[OT] What is Open Source?

[Terry Hancock]

> Paul Rubin <phr-n2002b at NOSPAMnightsong.com>
> I think Clark was using contract in a metaphorical sense, describing a
> deal made with authors on one side, and society as a whole on the
> other.  In what's called the "copyright bargain", society agrees to
> grant limited temporary monopolies, in exchange for increased
> "progress in science and the useful arts".

As in "social contract" -- yes, I think that certainly makes sense.

> There is some really terrific reading on the legal history of
> copyright in the Amicus Curiae briefs to Eldred vs. Ashcroft linked
> from <http://eldred.cc/news>.  If you're not aware, Eldred
> vs. Ashcroft is a case currently before the Supreme Court that aims to
> get the most recent copyright extension (Sonny Bono Copyright Term
> Extension Act, passed in 1998 by Disney lobbyists trying to stop
> Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain, and extending all
> copyrights by 20 years) thrown out on the grounds that it doesn't
> promote progress.  I especially recommend Malla Pollack's brief which
> is short and forceful.

Interesting. I'm basically at ground-zero on this sort of stuff
(I'm in Los Angeles), so it's nice to keep alert.  Seems to me
that we'd have been better off if Copyright in the US had stayed
in its 1977 incarnation.  <Sigh>  Of course, the excuse at the
time was conforming to international convention, something we're
usually accused of not doing (e.g. *still* not using metric for
much). <Sigh> again.
 
> For patents, Fritz Machlup's 1958 "Economic Review of the Patent
> System" is terrific, but I don't know if it exists online.  It's a
> report to the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of
> the Senate Judiciary Commitee, 85th Congress 2d Session.  One of these
> days I'll get a hardcopy and scan it.  Some excerpts are here:
> 
>   http://swpat.ffii.org/papri/machlup58/index.en.html

Interesting. I read this page though I haven't had
a chance to follow the links yet. I'm pretty much of
the opinion that software patents are just evil, already.

But I'm increasingly thinking that patents *in general*
are obsolete, too. It seems to me that time-to-market has
shrunk so much that other protections such as trade-secret
or mere market position are entirely sufficient to protect
innovation, and that the damage caused by blocked
patents and legal disputes are a serious hinderance to
progress, especially by smaller organizations, which
are more intrinsically inclined to innovate.  So on balance,
I think they do more damage than good.

But that's an unscientific opinion -- would I be able to
find any evidence to back up the idea?  I can see that
some of the links on the page above *might* help, but
it's a very entrenched idea -- I'll probably need all
the ammunition I can get to convince anyone.

Not being too aware of the international legal landscape,
I also wonder if there are countries who've had any
success at avoiding these kinds of traps. My impression
is that excessively closed "intellectual property" is
an international problem, not just a US problem (though
apparently few countries recognize the software patent).

The thing is, I have a group of people I'd like to
persuade who are, I think, very keenly (but IMHO
foolishly) attached to patents.

Also, in the absence of abolishing patents (I wish),
I'm looking for a suitable "patent-left". I understand
the W3C has done some work on this (I remember discussion
of "RAND" patent agreements (not to be confused with the
corporation of the same name), though I think that was
the "bad" example.  I also recall this being a pretty
controversial topic, especially when the rtlinux
patent was filed.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
Terry Hancock
hancock at anansispaceworks.com       
Anansi Spaceworks                 
http://www.anansispaceworks.com 
P.O. Box 60583                     
Pasadena, CA 91116-6583
------------------------------------------------------