legalities

[waider]

One of my readers (hi mopti!) will be delighted to know I’m currently poring over documents relating to software patents and related issues in the EU. Said reader has been providing huge assistance to my attempts to put together a coherent letter to the undecided MEPs in my area in order to persuade them not to legislate me out of a job, and probably is a little peeved that I’m taking so long between drafts. In my defence I’ll point out that the guinness in my local is very tasty, and sometimes I get distracted by bright shiny objects. Plus, mopti‘s got MAD WRITING SKILLZ and I keep writing chunks of text and then deleting them in the realisation that he’s going to tell me I’ve lost the plot AGAIN. Anyway. I just stumbled across something that I will have to dig further at, but which relates to my recent reverse-engineering efforts; it is something of which I was aware, almost talisman-like, but which I had never bothered looking up. But here it is: Directive 91/250/EEC Articles 5 and 6 specifically authorise me to reverse-engineer software for interoperability. Now, I’m going to have to go read some more to find out what exactly is meant by interoperability, but right now my eyes are starting to glaze with all this bloody legalese. Oh, one other note: the justification for one of EP’s proposed amendments to the CIID is, "It is bad draftsmanship to couch recitals as normative provisions." Take that, Directive Drafters!

Comments

[bitpuddle.livejournal.com]

Uh..that was me. I posted from my PalmPilot while picking up some Shish Kebob. I'm not sure why it went anon.

[eejitalmuppet.livejournal.com]

That'd be the effect of the chili sauce.

[waider.livejournal.com]

I've not read him; is the strong argument for or against patents? As I've said to mopti, I'm not blindly opposed to patents myself, but the current proposed directive is a bit, well, loose in how it defines what can and can't be patented, and that's exactly what it's supposed to be fixing up - currently, the arbiter of patentability is the European Patent Office, and they've been drifting towards granting general software and "business method" patents despite the fact that these are pretty much explicitly prohibited by existing European law.

[bitpuddle.livejournal.com]

I think the first book to read would be Free Software Free Society. It is a collection of essays that gives you a sense of his reasoning and how he came to believe what he does. In fact, most of these essays should already be online; you have probably read many of them.

The key concepts I took from the book were the fundamental difference between how we should deal with physical and intellectual property. A copy of MS Word is not the same as a loaf of bread, etc...

He does some interesting hypothetical extensions of unlimited patenting of concepts, thinking about where it can lead. He argues strongly against, with a very American (I think) libertarian bent. However, I don't think you have to entirely agree with him to get value from the essays.

[waider.livejournal.com]

The key concepts I took from the book were the fundamental difference between how we should deal with physical and intellectual property. A copy of MS Word is not the same as a loaf of bread, etc...

Maybe it's because I've been of the "give software away" mindset from a very early age, but I don't know that I'd need someone to explain to me the last sentence in the above (I'm not being facetious here; I mean in terms of them both being products, to me it's still plainly obvious that they can't be treated the same) I'd be kinda curious as to what concepts he puts forward regarding how to treat this, though.

What puts me off about Stallman is that he is confrontational to the point of irritation. I have read his thoughts on this - it essentially amounts to "why should I compromise?" - and that of others who say that wingnuts are necessary at the extremes in order that more moderate people can find a proper middle ground, which is a better argument, but no less irritating for that.

With respect to unlimited patenting of concepts, that strikes me as a straw man. Ok, so Congress is constantly extending the limits of copyright, and that causes its own problems, but handwaving that, the main problem with patents is simply granting them without merit. Making hypothetical arguments about the duration of patents isn't going to help that problem.

All of that said, I'm discussing this stuff without knowing exactly what Stallman has said, and secure in my bigotted opinion that no matter what he has said, it'll irk me. I like my little prejudices.