IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ideological opposition to patents

Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org> Tue, 10 February 2009 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <cos@mip.polyamory.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D913A6C55 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:23:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.589, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLHnN0iiAnD3 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mip.polyamory.org (mip.aaaaa.org [199.201.145.108]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81053A6C36 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mip.polyamory.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 9022E10760; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:23:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:23:06 -0500
From: Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: ideological opposition to patents
Message-ID: <20090210192306.GW376@mip.polyamory.org>
References: <498F9419.80300@ieee.org> <4990DD75.3090206@gmail.com> <2963ECA56B01F94B9964469DCB8A2B5A055C789B@de01exm69.ds.mot.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2963ECA56B01F94B9964469DCB8A2B5A055C789B@de01exm69.ds.mot.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Organization: American Association Against Acronym Abuse
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:23:07 -0000

Powers Chuck-RXCP20 <Chuck.Powers@motorola.com> wrote:
> If the technology in the document to be standardized is
> unencumbered, then the fact that _some_ uses of that technology may
> run into encumbered territory is irrelevant, except to those who
> hate patents in general.

I think software patents are a bad idea, and would prefer that there
be none of them.  I think software is like music, and patenting
software is like patenting chords or melodies.  Patents are the wrong
legal tool for software, and they undermine the purpose of IPR (which
is to promote "progress" of the "useful arts").

Nevertheless, I see no reason to oppose standardizing a protocol that
is unencumbered by patents, simply because some uses of that protocol
(even if they may be common) are encumbered.

I think such opposition requires more than mere opposition to software
patents, or to patents in general.  At the very least, it also requires
that one not think through the logical consequences of one's strategy.

In practice, however, I believe most of the people who sent us
drive-by mailings were simply misinformed or mistaken about the facts.
  -- Cos

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status