My friend whurley has launched an online poll to bring open source to the attention of politicians -- specifically, the presidential candidates. He, like many of us, is troubled by the recent calls for patent reform put forth by larger companies that may wind up blocking innovation and threatening open source-oriented companies and contractors.
You can view the poll here and vote for which candidate you believe is best for the open source community. (Don't worry: "None of them" is an option!)
Assume for a moment that a knowledge of open source is prerequisite (or integral) in solving issues like patent reform. Who would you vote for? In other words, who would be the best candidate for the open source community?
The more people who vote, the more of an impact this question can make.
Comments
Other related polls.
I couldn't connect to the poll you mention. I got an error message (The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.)
Here are two related, alternative polls:
What issue will the most influence your vote for the 2008 elections? (members can add more options).
Alternative (Emocracy) 2008 U.S. Presidential Poll.
.
--
www.reuniting.info
Healing with Sexual Relationships.
www.wechange.org
We live in a world of solutions.
Unanswerable?
The poll works for me, but something tells me it's going to be more of a popularity contest than an actual poll about which candidate would be best on this issue -- namely because we've never really heard any of the candidates talk about this issue in any of the debates or anything. It's all taxes, terrorism, foreign relations, the environment, ad infinitum -- nothing about free software. How the heck are we to discern what their stance is with regards to open-source software -- or if they even have one?
On the other hand, I'm afraid I'm not even aware of just what the government could do to stifle open-source software. Are they going to make it illegal to give stuff away for free?
The Boise Drupal Guy!
Patent Reform Act of 2007
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 raises some difficult question about open-source innovation. Namely, this pending legislation aims to shift the United States from a first-to-invent model to first-to-file.
According to current US patent law, the first individual (or corporation) to invent a technology owns the patent (or can contest its ownership in court if later filed by another party). Say you're an open-source developer who invents new way to count beans in a jar. You give that software away for free, and everybody who needs to count beans uses it. Everyone is happy.
Under the proposed changes, however, whoever files the patent first owns the bean-counting software. Let's assume again you're an open-source developer who just invented software to count beans in a jar. You give the software away for free, and everybody (including Bean Counting, Inc.) starts using it. You're but a single, hard-working inventor with little time to spare outside of your bean-counting project, so you never got around to filing a patent with the US Patent Office -- a rather confusing and laborious task, especially for someone who would rather be coding. Bean Counting, Inc., however, grabbed your "free" work, realized how innovative it was, and filed a patent on it. Guess what? They now own it, and they can sue you for competing with their patented technology if you choose to continue work on your bean-counting software.
Patent reform is the kind of political -- i.e., legislative -- issue that can, indeed, affect open-source software. You can't give something away for free if it's been patented by someone who wants to make money on it!
I personally doubt that patent reform will have a big impact on open-source development. I do believe, however, that this could be the first step towards a dampened attitude towards open-source software and free culture.
(And to address the comment about a popularity contest, you're absolutely right when you say that we can't discern their stance with regards to open-source software. The point of the poll is not so much to decide who is open-source-friendly -- it's to raise the issue with the candidates and get them thinking about something totally new but incredibly relevant to American innovation. If enough people vote in the poll, someone can contact Clinton's office and say, "Obama received 500,000 votes saying that he's the preferred candidate for issue _____. Your candidate only received 100,000." Someone there will ask "What's _____?" and the dialog has begun.)
Todd Ross Nienkerk
Co-founder, Four Kitchen Studios
Editor and publisher, That Other Paper
Todd Ross Nienkerk
Digital Strategist and Partner
Four Kitchens: Big ideas for the web
IRC: toddross
Patent Reform Act of 2007
Keep in mind that this is the patent system in place in most of Europe, and it hasn't stifled open source development there.
Neither the House version [H.R.1908.PCS], nor the Senate version [S.1145.RS] read this way. Section 3 (Section 2 in the Senate version) says that a patent can not be claimed for an invention if it was described in a printed publication, in public use, or on sale. Open source software constitutes "in public use" and would be protected from such scavenging.
Section 3 (Section 2 in the Senate version) goes on to define conditions for patentability in terms of prior art and obviousness. As an open source software package would constitute prior art available in the public, a corporate entity could not claim a patent due to lack of obviousness.
H.R.1908 Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110pxUN1N::
S.1145 Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Reported in Senate)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110EhhOXe::
Shannon Lucas
Four Kitchen Studios
Right, "patent reform"
Right, "patent reform" wasn't the best "for instance" for whurley to use. I would actually be more interested in presidential understanding of commons-based peer production and networked collaboration than patent policy. Maybe a president who's read Benkler.
Legal expenses?
Good points all around, but it presupposes that you, as in independent developer/inventor, have both the time and resources to build an effective lawsuit against a much larger, deeper-pocketed entity with a strong profit motive. Laws are only as effective as their enforcement, and because (as far as I can tell) patent violation is a civil matter in the United States, it's entirely the responsibility of the offended party to pursue litigation.
While the proposed law may protect "public use" and "prior art," it won't stop unscrupulous parties from claiming an idea as their own. Our trust would then be placed fully in the hands of the Patent and Trademark Office, who would be responsible for finding any such instances of public use or prior art. If the patent slips through, it's up to the open-source developer (the inventor) to spend precious time and resources to either (1) challenge the patent or (2) defend him/herself when faced with a lawsuit for using patented technology.
My primary concern is that such legislation doesn't fully consider the unbalanced relationship between an independent inventor and larger entities. It assumes both parties will have equal legal resources at their disposal, which simply isn't the case. Larger entities can discourage inventors through intimidation and costly legal maneuvers that drain his/her resources. This could, in time, make open-source development less attractive to innovators.
I realize that many of my arguments can be applied to the first-to-invent system already in place. That said, patent reform may very well not be the issue we need to address. I suppose the solution, as Jon mentioned earlier, is joining and soliciting assistance from organizations like the EFF, whose pooled resources and strength in numbers can effectively combat this kind of abuse.
Todd Ross Nienkerk
Co-founder, Four Kitchen Studios
Editor and publisher, That Other Paper
Todd Ross Nienkerk
Digital Strategist and Partner
Four Kitchens: Big ideas for the web
IRC: toddross
The reason for the poll...
That poll might be fun, and it might fit well into whurley's PR framework, but it's not going to have much of an effect - a president is not going to drive patent reform, it's handled at a much lower level.
And if you want to get serious about boosting awareness and adoption of Open Source within government, the best bet is to talk to legislators. We (EFF-Austin) did a bit of lobbying for Open Source at the Texas legislature, and it was clear that we or someone needed to do more - legislators generally don't have a good grasp of the logic behind OS, and they're lobbied heavily by proprietary software companies. When someone proposed legislation to require state agencies to at least consider OS software as an alternative, Microsoft was on the floor first thing the next morning, working to head it off (and the bill didn't go anywhere). Chip Rosenthal and I were down at the Capitol for that, and I wish we'd had an army of Open Source advocates on hand. We did learn that there were strong OS advocates within DIR.
Obama spoke on patent reform and Gov2.0 yesterday
Someone raised the issue of patent reform to Obama himself at yesterday morning's town hall meeting in Austin, Texas:
To address this and other tech/Gov2.0 concerns, Obama stated he would create a Chief Information Office position in the White House.
Full disclosure: I was involved in the writing of that story, and I edit the publication in which it appears. I post it here because it addresses this thread exactly.
Todd Ross Nienkerk
Co-founder, Four Kitchen Studios
Editor and publisher, That Other Paper
Todd Ross Nienkerk
Digital Strategist and Partner
Four Kitchens: Big ideas for the web
IRC: toddross
Government 2.0? Really.
Well, it's nice that he's aware of the issue, I suppose, but restrictive, neverending patents are a problem of Too Much Government, and I always cringe when I hear about politicians (usually from the left, natch) wanting to solve such problems with Even More Government. And who's to say that whoever this CIO is would be any less prone to bribery and favors from the pro-restriction lobbyists than your typical congressprimate? If anything, the CIO will be even more of a target, since there will be only one of them!
The Boise Drupal Guy!
not a tech issue, take it somewhere else please
i don't want more obama fluff, and this isn't an ipr list or ipr group. in my copious spare time i do multi-jurisdictional ipr, and if i wanted anyone's obama-esque opinion, i'd call up larry lessig and ask him ...
so, newspaper tech only please, not candidate message gorp slipped in for reasons that may not withstand scrutiny.
well, i guess i just just hit delete.
turning momentarily to the substance, candidates don't write legislation, lobbyists do, so ask/give to eff, and legislators do, so pick some, and treaties do, so look abroad too. as for white house level cio appointments, take a look at the security and defense missions for such an appointment, and the internal necessity (lost emails, etc) rather than a pick-up for freedom and so on.
Agreed... This is a Drupal list
I didn't sign up for this list to receive endless emails about unrelated subjects. I have ended my subscriptions to other list for similar off subject tendencies. If people want to discuss obama, patents and the price of cheese in norway then they should start the obama cheese patent group. Please remember that your posts are sent to the emails of all subscribers.
Web design, Drupal theming, and logo design:
http://www.translationdesigns.com
Drupal theming, Module development and logo design:
http://www.PixelClever.com