Fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria.
Richard Stallman
Now that is worthy of some discussion maybe? patents when abused by monopolies are a very bad thing. We have seen in my lifetime some wonderful inventions which have been patented, then the rights to said patent have been bought by some big business which sees the invention as dangerous to it's position and the great invention has been buried in secret. Hidden from the eyes of those who would use it to possibly benefit all.
A system of virtually unlimited free power for everybody is just one such invention... but of course that hurts the position of the power companies, and the oil companies.. so we will never see it unless we individually invent it for ourselves, always taking the chance that we could be noticed and persecuted for "patent and rights infringement"
It happens that companies like microsoft hold patents to all kinds of things they have never invented.. They think they have the rights to such things as drop down menus (unix-like systems.. late 70's) and windows for programs on a desktop (probably whirlwind.. mid 50's)
Luckily for us we have a few large battlers left on our side... companies who also hold patents, but seem to have a more open interpretation of what it stealing an idea and what is just a logical development of a thought process.
I'm not against patents per-se.. but used to restrict invention and ideas in the way becoming increasingly seen is bad for everybody.. it is bad for users, bad for developers and ultimately.. by stifling progress.. bad for the patent holders themselves.
This is why open source software is so vital.. the end user has the choice to modify it if they so chose, they can even add features and sell it if they want, as long as they make it clear that the purchaser also has the right to change, modify and basically do anything they want with it. Patents seek to kill those rights. Most EULAS are illegal in many countries where you have basic ownership rights. The way I look at it is this.. The moment you buy a piece of software (not just a licence.. but the physical software) you own it outright and it is yours to do whatever you want with. You have the right to modify it in any way you see fit and even sell it in modified form as long as you acknowledge the original creator and list every change made.. as required under the GPL. That's what software patents attempt to stifle and why they are wrong.
But.. I hear you cry.. I don't want to modify my software, I just want to use it... well that's all fine if that's what you want to do, but say for instance it doesn't work in the way you want after you have paid for it.. Don't you have the right to attempt to fix it, or make it do what you want which it may never have been designed to do? Well if it is open source and GPL you have that right.. you can mess with it to your hearts content, whereas with closed patented software as soon as you attempt to reverse engineer it to see how it works you are breaking some imposed sanction about how you use what you own.
By all means carry on supporting these lock-in-out business models.. you will support them, but they will not support you. If you help them by fixing their code so it works you may well find yourself in court for IP theft or patent/copyright infringement.. when all you were trying to do was help them.. remember the Creative Labs fiasco where a programmer had fixed their drivers free of charge? They didn't like the way he had enabled hardware features they had specifically disabled to force people to buy new hardware when in reality they had no need to.
That my friends is where the danger lies.. software patents are open to abuse and anti-trust type bahaviour from increasingly greedy business models.
Well.. that's my FSF based rant over for today.. Ponder well young padawan.. the road to ruin is strewn with good intentions.
