[Solar-general] Articulo en NYT sobre patentes de software (en ingles)

[Germán Fernández]

Hola Sebastian:

Muchas Gracias por el artìculo. Sin dudas el Cato es uno de los màs
estimulantes Think Tanks de la derecha estadounidense. Claro que su
posiciòn ante el "copyright"  no es tan "progresista" (no son
precisamente amigos de FSF je)pero de a poco se acerca a la realdidad
de las nuevas tecnologìas de la informaciòn.

Lo que me parece destacable del artìculo es que ambas compañìas a las
que critica son Sponsors del instituto. Algo que a màs de uno de la
izquierda local le debe sonar tan inverosìmil como el que ellos
estuvieron en contra de la guerra/invasiòn de irak, siendo que sus
sponsors son tambièn compañìas petroleras.

Saludos
Germàn

PD: el link de los sponsors, ahì pueden ver a Microsoft y Verizon:
http://www.cato.org/support/support.html

2007/6/10, Sebastian Bassi <sbassi en clubdelarazon.org>:
> Esto salio en el New York Times. Se lo recomiendo a todos, pero lo
> dedico a aquellos que dudan que se puede apoyar la causa del software
> libre y contra las patentes de sofware desde "la derecha". Digo esto
> porque quien firma este articulo es miembro del Cato Institute
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute).
>
>
> Published: June 9, 2007
>
> St. Louis
>
> WHAT a difference 16 years makes. Last month, the technology world was
> abuzz over an interview in Fortune magazine in which Bradford Smith,
> Microsoft's general counsel, accused users and developers of various
> free software products of patent infringement and demanded royalties.
> Indeed, in recent years, Mr. Smith has argued that patents are
> essential to technological breakthroughs in software.
>
> Microsoft sang a very different tune in 1991. In a memo to his senior
> executives, Bill Gates wrote, "If people had understood how patents
> would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had
> taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill
> today." Mr. Gates worried that "some large company will patent some
> obvious thing" and use the patent to "take as much of our profits as
> they want."
>
> Mr. Gates wrote his 1991 memo shortly after the courts began allowing
> patents on software in the 1980s. At the time Microsoft was a growing
> company challenging entrenched incumbents like I.B.M. and Novell. It
> had only eight patents to its name. Recognizing the threat to his
> company, Mr. Gates initiated an aggressive patenting program. Today
> Microsoft holds more than 6,000 patents.
>
> It's not surprising that Microsoft — now an entrenched incumbent — has
> had a change of heart. But Mr. Gates was right in 1991: patents are
> bad for the software industry. Nothing illustrates that better than
> the conflict between Verizon and Vonage.
>
> Vonage developed one of the first Internet telephone services and has
> attracted more than two million customers. But last year, Verizon —
> one of Vonage's biggest competitors — sued for patent infringement and
> won a verdict in its favor in March.
>
> The Gates memo predicted that a large company would "patent some
> obvious thing," and that's exactly what Verizon has done. Two of its
> patents cover the concept of translating phone numbers into Internet
> addresses. It is virtually impossible to create a consumer-friendly
> Internet telephone product without doing that. So if Verizon prevails
> on appeal, it will probably be able to drive Vonage out of business.
> Consumers will suffer from fewer choices and higher prices, and future
> competitors will be reluctant to enter markets dominated by patents.
>
> But don't software companies need patent protection? In fact,
> companies, especially those that are focused on innovation, don't:
> software is already protected by copyright law, and there's no reason
> any industry needs both types of protection. The rules of copyright
> are simpler and protection is available to everyone at very low cost.
> In contrast, the patent system is cumbersome and expensive. Applying
> for patents and conducting patent searches can cost tens of thousands
> of dollars. That is not a huge burden for large companies like
> Microsoft, but it can be a serious burden for the small start-up firms
> that produce some of the most important software innovations.
>
> Yet, as the Vonage case demonstrates, participating in the patent
> system is not optional. Independent invention is not a defense to
> patent infringement, and large software companies now hold so many
> patents that it is almost impossible to create useful software without
> infringing some of them. Therefore, the only means of self-defense is
> the one Mr. Gates identified 16 years ago: stockpile patents to use as
> bargaining chips in litigation. Vonage didn't do that, and it's now
> paying a very high price.
>
> Only patent lawyers benefit from this kind of arms race. And
> Microsoft's own history contradicts Mr. Smith's claim that patents are
> essential for technological breakthroughs: Microsoft produced lots of
> innovative software before it received its first software patent in
> 1988. As more and more lawsuits rock the industry, we should ask if
> software patents are stifling innovation. Bill Gates certainly thought
> so in 1991, even if he won't admit it today.
>
> Timothy B. Lee is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
> Next Article in Opinion (8 of 18) »
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastián Bassi (セバスティアン)
> Diplomado en Ciencia y Tecnología.
> GPG Fingerprint: 9470 0980 620D ABFC BE63 A4A4 A3DE C97D 8422 D43D
> Club de la razón (www.clubdelarazon.org)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Solar-general mailing list
> Solar-general en lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/solar-general
>