🚀 go-pugleaf

friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
: The LPF would look silly urging a boycott against every
: "evildoer" and getting completely ignored.  That won't help our case the
: slightest bit.  But Apple is just one corporation, and a boycott against
: them serves as an example to the rest of the industry.  The boycott is not
: intended as a matter of principle; it's a political tactic.  That doesn't
: mean we think what other companies are doing is necessarily any less
: objectionable than Apple's legal actions.

OK, I understand this tactic.  

However, it appears that the legal standing for Apple's suits is dubious,
and recent decisions do not seem to be going its way.

I can't see any way that algorithm patents will fail to be upheld by any
court, as the laws are now being written explicitly allow and encourage
that which we think to be exceedingly harmful.

In some sense the two are similar---Apple wants to essentially ban
independent re-invention which really isn't 'copying', but will lose because
that's not what copyright does.  It is in fact, exactly what patents do, and
the courts couldn't help but rule for Apple if they had acquired software
patents.

It is true, if Apple's suit managed to set a precedent that enabled a
copyright holder to obtain, in effect, patent protection, that this would
be disasterous.  

However, because judges usually aren't that dumb, I think Apple is probably
going to lose.  

Apple may have alot of money for lawyers, but compared to the Department
of Commerce, Department of State (GATT & international treaty) and
the U.S. Congress they're nothing.


Perhaps the LPF is also afraid of losing, too, as the Apple boycott
will likely be successful in the sense of having Apple's position
repudiated, but the war against software patents is going badly
and quite conceivably will be lost.

The emphasis on Apple makes other forces think they're OK when they're not.

The AT&T "brain contamination" idea is also rather pernicious but ridiculous
enough to not likely pose a problem.

To argue against explicit Federal law against algorithm patents will
be awfully difficult, and the LPF needs to be preparing its Constitutional
arguments for when that fateful day arives.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".