Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Serge Skorokhodov (216716244)
Date : Thu Sep 01 2005 04:42 pm

Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> As for books, there is no need for IP laws to prevent
>> plagiarism. Plagiarism took place long before modern IP laws
>> and was dealt more or less successfully.
> 
> You haven't answered my question.  What fair competition is
> being prevented?
> 
The latest example: Creative patented the way composition are
selected in mp3 player. I consider all user interface patients
are senseless. It's like patenting a way to grasp a hammer.

More complex example: all published algorithms of converting
RGB/Lab colors to CMYK are published and well known. But all of
them are patented so it's impossible to use them in an
independent product. Personally, I back the opinion that
algorithms cannot be patented at all. Protect a published
algorithm is even worth.

It is advance in R&D and creativity that should provide the
advantage rather than buying patents and sitting on them.
Normally it's impossible to outwork a decent development team
just reproducing something independently. Prohibiting such a
reproduction legally is what I consider as unfair competition.
Developers should compete in their shops rather than in courts, IMHO.

Just to clarify my position because I feel that I either failed
to express it properly or you distort it in polemical eagerness
(well, sorry, I just don't know the English equivalent). So I
take a real big English dictionary... :)

I am by no means not a GNU fan. I just in generally sympathize
their ideas without getting into extremes. In particular, the
DEBIAN idea of providing free (in both senses of the word)
software in as much as possible fields of usage for everybody
because information technology is crucial in modern society is
pretty attractive to me. Personally, I prefer BSD but it doesn't
matter.

I'm not against copyright as a tool to protect and stimulate both
authors and investors. I just consider that copyright law evolved
in such a way recently that fair use rights shrinks intolerably.
Moreover, I consider the current length of copyright as getting
inappropriately long now. My opinion is that it is done in order
to protect super profits of IP owners at the expense of society
(human kind as a whole, but it's a bit too pathetic:). And I
consider all the rant about "authors not being paid" as just a
smokescreen. The founders of the US understood it perfectly but
this understanding seems to be lost along the way:(

I consider that most of DRM efforts compromise of even nullify
both the right for fair use and general usage of digital
technology to such an extent that it threatens to basic freedoms.
Maybe, I's just keen sensibility because I've spent considerable
part of my life in environment with restricted access to
information but still.

Yes, I do consider that user interfaces and algorithm shouldn't
be patented at all. IMHO, it is like patenting the use of
universal attraction or usage of oxygen for keeping DNA based
creatures alive. It seems to be clear earlier in the US and it is
more or less so in majority of countries even now.

I'm not against patents in general as a tool to stimulate both
inventors and investors (see above:). I just consider that the
terms of exclusive rights is getting inappropriately long
recently. See the copyright sections for details:)

I feel real sorry about touching Russia related topics. It is
definitely off topic here. Sorry, guys, but all references to
communism etc. make me recall the worse samples of communist
propaganda;)

-- 
Serge

.