ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Why focus only on software"

m (Why exclude software moved to Why only software: better name)
(longer explanation - needs to be reviewed to not be written from the first-person "I think...")
Line 1: Line 1:
Patents might be a good idea for some fields of activity. The mass manufacturing of cars, and the development of pharmaceuticals in rich countries are two examples where some people think that patents can be a good ideaWhy is software different?
+
Whether patents are good or bad in a particular domain depends on different criteria.
 +
 
 +
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
 +
 
 +
I'm not an expert on any of those topics, so I can't say 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 my 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 I'm already excludedAdding 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.
 
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).  I want to continue to have my right to participate in the development and distribution of software, and I want to continue to benefit from the fantastic work of the free software community, so I don't want neither I nor the free software community to have patent problems.
 +
 +
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".
 +
 +
On the other hand, I also increase the number of opponents I have to debate.  By fighting software patents, I have to fight Microsoft, IBM, and other large companies.  If I fight all patents, then I also have to fight the whole pharmaceutical industry and the car manufacturing industry.  So I'll probably never achieve my goal.
 +
 +
That said, there's no reason for anti-swpat campaigners to endorse patents in other fields.  I don't say that patents are ok elsewhere but not for software.  I say that I don't have an opinion on other fields, but for software I have a strong opinion that there should be no software patents.
  
 
==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 15:15, 6 March 2009

Whether patents are good or bad in a particular domain depends on different criteria.

For the manufacturing of cars, you have to consider how patents will affect:

  1. the cost of mass production
  2. the impact on quality/safety of what's offered to citizens
  3. the impact on the economy overall

I'm not an expert on any of those topics, so I can't say 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 my 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 I'm 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). I want to continue to have my right to participate in the development and distribution of software, and I want to continue to benefit from the fantastic work of the free software community, so I don't want neither I nor the free software community to have patent problems.

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".

On the other hand, I also increase the number of opponents I have to debate. By fighting software patents, I have to fight Microsoft, IBM, and other large companies. If I fight all patents, then I also have to fight the whole pharmaceutical industry and the car manufacturing industry. So I'll probably never achieve my goal.

That said, there's no reason for anti-swpat campaigners to endorse patents in other fields. I don't say that patents are ok elsewhere but not for software. I say that I don't have an opinion on other fields, but for software I have a strong opinion that there should be no software patents.

External links