Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed)

Meng Weng Wong said:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:47:07PM -0400, Chuck Mead wrote:
> | I would be very happy to help or undertake to create an edited,
> corrected
> | version of this which all could use to brief their own political
> leaders.
> |
> | I will have some time for this on saturday and would be glad to post a
> | refined version for review...
> |
>
> sounds good, but what exactly is the call to action?  what
> do you want the representatives to do?
There are three things I think we could do. I combine these thoughts
with a bit of strategy...

We cannot single Microsoft out simply on the patents. But... in light
of the fact that they're a convicted monopolist at the federal level
(and in many states) we may make some headway by highlighting their
actions with respect to Marid with the legal systems involved. What
they've done is an overt attempt to limit competition in an arena
where it is clearly to the advantage of the entire planet that there
be increased competition! As I understand the federal penalty decision
they are supposed to be good citizens for some time and they're
supposed to be watched. That is one direction we should go IMHO.

The second thing I think we should do is approach our legislative
representatives with our story (which we can prove step by step with
the archives of the MARID list) and simply explain what the cost is
(and will be) if software patents continue to exist. I have read
several statements now explaining what's wrong with patents on
software which explain it very well. I propose that we talk to some of
these people and assemble a cogent explanation that is as compelling
as we can possibly make it and then present it to everyone we can
reach who has voting power under represntative governments where ever
they may be. My own reading of the patent apps has lead me to believe
that even SPF has no hope if the patents are approved and not
invalidated. That message needs to be delivered! As someone else has
said on one of the lists Microsoft's patents would basically eliminate
much of the existing anti-spam/forgery/phishing technology and
permanently stunt development of new algorithms because the patents as
they are written are ridiculously broad. We can also add to this another
recent patent granted to Network Associates (ref:
http://www.moongroup.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=2).

The last thing I think might be doable is to combine the effort discussed
in the previous paragraph with a third that uses outreach to the public
explaining the issue and making them aware of the damage to innovation
that is happening. That would be a broad effort but if we did it right it
could be very effective. Especially when combined with the move to
convince the pol's to outlaw software patents.

So that's what I think... anybody else?


--
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com
Chief Tech and Bottle Washer