THE disturbing developments in New Zealand (allowing software to be patented) were partly the result of Microsoft lobbying. There were quite a few companies involved in this invasion which overrode the opinions of New Zealanders and this is not over because InternetNZ is challenging the decision.
InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) has today called for the Government to allow any proposed changes to the Patents Bill to be referred back to the Commerce Select Committee for further scrutiny.
The issue of software patents has recently attracted a great deal of attention and controversy, particularly in respect of the patentability of "embedded software".
Commerce Minister Simon Power and the Economic Development Ministry have rejected claims from commerce select committee chairwoman Lianne Dalziel they have significantly shifted their position by proposing software which has a "technical purpose" could be patented.
Mr Power announced in April that the Government would back changes to the Patents Bill proposed by the commerce select committee that would mean computer software could no longer be patented. The committee's understanding was that inventions that relied on "embedded software" – software that is built into a physical device – would still be patentable.
[...]
Information technology industry body NZICT has campaigned in favour of software patents, fearing the effect that restricting software patents could have on both its multinational members and locally owned software exporters.
It's like the trolling Florian Mueller is doing (and failing badly at) on slashdot. In the end, if they're trying to make their case, it's counter-productive, to say the least.
“Out of the over 200 comments, only 2 posters supported him [Müller] - and one of those posters was Jay Mayrand, the maintainer of Hercules.”
--ReaderMüller likes to stick to the story that those who defend IBM (like Groklaw) must be some kind of IBM operatives.
"Better watch it," told us the reader sarcastically, "you're now an IBM operative!
"Or worse, you're from groklaw! (he can't believe that people can actually operate on their own initiative - or that someone with a long history on slashdot (and over 500 fans) can actually act on their own initiative. It *has* to be a plot!
"He's now gotten a few of his friends to help spread the fud, so it's getting interesting.
"Like the claim that when groklaw deletes a user account, their posts automatically get set to "Anonymous". I guess they've never run a content management system before - geeklog handles account deletions that way. IIRC, so does postnuke, and so do many others. It'she only way not to break the threads.
"I've caught him in a few lies ... I intend to catch him in more."
Anyway, the bottom line is that Müller loses a lot of credibility because he aims to ruin a company that supports GNU/Linux, he mass-mails many journalists (we consider those methods to be a violation of netiquette), and he refuses to accept that software freedom is a worthy cause (his explanation about it was complex). We paid attention to him only because we do believe there is room for improvement in the OIN and in IBM's patent policy (especially the lobbying). We have argued this since 2008, long before Müller even resurfaced.
Having received about 50 E-mails from Müller, we urge people to reject Müller's points of view. They should be rejected on the basis that he has been hostile towards several Free software projects and he is blind to the fact that proprietary software companies except IBM are also the culprits. A criticism that's misdirected is only bound to mislead people. The obsession with IBM is similar to the dirty tricks used against ODF when Microsoft decided to pretend that behind everything ODF there was just IBM. ⬆
Comments
Florian Mueller
2010-06-29 09:34:23
I will explain in the near term (on my blog) why the complaints against IBM are also good for GNU/Linux.
Massmailing journalists with rapid-response comment is normal. The Software Freedom Law Center did the same yesterday with its comments on the Bilski ruling. They additionally put their offered quotes on newswire services.
If I have things about Microsoft to cricitize, I talk about them. For an example, I took a very critical look at the German FAT patent ruling, which was however then overshadowed by another ruling that had far bigger impact and was related to a Siemens patent.
I mentioned Microsoft along with IBM as proponents of EU patent reform (I quoted all four company names that appeared in an FFII presentation) and in connection with New Zealand.
The IBM argument that software patents and FOSS are not just compatible but that software patents even made FOSS happen goes beyond everything that Microsoft has ever said to defend software patents. If you can come up with any similarly bad lie and insult on their part, please tell me.
In the NoSoftwarePatents days I also criticized both companies whenever one or both of them engaged in bad stuff. That included IBM's patent pledge back in January 2005 as well as many other things that are documented in my ebook No Lobbyists As Such.
I don't deny that I discuss IBM more so than Microsoft on my blog but I think you attribute it to the wrong cause. It's not an effort to harm IBM's business interests. IBM could resolve the Hercules situation any moment and could formally apologize for and retract its claim that software patents made FOSS so very popular, and the OIN could improve (I believe my four alternative suggestions are very valid), and then there wouldn't be much left at this stage other than IBM's huge number of patent filings -- patents that IP experts consider rather low-quality on average.
On Microsoft's side, there simply hasn't been any incident in the three months since I started my FOSS Patents blog (or any earlier issues that produce effects now, such as IBM's Bilski brief which certainly was relevant on the day of the decision) that could draw similar criticism. They did a license deal with HTC -- Apple, however, is suing HTC. and IBM appears unwilling to engage in licensing discussions with TurboHercules.
Another factor that may give rise to that impression of a pro-Microsoft/anti-IBM bias is that I take issue particularly with hypocrisy. Microsoft doesn't have IBM's hypocrisy problem. Everyone knows what Microsoft wants in terms of business model and IPR regime. Unlike IBM, Microsoft doesn't send open standards advocates to conferences citing the four freedoms from the Free Software Definition, even claiming that those aren't enough but we need more. IBM doesn't truly support any one of those four freedoms.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-06-29 09:44:47
I suspect you're not aware that Microsoft apparently extorted HTC. The phrase "did a license deal with HTC" is deceiving. Apple too is extorting companies or threatening them (e.g. Palm), not just suing.
Why do you soften Microsoft's position? You almost always do that.
You say the "B" in IBM stands for bullying. Can you provide examples of software patent aggression from IBM? Or even Google for that matter?
Supporting software patents is one thing; using them is another.
Jose_X
2010-06-30 16:51:59
The way to deal with this is to stop supporting those projects or fork.
Jose_X
2010-06-30 16:57:01
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-06-30 17:22:14