[Tfug] 2 weeks of Hackintosh fun..

[Bexley Hall]

--- On Mon, 11/10/08, Claude Rubinson <rubinson at u.arizona.edu> wrote:

> At the same time, the biggest threat to FOSS today is market-related.
> If, by manipulating the market via, for example, patents or DRM, a
> proprietary software company is able to monopolize any part of the
> computing infrastructure, they would be able to effectively control
> the conditions under which we're able to use computers.

There are several issues there.  And each, I think, has a different
set of rationale behind them.

All are concerned with IP.

I consider DRM a bit more justifiable, however.  DRM is intended to
protect the owner's copyright.  He *owns* the right to make, sell
and distribute copies of his "possession" ("work"?).  DRM is just
a tool for keeping honest people honest.  Just like locks on your
doors -- and the criminal justice system to punish folks who
subvert your locks and misappropriate *your* possessions for their
own benefit.

Patents are similar.  The "possession" is an *idea* that is being
protected.

I believe both of these protections have merit.  If I have invested
tme developing a concept/product, *I* should be the one who decides
how it is marketed, how the profits are used, etc.  Not some bozo
who spends a few hours (days, weeks, months) blatantly copying
my efforts for *his* benefit.

The problem, IMO, with patents, specifically, is that they have
terms that are *way* too long -- especially in such a fast changing
market!  And, patents assigned to corporations have longer terms
than those assigned to individuals (IIRC)!  (aside:  if a corporation
is "just like an individual except it can't vote", then why does it
merit special protections that an individual doesn't?)

My first two patents were on "software".  In the late 70's, there was
a lot of debate over whether or not software should be patentable.
At the time, we (I!) thought it should as we considered software
just a "sequential implementation of a mechanical mechanism"...
we were using software to replace *hardware* (there was no "desktop
market" back then).  

So, using a hardware device -- a microprocessor -- augmented by
some "configuration logic" (a stored program implemented in some
EPROM -- and you spell 1702?), we had added a LOT of value to a
product that was, otherwise, impractical to build!  This was a
true "first".  So, why shouldn't our clever idea be protected
by the same mechanisms that the process we used to cut steal were
protected... (in hindsight, these ideas were far more precious
than those related to cutting steal!)

If you think patents and DRM are bad, then you probably also think
it is bad that we prosecute people for robbing banks...  :<

The problem with this approach was that it opened the door to
allowing for patents on *all* software.  And, with those LONG
timeframes, patents have far too much power in the marketplace.

I now have to spend a *lot* of time making sure I don't step on
other people's patents when I do a job.  Do those patents prevent me
from doing the job? No.  (If you can find all the applicable patents,
its usually pretty easy to *technically* sidestep them all -- that
is part of the job of a good patent examiner... to narrow the scope
of each patent).  But, they needlessly complicate the process and,
as such, add to the development cost.

And, of course, even if you have done this, there is nothing that
prevents the patent holder from slapping you with an infringement
lawsuit and burning through your cash.  :<

I now take two approaches to product development:  trade secret for
things that I want to *own* and open source for things where I want
to encourage people to build on my work.  If my open source projects
infringe on someone's patent, no money has changed hands, etc.  Let
them chase down everyone who may have downloaded the codebase and
sue each of them as individuals *if* they try to profit from it...
(just publishing working code is often enough to enable someone else
to come up with a *different* way of solving the same problem as
it lets them see the issues that you have to worry about "in the code"
instead of just getting *bit* later on with a bad implementation)

> And they'd do their best to restrict our choice of software to one:
> theirs.

But that is true of everything in the market!  Notice how your
cell phone company wants to make sure you are stuck using *them*
as a provider?  Ever notice the toilet paper dispensers in public
bathrooms and how "unique" they all are (hint:  they only accept
rolls of toilet paper produced by one vendor!)?  Or, how much
effort printer manufacturers will expend to keep you from
using toner cartridges that *they* didn't produce?

They are each trying to "restrict [y]our choice" to one:  theirs!
They can't *force* you to buy their product.  But, they can adjust
their defenses and pricing in such a way as to make it uneconomical
for you to "switch".