for companies especially like Microsoft, who has for a long time enjoyed near monopoly status.
The only thing protecting this from changing are so called "Intellectual Property" laws that would prevent this from happening. When you see it this way, you see that Microsoft and others are simply trying to protect their interests and investment. Personally, I like the open source revolution. It definately benefits customers. We all benefit from competition, but companies have an increasingly hard time surviving in such conditions. I also recognize the importance of companies though: they are the ones that make the economic wheel spin. We rely on companies for our jobs. We have some interesting decades ahead of us. I honestly believe open source, and open information as a whole will be the main factors in revolutionizing the global economy yet again.
Is it any wonder that these companies, and even our own U.S. government fear somewhat the effect open source could have on their respective growth and income? How about we as individuals of the U.S.?
Is your market feeling 'not-so-free?' (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberals claim that more regulation will fix the problem, while conservatives and libertarians say less regulation will do the trick. I say blanket solutions based on ideology are never as good as actually thinking about the problem.
GW Bush neo-imperialism vs. the rest of the world (Score:2, Insightful)
The coming of Bush into the presidency of the US changed a number of things in the way the US deals with "problems" both internally and externally. 9/11 only sharpened that circumstance, but didn't change the fundamental motion of it.
Since Bush came to power, either legally or illegally, depending on your point of view, a number of international treaties, such as the kyoto agreement, have been either postponed or ignored by the US. The trade disagreements between the US and it's intern
No Meeting vs. Bad Meeting (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a certain amount of truth in the comment that Tobin posted to Lessig's discussion that the meeting was really a forum for the usual lefties to rant. On the other hand, as near as I can tell from the results, the typical WIPO committee meeting is an opportunity for the usual suspects on the commercialist-control side to rant
It's simple really. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill hasn't just phoned in a "kill order" to the WIPO. He's apparently found someone or some people in the WIPO who are free market zealots, and convinced them that a pack of free-love, anti-property political liberal socialists had hijacked their organization to promote hippie values.
I could see this from several indications. First, Microsoft, and Bill himself, have made it clear that the political tack they were taking consists of painting the Open Source advocates as dangers to the present system of intellectual property -- not to mention the creeping Red Menace of SOCIALISM. No kidding here. Secondly, it was there in the remarks of Borland herself, who made it clear that she thought that the meeting was about undermining ther present system of IP. And lastly, I'm reading posts here and there which proclaim the view that the OS advocates are trying to "politicize" the WIPO by talking about such things. My god, what hypocrisy.
my letter to the patent office (Score:4, Interesting)
the WIPO open source meeting. Our constitutional principles dictate
that the intellectual property grant should be limited, and WIPO is
not purposed to promote IP to the detriment of the public common.
Moreover, it is contrary to the founding principles of WIPO that IP
should be promoted against the wishes of generous authors and inventors
who intentionally license their creations freely. Please reconsider
your decision and support the open source meeting.
Regards,
Michael L. Love
MacCHESS
Cornell University
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
I don't understand this logic (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL I am a software developer. If I license my IP under the GPL or any other open source license then how have I in any way waived my rights to my IP. Can someone explain to me what the logical basis for her argument is? Or is this just regurgitated FUD from a spin doctor paid by a certain large corporation (The identity of which you can probably guess).
The GPL is a license that controls intelectual property rights. As far as I know I control the IP rights to my code I can if I choose use for example the GPL to grant limited rights for others to use my code. I do not waive my rights to my IP.
Deceit (Score:3, Insightful)
But they don't want to argue that you are using the same laws and protections they are.
Much easier to just state you want to destroy IP, because you're not using it right.
We must lobby the *people*. There is no other way. (Score:5, Insightful)
But when I tell these people in plain and simple terms what is happening in this nation and in this world, and what it is doing and going to do to every one of us, they see through the lie these oppressive and monied interests have told them. They know that we are well-meaning just as they are. The know that we care about our country and about its people and about our brothers and our sisters just as they do. They know that the label is a lie. They know it isn't right.
We must rally the people if we are to tear down the corporate "intellectual property" regime. When we see what we have today, we know that our government will not fight for us. If our government will not fight for us, then we must fight to take back our government, and we can do this in no other way than by rallying the people to fight with their vote
We must tell them that it ain't right We must tell them that it is important to every single person. We must tell the people that they can change it. We must tell them that it is they and they alone who can will the difference.
It must be from the people that change will come. The people of our nation are not bought and sold. They are a decent and ethical people of noble spirit, who must only be exhorted to acknowledge foremost in their minds that the freedom and opportunity we as persons deserve and must secure is ours to be had if only we will join together as fellow brothers and fellow sisters to vote out these dogs whose masters oppress and enslave us.
Woe unto you rich and monied interests on that day if you have abused that privelege we have given you. For when the people of this nation are but made to realize what you have done to us, they will raise up their voices in righteous outrage against this bought and appointed corporate government and against those oppressive and monied interests to which it was long ago sold, and they will vote your cronies out forever more.
WIPO Did Not Need Pressure (Score:4, Interesting)
I have long held the informed opinion that the people within UN WIPO are corrupt - it is why I have this website [wipo.org.uk].
My logic is proven - not one lawyer has been able to give argument against the facts. These people at UN WIPO have no honour - they are too cowardly to answer my charges.
People have every right to use words for whatever legal reason they wish - true or false?
UN WIPO made rules that abridge peoples rights to choose words on the Domain Name System - words that are not used for any unlawful purpose.
Fact 1 - a trademark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('classification') in SPECIFIC country. UN WIPO aid and abet corporations to overreach their trademark rights on the Internet - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
UN WIPO, together with ICANN, the US Department of Commerce (also Patent and Trademark Office) actually help corporations violate the First Amendment rights of US citizens.
Backsliding in Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
America will be backsliding in technical innovation in the IT industry because of this.
We will be caught with our pants down just like we were with our Curtis bi-planes against the Japanese Zeros at the beginning of World War 2. Only this time it might not be the military that is looking stupid, they've learned enough to avoid that for the next 100 years, but it will be the famous and legendary American Innovation that will suffer.
Look at the other nations out there. Many of them are outpacing this once great nation in their technical prowess, innovation, and capabilities today. This is only going to serve to accelerate the process until we become and sound embarassment to the world.
The Battlefield of the next 100 years will not be a military campaign. That's been dying out since the end of World War 2. The new battlefield is the economic viability of a nation. By crippling the economic engine of a nation you can now render a nation effectively useless without the need for such unpopular actions as actually blowing people up. This is what the United Nations have been doing for years and for the most part it is working and is considered Politically Correct. At least more so than military invasion and geographical conquest.
As we permit these American Corporations to attempt protection of their markets in the United States, we expose the United States to economic erosion on the global market making us more vulnerable to economic attacks.
Considering what has happened to the United States since the World Trade Center was destroyed it's pretty evident that an economicly focused attach can have a more devistating effect on the United States as a whole than a military assault can have. With this new knowledge, it has to be recognized that the new battlefield of soverign nations is not a geographical map with pill boxes and trenches, but an economic environment consisting of market shares, tariffs, subsidies...
As these Corporations meddle with the Global Economy and the role of the United States of America they are meddling with the well being of the Nation as a whole and are quite willing to go through some sacrifices of our nation in order to expand their own goals and objectives.
This is no longer about Microsoft making shitty software that is easily overrun by email virii or the fact that everything is proprietary. This is not about our future as a Nation and our ability to remain a viable economic entity in the future Global Markets. We must participate on the Global playing field in order to win, we cannot hope to succeed for long if we always require a Home Field Advantage by excluding Open Source as a viable option in our future
The longer view of things (Score:3, Interesting)
But let's take a longer view of things...
China and India have both declared for Open Source software. Together, they comprise 4 billion people, enough to dwarf the USA population. Quite soon (in historical terms), I expect to see most technological innovation to be coming from these countries rather than the US simply because they are more interested in promoting new ideas than they are in preserving the old order. 20 years ago, who would have thought that these caste-based, rigid social structures would have changed enough to embrace these concepts?
But America is resilient and America is capable of change. We have proven this (if nothing else) in our short 200 year history. When the shift has become so obvious that even short-sighted politicians notice and the deeply-entrenched "good old boys" have had their power reduced through their own ignorance and incompetence, then America will change and we will have the chance to compete again.
And the human race will continue to evolve and move forward.
companies running scared (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop whining & start programming.....
Re:I thought WIPO was dead? (Score:2, Funny)
That's Krisha [religioustolerance.org] to you. Philistine.
Re:I thought WIPO was dead? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't make any difference (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't make any difference (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't make any difference (Score:3, Insightful)
What seems shitty to me, is that my ex-wife paid exactly $0 in Federal taxes, got a refund back for over $2,000 and she's pissed that she didn't get a check from the government this summer. It's hard to justify giving someone a tax relief check when they don't pay any taxes.
Re:oh my god! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. They probably have a larger income than at least the bottom 10% of those countries.
*Shoots himself* argh someone run Windows on this gun - it is not killing me
If GNU made a gun, it would shoot perfect, it would never need to be reloaded, and it would be free. If anything, the Unix gun would kill you on the first shot, even if you aimed it away from yourself, via the GNUaim loadable module!
Re:oh my god! (Score:4, Funny)
--RJ
Re:oh my god! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Two Words: (Score:4, Interesting)
What that means is that SCO, for example, could immediately be sued by Samba for distributing their copyrighted (and GPL'd) code without permission. GNU could probably do likewise, unless SCO has their own C compiler and other tools. Every Linux distribution would need to get permission to distribute all those lovely tools, etc...
If the GPL ever becomes invalidated, it doesn't automatically mean that GPL'd code becomes public domain. It means that the real, entrenched copyright law kicks in, oh, didn't that get extended recently by the same kind of people that want to turn off the GPL? Kind of ironic...