From MAILER-DAEMON Thu May 13 09:40:23 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1OCYeF-0004dc-Bh for mharc-australia-public-discuss@gnu.org; Thu, 13 May 2010 09:40:23 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.13] (port=41280 helo=mail.fsf.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OCBso-0006W5-0n for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:21:55 -0400 Received: from vorcha.compsoc.com ([193.120.123.130]:49021) by mail.fsf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OCBsn-0002dM-Pe for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:21:53 -0400 Received: by vorcha.compsoc.com (Postfix, from userid 950) id ECB59479DA; Wed, 12 May 2010 14:21:51 +0100 (IST) To: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org From: Ciaran O'Riordan Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 14:21:51 +0100 Message-ID: <9lk4r9cl1s.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by mail.fsf.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 May 2010 09:40:22 -0400 Subject: [Australia-public-discuss] Write a letter to ACIP? X-BeenThere: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: australia-public-discuss.endsoftwarepatents.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:21:56 -0000 Hi all, So, we missed ACIP's consultation on swpats. Looking at the respondants, it's all patent lawyers and patent holders that work at universities. The only software player is Microsoft, and patent are a substantial part of their business. The consultation's method was clearly flawed. It failed to reach the relevent people - those who will be affected by a legislative change. How about we write ACIP a letter? We could explain that we didn't hear of the consultation taking place and that we think the respondants that were reached are not representative of the software community. We could then maker our case, show them all the studies, and ask them to consider this before they make their proposal. Comments? Background info: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Australian_consultation_responses_2009 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Venturous_Australia http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Australia --=20 Ciar=E1n O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54, http://ciaran.compsoc.com Please help build the software patents wiki: http://en.swpat.org http://www.EndSoftwarePatents.org Donate: http://endsoftwarepatents.org/donate List: http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert From MAILER-DAEMON Thu May 13 12:23:06 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1OCbBi-0003L2-PV for mharc-australia-public-discuss@gnu.org; Thu, 13 May 2010 12:23:06 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.13] (port=42109 helo=mail.fsf.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OCbBf-0003KZ-UG for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Thu, 13 May 2010 12:23:05 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41]:42897) by mail.fsf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OCbBf-0000hc-Lp for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Thu, 13 May 2010 12:23:03 -0400 Received: by vws7 with SMTP id 7so1586814vws.0 for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 09:23:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=p5+5ImbrbVagoRlBZiXnU0K+E/npHa+RTVOJQCt69OU=; b=ehtj8Pa4HtWB/AvSr6lhQu8RAKeso0NbrqsYQMyHbU0uqfdf8rSLzZJ8/yH3LBbZAO zpityKwoLdJDRqv9by9ijv8knJ0IT8n/bunnviT2dBrLvBoOytVeuSty8CF0vZ0wZW3t qCDn0APq+IPsprp0IBcRqVxJNWmdeHkNHqZDQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ugdVA9RctFQONlK37OaJ6lvtRLfVhZGQNoguZOVdek99QsKgPMkcBy9MarZN4ngL1u QNLmqrgbuLyW+NtL1MkuLfgJBgnqRQkgMD2l82kmc0reSusVngYsdobbvBofuOZSoW9I hIOtv4V0LdpO1I/3+AawGnN5MhTo/6AI2uAFs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.128.202 with SMTP id l10mr2388537vcs.123.1273767781329; Thu, 13 May 2010 09:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jacob.n.stanley@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.87.142 with HTTP; Thu, 13 May 2010 09:23:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9lk4r9cl1s.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> References: <9lk4r9cl1s.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 00:23:00 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3XpkvN81-BGW8QzfQAh-uPB4Hxw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Australia-public-discuss] Write a letter to ACIP? From: Jacob Stanley To: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by mail.fsf.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: australia-public-discuss.endsoftwarepatents.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 16:23:05 -0000 Sounds like a good plan. I haven't been involved in putting together anything like this before, but I'll try to help out where possible. I would say that pretty much all of the software developers I know here in Perth had no idea that swpats were up for review in Australia. Perhaps getting names/signatures to back the letter would be useful to our endeavour? On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Ciaran O'Riordan w= rote: > > Hi all, > > So, we missed ACIP's consultation on swpats. =A0Looking at the respondant= s, > it's all patent lawyers and patent holders that work at universities. =A0= The > only software player is Microsoft, and patent are a substantial part of > their business. > > The consultation's method was clearly flawed. =A0It failed to reach the > relevent people - those who will be affected by a legislative change. > > How about we write ACIP a letter? =A0We could explain that we didn't hear= of > the consultation taking place and that we think the respondants that were > reached are not representative of the software community. =A0We could the= n > maker our case, show them all the studies, and ask them to consider this > before they make their proposal. > > Comments? > > Background info: > > http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Australian_consultation_responses_2009 > http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Venturous_Australia > http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Australia > > -- > Ciar=E1n O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54, http://ciaran.compsoc.com > > Please help build the software patents wiki: http://en.swpat.org > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.EndSoftwarePatents.org > > Donate: http://endsoftwarepatents.org/donate > List: http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert > > _______________________________________________ > Australia-public-discuss mailing list > Australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org > http://lists.endsoftwarepatents.org/mailman/listinfo/australia-public-dis= cuss From MAILER-DAEMON Fri May 14 22:55:19 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1OD7X5-0003mN-8Y for mharc-australia-public-discuss@gnu.org; Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:19 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.13] (port=39941 helo=mail.fsf.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OD7X2-0003mI-PW for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:18 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f176.google.com ([209.85.210.176]:53066) by mail.fsf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OD7X2-0002bJ-Eh for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:16 -0400 Received: by yxe6 with SMTP id 6so1509007yxe.27 for ; Fri, 14 May 2010 19:55:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=IMOiLAbx3/zMixfiYXKvkYJeAkOgjWeC6+p7fvzmGYo=; b=FBPX5VMA1ovH5XB6DjQbnu6q+HeGBcWv752ZYOfvSu3n9r70DZl18ek3kWD85ycIpx ubQbgpuHgzvKZB+4AAgS53ondLbDOPXapp3YBLEJu7twcloHCU+D4VZGuPMCPABWdYQ2 49giqa3t/2a9ZJ1q7yL0IGBhGftaRz/CdYnhs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=iky+W/7jxVmDG4lwCf0SYNjeaTOvm3H335CHRZtZs2jrq4QJF42ejcKv1umiyasyxg wYFuS+9wNtbDAwlcPONJGehYsGew2LALX5D+oTFD+MisFvK/VMLclCFeBUb60NWp8uJL 4U2yDQCSdQ6n2NdXcTKFNO73W9XvpN04v3yVE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.10.7 with SMTP id n7mr2399471ani.94.1273892115099; Fri, 14 May 2010 19:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: alex.d.fraser@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.132.19 with HTTP; Fri, 14 May 2010 19:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.132.19 with HTTP; Fri, 14 May 2010 19:55:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <9lk4r9cl1s.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 12:55:14 +1000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lsOrAcxYZDO0Pv5icEjGF1tSlu0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Australia-public-discuss] Write a letter to ACIP? From: Alex Fraser To: Jacob Stanley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d2659600afe60486991f42 X-detected-operating-system: by mail.fsf.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-BeenThere: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: australia-public-discuss.endsoftwarepatents.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 02:55:18 -0000 --0016e6d2659600afe60486991f42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree, the letter would be better if signed by more people. I would sign it, and I can ask my boss if he would sign on behalf of the company. Alex On 14/05/2010 2:23 AM, "Jacob Stanley" wrote: Sounds like a good plan. I haven't been involved in putting together anything like this before, but I'll try to help out where possible. I would say that pretty much all of the software developers I know here in Perth had no idea that swpats were up for review in Australia. Perhaps getting names/signatures to back the letter would be useful to our endeavour? On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > > Hi all, > > So... --0016e6d2659600afe60486991f42 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

I agree, the letter would be better if signed by more people. I would sign it, and I can ask my boss if he would sign on behalf of the company.

Alex

On 14/05/2010 2:23 AM, "Jacob Stanley" <jacob@stanley.io> wrote:

Sounds like a good plan. I haven't been involved in putting together
anything like this
before, but I'll try to help out where possible.

I would say that pretty much all of the software developers I know
here in Perth had no
idea that swpats were up for review in Australia. Perhaps getting
names/signatures to
back the letter would be useful to our endeavour?


On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@member.fsf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> So...

--0016e6d2659600afe60486991f42-- From MAILER-DAEMON Fri May 14 23:14:31 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1OD7pf-0007B3-10 for mharc-australia-public-discuss@gnu.org; Fri, 14 May 2010 23:14:31 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.13] (port=47840 helo=mail.fsf.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OD7pb-00079n-55 for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Fri, 14 May 2010 23:14:29 -0400 Received: from bld-mail19.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.104]:54423 helo=mail.internode.on.net) by mail.fsf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OD7pa-0002oZ-JO for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Fri, 14 May 2010 23:14:27 -0400 Received: from [10.1.1.2] (unverified [118.209.250.148]) by mail.internode.on.net (SurgeMail 3.8f2) with ESMTP id 24208563-1927428 for multiple; Sat, 15 May 2010 12:44:18 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Australia-public-discuss] Write a letter to ACIP? From: Ben Sturmfels To: Alex Fraser In-Reply-To: References: <9lk4r9cl1s.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 13:12:49 +1000 Message-ID: <1273893169.5732.4.camel@Womble> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by mail.fsf.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Cc: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-BeenThere: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: australia-public-discuss.endsoftwarepatents.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 03:14:29 -0000 On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 12:55 +1000, Alex Fraser wrote: > I agree, the letter would be better if signed by more people. I would > sign it, and I can ask my boss if he would sign on behalf of the > company. Perhaps we could write a letter explaining the situation as Ciaran mentioned and accompany it with a petition signed be as many Australian software people as we can muster. I drafted the following petition a couple of weeks ago and am happy to make arrangements to arrange a website to accept responses. See what you think: ==== Dear Minister, I understand that patent law is intended to benefit society by encouraging innovation. I believe though, that allowing software patents is in fact harmful to society: 1. The software industry has a long history of innovating without software patents. This shows that the expense of implementing the software patent system is unnecessary. 2. Small developers are discouraged from innovating because it is not viable to search software patents nor defend themselves against patent lawsuits. 3. Due to rapid evolution of the software industry, the 20 year lifetime of a software patent renders a technique essentially useless to society. 4. The primary benefactors of software patents are the legal industry and companies who's sole business model is to amass software patents and sue others (known as "software trolls"). These costs are borne by software developers and society. I therefore urge the Australian Government to abolish software patents. Sincerely, Name: Email: Occupation: ==== From MAILER-DAEMON Sat May 15 02:02:36 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1ODASK-0000pe-1P for mharc-australia-public-discuss@gnu.org; Sat, 15 May 2010 02:02:36 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.13] (port=39082 helo=mail.fsf.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ODASG-0000pZ-6i for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Sat, 15 May 2010 02:02:34 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41]:64625) by mail.fsf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ODASF-0004XL-Rh for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Sat, 15 May 2010 02:02:31 -0400 Received: by vws7 with SMTP id 7so1231364vws.0 for ; Fri, 14 May 2010 23:02:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ook8yZAZVRu8N1j909KWdfV1IYQtg6/nHJ4NwUziO2k=; b=aHm21Yp4GIhBHHnXfY/gBfTUIAmci3lmuLT0YsqwhNv1MMLVrKAiW1+bbiTpK75K5U WH+kqfOBumSgEQBvJrbjDU7mah58Zaj8Ej3pSpyndtrrwEHCAKRi2JHJE87q5qBfslJb yY4d9phmrlKcTerI9ictWEAPmDRQhkedbvYbM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=RNfU0ZC2AV1gO/Cpr7dFzfkThfhAhi/OGKAUeamJOsfGI9EBo9q67SAVo48P83C+r5 Q1QJESOHbuHMfMMdI/Eu+rDuuGHRefhXnVPLAbKhRzKQSYZCFU7Cnr6Y6BFc4oZHo34F eIgmT9SMfkXdqRs3WS15iwiBvQ7a2Qonmfouo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.107.162 with SMTP id b34mr1067108vcp.235.1273903350020; Fri, 14 May 2010 23:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jacob.n.stanley@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.87.142 with HTTP; Fri, 14 May 2010 23:02:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1273893169.5732.4.camel@Womble> References: <9lk4r9cl1s.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <1273893169.5732.4.camel@Womble> Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 14:02:29 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Qq9st277gmk3ZQkIxTiEcoLTv6Y Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Australia-public-discuss] Write a letter to ACIP? From: Jacob Stanley To: Ben Sturmfels Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-detected-operating-system: by mail.fsf.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-BeenThere: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: australia-public-discuss.endsoftwarepatents.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 06:02:34 -0000 That definitely looks like a good start, we should amend it to include the points that Ciaran brought up about the software community being unaware of the review, and also address it to ACIP. We may still have an opportunity to affect their decision as the final report to the government is not due until July*. * http://www.acip.gov.au/reviews.html On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Ben Sturmfels wrote: > On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 12:55 +1000, Alex Fraser wrote: >> I agree, the letter would be better if signed by more people. I would >> sign it, and I can ask my boss if he would sign on behalf of the >> company. > > Perhaps we could write a letter explaining the situation as Ciaran > mentioned and accompany it with a petition signed be as many Australian > software people as we can muster. > > I drafted the following petition a couple of weeks ago and am happy to > make arrangements to arrange a website to accept responses. > > See what you think: > > ==== > Dear Minister, > > I understand that patent law is intended to benefit society by > encouraging innovation. I believe though, that allowing software patents > is in fact harmful to society: > > 1. The software industry has a long history of innovating without > software patents. This shows that the expense of implementing the > software patent system is unnecessary. > > 2. Small developers are discouraged from innovating because it is not > viable to search software patents nor defend themselves against patent > lawsuits. > > 3. Due to rapid evolution of the software industry, the 20 year lifetime > of a software patent renders a technique essentially useless to society. > > 4. The primary benefactors of software patents are the legal industry > and companies who's sole business model is to amass software patents and > sue others (known as "software trolls"). These costs are borne by > software developers and society. > > I therefore urge the Australian Government to abolish software patents. > > Sincerely, > > Name: > Email: > Occupation: > ==== > > > From MAILER-DAEMON Sat May 15 20:00:23 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1ODRHL-0007Jx-F7 for mharc-australia-public-discuss@gnu.org; Sat, 15 May 2010 20:00:23 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.13] (port=49388 helo=mail.fsf.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ODRHH-0007Ja-6Z for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Sat, 15 May 2010 20:00:21 -0400 Received: from linksky80.com ([74.55.99.226]:46779 helo=sundog.linksky80.com) by mail.fsf.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ODRHG-0001M4-Nm for australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org; Sat, 15 May 2010 20:00:18 -0400 Received: from [118.208.119.219] (helo=aberglas-PC.SpreadsheetDetective.com) by sundog.linksky80.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ODRH5-0006Zv-3N; Sat, 15 May 2010 19:00:08 -0500 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20100516094625.04c0e5d0@berglas.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 10:00:00 +1000 To: Jacob Stanley ,Ben Sturmfels From: anthony@berglas.org Subject: Re: [Australia-public-discuss] Write a letter to ACIP? In-Reply-To: References: <9lk4r9cl1s.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <1273893169.5732.4.camel@Womble> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-LinkSky-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LinkSky-MailScanner-ID: 1ODRH5-0006Zv-3N X-LinkSky-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LinkSky-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LinkSky-MailScanner-From: anthony@berglas.org X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sundog.linksky80.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - endsoftwarepatents.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - berglas.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-detected-operating-system: by mail.fsf.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Cc: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-BeenThere: australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: australia-public-discuss.endsoftwarepatents.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 00:00:21 -0000 Yes, good start. Petitions are hard to organize, so maybe just add the note about the need to talk to the software industry rather than the patent industry, and then just submit it. You can always make it into a petition later. Lots of submissions are good, even a one liner "As a software engineer I find that patents stifle innovation." is enough. (I put a fairly lengthy one in some time ago, but many short ones are better. I have included my original below if people are looking for ideas. But I like your short, succinct version.) Anthony SUBMISSION ON SOFTWARE PATENTS I believe that software should NOT be patentable because software patents stifle innovation. Software is about building systems, not individual pieces. There are vast numbers of pieces in a software system, and there is a large amount of re-invention. Most ideas are relatively simple, and can be reinvented with a relatively small amount of effort. For this reason, patents tend to protect questions rather than answers. Patenters think about what problems we might need to solve in ten years time. Then, ten years later, other people solve these problems easily independently. Only to find that someone else had a patent on it. This in no way improves innovation. The patenting process is also severely broken. Most patents are for trivial inventions. They are described in obscure and arcane language that takes considerable effort to decipher. It is impractical for engineers to read the millions of software patents to look for possible infringements. And any such search would result in numerous possible conflicts, and possible triple damages (in the USA, but that affects patent searches here). Littigation over any aspect of patents is also very expensive and unpredictable. There is no obvious way to address these issue . And patent terms are far too long in the dynamic software industry. In practice large companies mainly build a software patent portfolio so that they can sign non-aggression pacts with other large companies. This is very wasteful. On the other hand, the patent software trolls do not develop software but simply wait for larger companies to reinvent their patented ideas. Fortunately, most patents are never enforced. But no one would ever write a line of code if they knew all the patents that could potentially attack them. I have personally worked on innovative projects that have been cancelled due to fear of unknown patents. On the other hand I worked for an Australian company that flourished because a US patent was not applicable here (the infamous RSA patent). Good techniques are often avoided due to patent issues. For example, the weaker RSA cryptographic algorithm is used instead of the more secure Eliptic Curve public keys because of patents. Awkward key agreement algorithms such as JPAKE are developed solely to avoid patents on PAKE. Likewise for the Vorbis video Codec. Engineers do not like dealing with patents, and will go a long way to avoid them. Licensing numerous patents is just too hard, and they resent paying the tax. There can be little doubt that the algorithms would have been independently invented when needed. Some like PAKE are obvious extensions to previous schemes. The patent holders simply got to the question first, and then blocked others from developing the obvious answer. Further, much software today is open source, i.e. given away without any revenue. This means that it cannot license patents. That highlights the difference between software and other endeavors. Software is intangible. Further, patent revenue is a very small contributor to software academic research. Software patentability (in the USA) is relatively recent. The software industry was very innovative before their introduction. There is no tangible economic evidence that software patents improve innovation. There may well be other areas that should also not be patented, but I am only an expert in software. Any Patents are bureaucratic burden. The onus needs to be on the patent/legal industry to show that patents really encourage innovation, and not on software engineers to show why they are harmful. I would refer you to the USA Trade commission report on software patents, summarized here: http://eupat.ffii.org/papri/ftc03/index.en.html. It takes an economic rather than a legal perspective. As an engineer, I am focused software, not legal issues. People that do focus on software legal issues tend to be part of the patent industry, and so will naturally be very keen to increase its scope and potential for litigation. Likewise, if you write to large companies about patents you will get replies from their patent departments. I would therefor suggest that your sample may be very biased. For these reasons this review has just been noticed by the anti software patent community. I would therefor ask for an extension of time for submission. "If people had understood how (software) patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." Bill Gates, Microsoft. Many other quotes can be found at http://eupat.ffii.org/vreji/quotes/index.en.html Yours Sincerely, Dr Anthony Berglas Southern Cross Software Queensland. At 04:02 PM 15/05/2010, Jacob Stanley wrote: >That definitely looks like a good start, we should amend it to include >the points that Ciaran brought up about the software community being >unaware of the review, and also address it to ACIP. We may still have >an opportunity to affect their decision as the final report to the >government is not due until July*. > >* http://www.acip.gov.au/reviews.html > >On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Ben Sturmfels wrote: >> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 12:55 +1000, Alex Fraser wrote: >>> I agree, the letter would be better if signed by more people. I would >>> sign it, and I can ask my boss if he would sign on behalf of the >>> company. >> >> Perhaps we could write a letter explaining the situation as Ciaran >> mentioned and accompany it with a petition signed be as many Australian >> software people as we can muster. >> >> I drafted the following petition a couple of weeks ago and am happy to >> make arrangements to arrange a website to accept responses. >> >> See what you think: >> >> ==== >> Dear Minister, >> >> I understand that patent law is intended to benefit society by >> encouraging innovation. I believe though, that allowing software patents >> is in fact harmful to society: >> >> 1. The software industry has a long history of innovating without >> software patents. This shows that the expense of implementing the >> software patent system is unnecessary. >> >> 2. Small developers are discouraged from innovating because it is not >> viable to search software patents nor defend themselves against patent >> lawsuits. >> >> 3. Due to rapid evolution of the software industry, the 20 year lifetime >> of a software patent renders a technique essentially useless to society. >> >> 4. The primary benefactors of software patents are the legal industry >> and companies who's sole business model is to amass software patents and >> sue others (known as "software trolls"). These costs are borne by >> software developers and society. >> >> I therefore urge the Australian Government to abolish software patents. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Name: >> Email: >> Occupation: >> ==== >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Australia-public-discuss mailing list >Australia-public-discuss@endsoftwarepatents.org >http://lists.endsoftwarepatents.org/mailman/listinfo/australia-public-discuss Dr Anthony Berglas, anthony@berglas.org Mobile: +61 4 4838 8874 Just because it is possible to push twigs along the ground with ones nose does not necessarily mean that is the best way to collect firewood.