From: info@teknobilge.com
Date: Fri 05 Sep 2003 - 14:25:46 EDT
Volkan YILDIRIM wrote:
>>Bunu yadsiyor musunuz? Gormezden mi geliyorsunuz? Ya da, yarin obur gun
>>
>>"ya patentlere ihtiyac kalmazsa ve ben de issiz kalirsam" gibi bir
>>kayginiz mi var acaba?
>>
>>
>
>
>:)))
>Vallahi ne diyim yazdiklarinizdan sonra bundan sonra bende
>sizinle birebir yuruyen tartismaya katilamayacagim.
>Umarim bir ara guzel bir organizasyon yapariz ve hep beraber tartisiriz.
>Bu isi benden iyi bilenler cevaplar sorularinizi.
>
>Ama tekrar hatirlatiyorum paten uzmani degilim heralde 5. kez yazdim.
>Bu linux 'ten falan parami kazaniyorum bir kac GPL projemde var kendi
>capimda.
>Yani bu patenler ortadan kalkarsa isime de gelebilir :)
>
>
>Size iyi dovusler :) bol gunesler :)
>
>
E bu ne yaman bir celiskidir bana aciklar misiniz? Bir yandan, "Patent
ve lisans korumasi olmadan teknolojinin gelisecegine inanmiyorsunuz",
ote yandan, acik kaynak birkac projeniz var GPL, ote yandan, yazilim
patentlerini savunuyorsunuz (mu? Yoksa savunmuyor musunuz? "Fikirlerin
patentlenebilmesine karsiysaniz", yasaya bu haliyle karsi cikmaniz lazim
mantiken.). Bir siz karar verebilseniz neyi savunup neyi
savunmadiginiza, neyin isinize gelip neyin gelmedigine, bir kere
okusaniz verdigim linkleri, inceleseniz yasa tasarisi ne diyor,
eurolinux karsi onerisinde ne diyor, ornek verdigim patentler neyi
patentlemis, o konuda yorum yapsaniz, benim sizinle hicbir derdim de,
kavgam falan da olmayacak ...
Kimseyle dovusmek gibi bir kaygim yok, ama kendi tavrimi net bir sekilde
anlatabilmek gibi bir kaygim var. Tavrim ve derdim de su: Linux ve acik
kaynak yazilim icin, ve kucuk sirketler icin yazilim patentleri gercek
bir tehdittir. Yoksa acaba, neden EuroLinux, butun sitesini bu konuya
adamis? Demek ki, Avrupa'li linuxcular, en onemli sorunlarinin bu
gundemdekli Yazilim Patentleri Yasa Tasarisi. Yoksa Linux'cularin isi
miyok, yasa tasarilariyla, siyasetle, parlementoyla, meclisle
ugrasacaklarina, acik kaynak kod gelistirir, hizmet verir, islerini
yapar para kazanirlar. Ama bugun uyurlarsa bu yasalar gecerken, yarin
bir isleri olmayacagini goruyorlar...
===================================
Arkadasim iste bunu anlatmaya calisiyorum duyduklarimizin bir cogu
uydurma seyler..
Yani asli astari yok degil nasil diyeyim cevap bile yazamiyorum..=20
Isterseniz yazilim patentlerine karsi olabilirsiniz gayet gecerli
nedenleri olabilir
Bunda garip birsey yok fakat bir cok noktada yanlis bilgilendirmeler ve
hurafeler sozkonusu.
===================================
Benim de anlatmaya calismaya calistigim sey, kendi anlattiklarimin, DET'in e-ticaret patentinden tutun da, baskasinin JPEG formatinda patent iddasi, oburunun Hyperlink'lerdeki patent iddasi, son derecede gercek iddalar, verilmis patentlere dayanan. Size linkleriyle, belgeleriyle verdim. Hala sizden de, kimseden de "okudum, anladim, hakkaten bu yazilim patentleri ciddi bir tehlike, ben de karsiyim, elimizden geleni yapalim" ya da "Tamam, okudum, ama yasa tasarisinin su maddesinde soyle diyor, bu maddesinde boyle diyor, o yuzden bu durum risk icermiyor" tepkisi alamadim. En cok uzuldugum sey de bu. Benim istedigim sizinle veya kimseyle tartismak degil, kavga etmek de degil, ama, bu listede konuyu her yonuyle gundeme getirmek, bilinclenmek, ve yapilabilecekleri yapmak. Verdigim belgeleri okumadan, incelemeden, "hurafe bunlar, olmaz oyle sey" demenin ne anlami var?
Kisaca: Yazilim patentleri ile ilgili riskler, Acik kaynak ve Linux dunyasi icin, ve de bagimsiz yazilim gelistiren kucuk sirketler icin acik ve gercek bir tehdittir. Bu listede cok daha detayli tartisilmis, ancak potansiyel olarak cok daha az zararli olan SCO davasi kadar, hatta daha da fazla gundeme gelmeyi, tartisilmayi, birlikte hareket edip eyleme gecmeyi hak eder.
Benim sozlerimi bir kenara birakin, ve yazilim patentleri konusunda baska kim ne demis, bir okuyun lutfen:
Umarim, en azindan bu alintilar, yazilim patentleri tartismasini, istedigim eksene (Linux/acik kaynak acisindan zararlari nedir, kimin isine gelir kimin isine gelmez, neden?) oturtmaya ve bir kisisel tartisma havasindan cikarmaya yardimci olur...
Saygilar,
Ozer Tayiz.
Kaynak: http://swpat.ffii.org/
==========================================
Why all this fury about software patent
If Haydn had patented "a symphony, characterised by that sound is
produced [ in extended sonata form ]", Mozart would have been in trouble.
Unlike copyright, patents can block independent creations. Software
patents can render software copyright useless. One copyrighted work can
be covered by hundreds of patents of which the author doesn't even know
but for whose infringement he and his users can be sued. Some of these
patents may be impossible to work around, because they are broad or
because they are part of communication standards.
Evidence from economic studies
<http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/mirror/impact/index.en.html> shows that
software patents have lead to a decrease in R&D spending.
Advances in software are advances in abstraction. While traditional
patents were for concrete and physical /inventions/, software patents
cover /ideas/. Instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any
"means of trapping mammals" or "means of trapping data in an emulated
environment
<http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/samples/ep769170/index.en.html>". The
fact that the universal logic device called "computer" is used for this
does not constitute a limitation. *When software is patentable, anything
is patentable*.
In most countries, software has, like mathematics and other abstract
subject matter, been explicitely considered to be outside the scope of
patentable inventions. However these rules were broken one or another
way. The patent system has gone out of control. A closed community of
patent lawyers is creating, breaking and rewriting its own rules without
much supervision from the outside.
==========================================
Alinti kaynagi: http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html
(Sadece sectigim, gozume carpan alintilar, orada sayfalar dolusu,
yuzlercesi var.)
*Reback 2002: My Introduction To Patent Realities*
Reback on IBM's predatory patent practises
<http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html>
Gary Reback, a famous american software lawyer, narrates from his
memories
*My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the
1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was
accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit,
IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and
their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded
into the largest conference room Sun had.*
*The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents
IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's
notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen
into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of
the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned
this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade
geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some
such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the
USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process.*
*After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on
(without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both
engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers,
methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We
used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed."
But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference.
Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM
patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would
find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.*
*An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among
themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit
responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents.
But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to
Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do
infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue
suits went to the next company on their hit list.*
*In corporate America, this type of shakedown is repeated weekly. The
patent as stimulant to invention has long since given way to the patent
as blunt instrument for establishing an innovation stranglehold.*
*Richard Stallman 1994*
Richard Stallman's Testimony to the USPTO Hearings 1994
<http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/rms-pto.html>
Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project and speaker of the
League for Programming Freedom explains in easy-to-understand terms
to a hearing at the US Patent Office in 1994 why the extension of
the patent system to software / algorithms is harmful to all
software development, no matter whether free or proprietary, and why
copyright provides a fairly adequate framework for both. This speech
is very clear in explaining some of the basic issues that often
cause confusion.
*Software is like other fields of engineering in many ways. But there is
a fundamental difference: computer programs are built out of ideal
mathematical objects. A program always does exactly what it says. You
can build a castle in the air supported by a line of zero thickness, and
it will stay up.*
*Physical machinery isn't so predictable, because physical objects are
quirky. If a program says to count the numbers from one to a thousand,
it will do exactly that. If you build the counter out of machinery, a
belt might slip and count the number 58 twice, or a truck might go by
outside and you'll skip 572. These problems make designing reliable
physical machinery very hard.*
*When we programmers put a while statement inside an if statement, we
don't have to worry about whether the while statement will run such a
long time that it will burn out the if statement, or that it will rub
against the if statement and wear it out. We don't have to worry that it
will vibrate at the wrong speed and the if statement will resonate and
crack. We don't have to worry about physical replacement of the broken
if statement. We don't have to worry about whether the if statement can
deliver enough current to the while statement without a voltage drop.
There are many problems of hardware design that we don't have to worry
about.*
*The result is that software is far easier to design, per component,
than hardware. This is why designers today use software rather than
hardware wherever they can. This is also why teams of a few people often
develop computer programs of tremendous complexity.*
*People naively say to me, "If your program is innovative, then won't
you get the patent?" This question assumes that one product goes with
one patent.*
*In some fields, such as pharmaceuticals, patents often work that way.
Software is at the opposite extreme: a typical patent covers many
dissimilar programs and even an innovative program is likely to infringe
many patents.*
*That's because a substantial program must combine a large number of
different techniques, and implement many features. Even if a few are new
inventions, that still leaves plenty that are not. Each technique or
feature less than two decades old is likely to be patented already by
someone else. Whether it is actually patented is a matter of luck.*
*[...]*
*I've explained how patents impede progress. Do they also encourage it?*
*Patents may encourage a few people to look for new ideas to patent.
This isn't a big help because we had plenty of innovation without
patents. (Look at the journals and advertisements of 1980 and you'll
see.) New ideas are not the limiting factor for progress in our field.
The hard job in software is developing large systems.*
*People developing systems have new ideas from time to time. Naturally
they use these ideas. Before patents, they published the ideas too, for
kudos. As long as we have a lot of software development, we will have a
steady flow of new published ideas.*
*The patent system impedes development. It makes us ask, for each design
decision, "Will we get sued?" And the answer is a matter of luck. This
leads to more expensive development and less of it.*
*With less development, programmers will have fewer ideas along the way.
Patents can actually reduce the number of patentable ideas that are
published.*
*[...]*
*A decade ago, the field of software functioned without patents. Without
patents, it produced innovations such as windows, virtual reality,
spreadsheets, and networks. And because of the absence of patents,
programmers could develop software using these innovations.*
*We did not ask for the change that was imposed on us. There is no doubt
that software patents tie us in knots. If there's no clear and vital
public need to tie us up in bureaucracy, untie us and let us get back to
work!*
*Robert Barr (CISCO) 2002*
Statement of Robert Barr, IPR department of CISCO
<http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/ftc02/cisco/index.en.html>
Complains that the patenting consumes ressources of CISCO and
innovative companies in software-related fields without promoting
innovation, and in fact penalises innovators, asks for restriction
of patentability to fields where it can be shown that patents
benefit society.
*My observation is that patents have not been a positive force in
stimulating innovation at Cisco. Competition has been the motivator;
bringing new products to market in a timely manner is critical.
Everything we have done to create new products would have been done even
if we could not obtain patents on the innovations and inventions
contained in these products. I know this because no one has ever asked
me "can we patent this?" before deciding whether to invest time and
resources into product development.*
*[...]*
*The time and money we spend on patent filings, prosecution, and
maintenance, litigation and licensing could be better spent on product
development and research leading to more innovation. But we are filing
hundreds of patents each year for reasons unrelated to promoting or
protecting innovation.*
*[...]*
*Moreover, stockpiling patents does not really solve the problem of
unintentional patent infringement through independent development. If we
are accused of infringement by a patent holder who does not make and
sell products, or who sells in much smaller volume than we do, our
patents do not have sufficient value to the other party to deter a
lawsuit or reduce the amount of money demanded by the other company.
Thus, rather than rewarding innovation, the patent system penalizes
innovative companies who successfully bring new products to the
marketplace and it subsidizes or rewards those who fail to do so.*
*Douglas Brotz (Adobe) 1994*
Adobe gainst Software Patents
<http://www.base.com/software-patents/statements/adobe.testimony.html>
At the USPTO hearings of 1994, Adobe's representative said:
*Let me make my position on the patentability of software clear. I
believe that software per se should not be allowed patent protection. I
take this position as the creator of software and as the beneficiary of
the rewards that innovative software can bring in the marketplace. I do
not take this position because I or my company are eager to steal the
ideas of others in our industry. Adobe has built its business by
creating new markets with new software. We take this position because it
is the best policy for maintaining a healthy software industry, where
innovation can prosper.*
*[...]*
*For example, when we at Adobe founded a company on the concept of
software to revolutionize the world of printing, we believed that there
was no possibility of patenting our work. That belief did not stop us
from creating that software, nor did it deter the savvy venture
capitalists who helped us with the early investment. We have done very
well despite our having no patents on our original work.*
*On the other hand, the emergence in recent years of patents on software
has hurt Adobe and the industry. A "patent litigation tax" is one
impediment to our financial health that our industry can ill-afford.
Resources that could have been used to further innovation have been
diverted to the patent problem. Engineers and scientists such as myself
who could have been creating new software instead are working on
analyzing patents, applying for patents and preparing defenses. Revenues
are being sunk into legal costs instead of into research and
development. It is clear to me that the Constitutional mandate to
promote progress in the useful arts is not served by the issuance of
patents on software.
*
*Bill Gates 1991: Patents exclude competitors, lead industry to standstill*
Lessig 2002-07-24: Keynote to OSCON
<http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html?page=2>
This was quoted by Fred Warshofsky in "The Patent Wars" of 1994. The
text is from an internal memo written by Bill Gates to his staff.
Part of has appeared in another Gates memos.
*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. ... The solution is patenting
as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be
forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price
might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding
future competitors.*
*Microsoft Germany 2003*
In a brochure for Microsoft sales staff called "Windows vs Linux",
Microsoft argues that software patents create a great risk for
opensource software and independent software development in general.
Microsoft Germany's CEO has been stressing this at various occasions,
sometimes in combination with suggestions that Microsoft itself will use
its patent portfolio more aggressively in the future. The brochure was
quickly removed from the Net, but we have retained a copy
<http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/linux_partner_brosch.pdf>. On page
5 Microsoft writes:
One problem of Open Source is created by so-called software patents.
A prominent examples are the rights on the file format JPEG. The
developping firm had initially handed out licenses for free in order
to achieve worldwide distribution of the format. The buyer of the
company now is demaning license fees from commercial users. This
presents, if you like, a time bomb. (Ein Problem von Open Source
stellen so genannte Software-Patente dar. Ein prominentes Beispiel
sind die Rechte an dem Dateiformat JPEG. Die entwickelnde Firma
hatte einst die Lizenzen frei vergeben, um eine weite Verbreitung
des Formats zu erreichen. Der Käufer dieser Firma fordert nun
Gebühren von kommerziellen Anwendern. Dies stellt, wenn man so will,
eine Zeitbombe dar.)
linux-sohbet listesinden cikmak ve tum listeci islemleri icin
http://liste.linux.org.tr/ adresini kullanabilirisniz.
Bu listeden cikmak icin <a href="mailto:linux-sohbet-request@liste.linux.org.tr?Subject=unsubscribe">tiklayiniz</a>