Difference between revisions of "Why focus only on software"
m (These are activities that can be completely fulfilled by non-profit activity.) |
m (→See also: * Why software is different) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* [[Should the whole patent system be axed]]? | * [[Should the whole patent system be axed]]? | ||
| + | * [[Why software is different]] | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html#software | * http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html#software | ||
Revision as of 14:00, 12 June 2009
Whether patents are good or bad in a particular domain depends on different criteria. Some domains, such as writing software, writing books, composing music, performing math etc. are domains where ordinary members of society participate, individually or in groups. These are activities that can be completely fulfilled by non-profit activity. To participate in a field which carries patent risks, you need money and lawyers. In the domains mentioned above, adding patents equates to taking away people's freedom to participate in these activities.
Contents
How patents on different domains affect society
For the manufacturing of cars, you have to consider how patents will affect:
- the cost of mass production
- the impact on quality/safety of what's offered to citizens
- the impact on the economy overall
Campaigners against software patents are usually not general experts on those topics, so we might not know if innovations in car manufacturing should be patentable or not.
For software, there are similar questions to the three above, plus there is the fourth question of individual liberty and the effectiveness of communities.
This question isn't pertinent to car manufacturing because individuals and communities usually don't manufacture cars.
If someone patents a method for making a car, that doesn't reduce people's liberty. Making cars requires a lot of cash and materials, and there are already many laws that places regulations and restrictions on making cars. So people already excluded. Adding a patent problem doesn't change anything.
For one thing, software is mass produced by individuals and groups who don't get paid directly for that work (or do it for non-commercial reasons). Adding the cost of the patent system is unfair to these people.
Communities write great software (a community wrote most of GNU/Linux). People should continue to have their right to participate in the development and distribution of software, and to continue to benefit from the work of the vast community that develops the software that people use. Patents would create problems for individuals' liberty, and for the general software development which society as a whole benefits.
Pointing out general failings and costs of the patent system can be useful because it lets me make the argument: "patents are massively inefficient, therefore they should only be applied where we're absolutely sure that they're worthwhile". Some people think the whole patent system should be abolished, but this is a minority opinion among anti-swpat campaigns.
Choosing our opposition
On the other hand, by criticising a wider category of patents, we increase the number of opponents we have to debate. By fighting software patents, we have to fight Microsoft, IBM, and other large companies. If we fight all patents, then we also have to fight the whole pharmaceutical industry and the car manufacturing industry. So we make it harder to achieve our goal.
That said, there's no reason for anti-swpat campaigners to endorse patents in other fields. We don't have to say that patents are ok elsewhere but not for software. We can simply say that we don't have an opinion on other fields, but for software we have a strong opinion that there should be no software patents.
