Return-Path: <jslove@starch.enet.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 17:58:15 -0800
From: jslove@starch.enet.dec.com (J. Spencer Love, DTN 237-2751, SHR1-3/E29 (A26), 508-841-2751 10-Nov-1989 2057)
To: "rms@ai.mit.edu"@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: JSLOVE@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: RE: Announcing the League for Programming Freedom
Dear Richard,
I find myself in a peculiar position, which I believe will also apply
to others, so I am writing this note which you should feel free to forward
to any appropriate or relevant forum. I don't know where to send it
myself.
As a general thing, I agree with many of your arguments, and I oppose
the "look-and-feel" interpretations of the copyright laws. I am also made
quite uncomfortable by software patents. With this in mind, I expect that
I will send along $42 in the near future as a gesture of support.
However, you might be interested to know that the $42 is part of
a bonus from my employer for applying for a software patent. (The
algorithm in question would probably be used in microcode, but it is
particularly suited for implementation as a sequential process, not as
parallel hardware.)
As long as software patents may be granted, doing the best possible job
for my employer requires that I assist in patenting my inventions. The
alternative is that someone else patent the same idea; unless I publish the
idea and put it in the public domain which they will not pay me to do.
I am not saying this because I feel guilty for my cleverness. I think
it reasonable that good programmers are paid far better than the median
income, and I think that the patent and copyright laws serve a useful
purpose. However, patents on algorithms, which are ideas, or user
interfaces, which (if they are good ones) are philosophies, open up a lot
of scary legal questions. Patents on genetic information raise related
issues.
The problem is that some current legal definitions are becoming
obsolete. The way to address this problem is ultimately to enact new
legislation changing the rules of the game, not to unilaterally withdraw
from the game.
There are two tasks here. One task is educational and philosophical in
nature: what concepts and rules are necessary? Our goal is to promote the
general welfare by rewarding desirable behavior. The task other is to
promote new legislation implementing these ideas. Only this latter area is
lobbying; perhaps having two separate organizations would be useful.
Do you have a well-defined program for new legislation? How should the
copyright laws be changed? The patent laws? When we develop a universal
pantograph that can make anything given energy and raw materials, what
sorts of intellectual property rights will be appropriate then? Will there
be a legal requirement to distinguish an original from a replica? In
principle, it should be possible to construct a replica of the Mona Lisa
that would be impossible to distinguish from it by any known tests.
Eventually this will be cheap.
I will continue to donate to the lobbying organization as long as their
platforms seem reasonable, but due to cash flow problems, LPF will have to
wait until the patent bonus is actually paid to me to get my first
contribution.
I am sure from previous discussions with you that you have ideas on the
philosophical problems. If you create a foundation to promote work in this
area I will make donations to it as well. Chances are that those latter
donations would be tax-deductable. Does an organization for this specific
purpose already exist?
-- Spencer
Return-Path: <rms@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 00:18:14 EST
From: rms@ai.mit.edu
To: rms
Subject: Announcing the League for Programming Freedom
To: jslove@starch.enet.dec.com
The alternative is that someone else patent the same
idea;
I think this is not true. Ask a lawyer (NOT your employer's lawyer)
about other alternatives. It may well be that just writing it down
and getting it notarized woukd defeat any future patent. Also, there
are "defensive patents" which are much cheaper and easier to get than
ordinary patents; all they do is defeat any future patents on the same
idea.
unless I publish the idea and put it in the public domain which
they will not pay me to do.
Supposing this were the only alternative, you could still do this even
if you were not paid. It would be just a few days' work to write a
paper. It doesn't need to be well-written. How often will the need
arise?
As long as software patents may be granted, doing the best
possible job for my employer requires that I assist in patenting my
inventions.
If you think software patents are bad for society, then you need not
feel any obligation to assist you employer in getting one. Just be
honest about refusing and you have nothing to be ashamed of.
You may still be able to stop the process.
If your employer opened a plant in South Africa and wanted you to work
closely with that plant, would you feel obligated to cooperate as long as
no law was broken?
legislation changing the rules of the game, not to unilaterally withdraw
from the game.
We need legislation, but in the mean time we should not ourselves
engage in the practises we disapprove of. You can refuse to play
dirty without withdrawing from the game.
Do you have a well-defined program for new legislation?
For a start, just say that software is exempt from all patents.
That is simple.
When we develop a universal
pantograph that can make anything given energy and raw materials, what
sorts of intellectual property rights will be appropriate then?
I have ideas about this, but few people will agree with them. Rght
now I want to build a coalition that many people will join. That
means sticking to the area where we agree, and not injecting my other
wild ideas.
Also, if we look so far ahead, it raises the danger of searching for
utopia while Rome burns.
LPF will have to
wait until the patent bonus is actually paid to me to get my first
contribution.
Refuse to go through with the patent, and I will pay your dues.
I am sure from previous discussions with you that you have ideas on the
philosophical problems. If you create a foundation to promote work in this
area I will make donations to it as well.
I don't have time; also, I'm more interested in action than in study.
I think some universities study these questions.
Idea: write a letter to the patent office explaining that you think
society would be better off if patents such as the one you are
being asked to apply for were not granted. Send a copy of the letter to:
Mike Remington
Chief Counsel for Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
2137 Rayburn Bldg
Wash, DC 20515
I will help by reviewing and criticizing it. I know someone else who
is good at this too.
Return-Path: <jslove@starch.enet.dec.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 89 13:00:32 -0800
From: jslove@starch.enet.dec.com (J. Spencer Love 11-Nov-1989 1559)
To: "rms@ai.mit.edu"@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: JSLOVE@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: RE: patents
Sorry about the interaction of our mailers. This is not an internet mailer
by any stretch of the term, and my (rather long) personal name field is
clearly causing your mailer trouble.
They do get here, you know, even though the headers also list a perfectly
bogus address. In the future, I'll try to remember to delete my personal
name field which contains commas when sending to you. On VMS, I don't have
many options, so I don't plan to eliminate the commas, but I'll try
changing them to semicolons.
I would rather see a moratorium on the enforcement of software patents
while we (society) work out the definitions than simply declare all
invalid. At the end of the moratorium, a definition would be published
(law passed) that would render the majority of software patents
unenforceable, but they wouldn't actually be overturned unless challenged
(there should be a streamlined form of overturning them to reduce their use
for intimidation, or possibly a penalty for unsuccessfully defending one).
While the moratorium was in effect, new software patents would continute to
be granted under the old rules, but it is likely the number of applications
would drop sharply.
At the beginning of the moratorium, we might impose a set of rules that
would eliminate (say) 75% of the patents that we expected would be
eventually invalid, but fewer than 1 or 2% of patents that would eventually
be upheld. Then we can go to work on the grey area.
I am concerned that an effort which you describe as simply a concatenation
of general purpose building blocks might require hundreds of man-years,
significant new art and tens of millions of dollars to develop. I suspect
there will be a middle ground. Investors will demand some protection
before undertaking such projects (they may not get it), and we may end up
fine-tuning the copyright laws as well.
There's an outline for an ambitious legislative program. Perhaps more
likely to occur than a constitutional convention, but possibly easier to
sell than an outright repeal. Too complex? Probably.
-- Spencer