FSF statement on Oracle vs. Google is a shame: misleads, puts GPL above freedom, spares IBM

The Free Software Foundation needed about one month after the announcement of Oracle's patent infringement suit against Google to issue this statement.

One month was apparently needed to come up with a statement that despite a few good points calls into question whether the FSF truly cares about the values it claims to advocate. The statement is designed to mislead people with propaganda; it demonstrates concern only for the GPL, not for the cause of software freedom; and it's disconcerting that the FSF turns a blind eye to what IBM (one of its sources of funding) does.

I commented on the FSF statement last week. You can find me quoted by ZDNet's Linux and open source blog and by V3.co.uk. I also posted comments to LinuxWeeklyNews (LWN.net).

Given the importance of not only the Oracle-Google case but also the more fundamental concerns I have about the FSF's statement, I decided to publish this analysis.

Before I go into detail, let me stress that I don't doubt the integrity of Richard Stallman (RMS). He's a true visionary and he's absolutely dedicated to his cause. I have seen him campaign against software patents, and he's the last person in the entire IT universe I'd ever suspect of being in whatever company's pocket. However, I fear he may sometimes rely on people who aren't equally true to those values, and when it comes to the funding of his organization and (even more so) of affiliated entities, Richard may have the attitude of certain Roman emperors.

1. Where I agree: appropriate criticism of Google

The FSF rightly notes that Google "still has not taken any clear position or action against software patents." I also wrote about that fact last month when I analyzed Google's amicus curiae brief in re Bilski & Warsaw v. Kappos.

I share the FSF's view that Google apparently wanted "to make proprietary software development easier on Android." I previously mentioned the "proprietary, closed-source strategies of certain vendors of Android-based phones" and linked to an external article entitled "The Sad State of Open Source in Android tablets".

2. Dangerous and misleading: GPLv2 touted as "strong defense" against patents

This is a passage of the FSF statement that I condemn as dangerous propaganda that's so misleading it's actually dishonest:

And [Google] could have avoided all this by building Android on top of IcedTea, a GPL-covered Java implementation based on Sun's original code, instead of an independent implementation under the Apache License. The GPL is designed to protect everyone's freedom — from each individual user up to the largest corporations — and it could've provided a strong defense against Oracle's attacks. It's sad to see that Google apparently shunned those protections [...]

Watch particularly the middle sentence. On its own, the claim that the GPL is designed to protect software freedom is acceptable as a mission statement. What's wrong is to give a vast majority of all recipients the impression that the GPL can be a "strong defense" against patent attacks. The FSF has every right to promote the GPL, but not by questionable means.

While the FSF doesn't claim so literally, that almost sounds like the GPL is to software developers what the cross and the wooden stake were to Buffy the Vampire Slayer – the lead character of the popular TV series who never left home without them. No version of the GPL can deter patent aggression by any third party who isn't bound to GPL terms itself. Not in any way. Sure, the FSF didn't say the GPL is a magic wand, but the passage I quoted reflects a desire to lead some people to think so.

At the most, the GPL can make things harder for a patent holder who published software under the GPL, provided that (i) the relevant program code reads on the patents asserted and that (ii) the alleged infringer uses that GPL'd software.

The limitations of an implicit patent license

The FSF argues Google should have used IcedTea. IcedTea was derived from Oracle/Sun's OpenJDK, so it's a fork of program code available under the GPLv2.

The GPLv2, however, only has an implicit (implied) patent license. It doesn't say explicitly "I, the patent holder, grant you, the licensee, a perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable license...". There are references to patents in GPLv2 but those are more like an encouragement not to publish patent-encumbered software under the GPL than an actual license grant.

Even when a software license doesn't contain an explicit patent license, it would obviously be unfair if a patent holder could make software available to many people as a trap only to later sue them all for patent infringement. Under US law, the legal theories according to which an "infringer" can argue that he was granted an implied patent license are called legal estoppel, equitable estoppel, conduct, and acquiescence. Other legal systems have similar theories in place.

So it comes down to a general fairness principle, which is easily applied if someone uses unmodified software published by the patent holder: in this case, the original OpenJDK code. But it's complicated and risky once we're talking about forks (derived versions), such as IcedTea or let alone whatever Google would have had to do to turn IcedTea into what its Dalvik virtual machine is for Android.

The FSF would like people to think that the GPLv2's implied patent license extends to forks. The problem is that if programmers rely on this assumption (which is just the FSF's position and absolutely unsupported by case law), they may have to pay the price.

There is indeed serious doubt about the extent to which the exercise of "freedom 3" (the right to distribute modified versions of a free program) is safe if there are patents in play. Dan Ravicher, a lawyer affiliated with the FSF, was honest enough to point out six years ago that this is a "gray area". Last month I already explained that the European Commission also voiced serious doubt about the scope of an implied GPLv2 patent license in its decision on Oracle's acquisition of MySQL as part of Sun. The Commission, too, was concerned about the extent to which forks would be covered.

Promoting the GPL and the FSF's power rather than "freedom 3" and the truth

That's why I really object to the FSF's claim that the GPLv2 "could've provided a strong defense": the GPLv2's ability to protect against patent attacks is reversely proportional to the extent software developers exercise the said "freedom 3" (redistribution of derived works). If you don't modify any patent-encumbered GPL'd code, you're presumably protected; if you make changes to the existing code base, you enter a dangerous gray area (in which IcedTea probably already is, even though the GPL apparently tries to reassure IcedTea users that they're safe); and once you add completely new code on top, it's pretty certain that the GPL can't do anything for you if that code infringes any patents.

The GPL shows that defending software freedom and telling people the whole truth are at best secondary objectives. What the FSF really wants is promote the GPL, spur its adoption and thereby expand its influence. That is, regrettably, the way I interpret that part of the FSF's statement.

One could argue that the FSF only said "could've" (provided a strong defense). But "could've" isn't "might have". The way many people will reasonably interpret it is that if Google had opted for IcedTea under the GPL, it would have been safe (or if it opted for it now, it might be safe in the future). But there's far too serious doubt about that assumption, as I just explained. So it's dishonest to suggest that there could have been a "strong defense."

On the contrary, if Sun had published its OpenJDK under the Apache license 2.0, and if Google had used such code on those terms, there would be a much stronger protection because that license contains an explicit patent grant.

3. Email to Larry Ellison: the wrong approach

The FSF's call on people to send email to Oracle founder and CEO Larry Ellison to protest against software patents is inappropriate. Those are spam tactics. There are email addresses to which it's legitimate to send messages, such as to members of parliaments because they are the elected representatives of citizens and should take direct input from their electorate. It's also OK to send messages to email addresses that are set up for the receipt of input from large numbers of people. But an orchestrated email campaign shouldn't target someone's personal address.

I fought against Oracle's acquisition of Sun, and believe me, that company is a really tough opponent. Still I believe one can deal with controversy in a more civilized way than what the FSF proposes.

I don't think even a million messages would change Oracle's stance on this. But every such email will discredit the FOSS movement in the eyes of serious people.

4. The FSF conspicuously spares IBM

Considering how hard the FSF tries to pressure Oracle and (rightly) criticizes Google for its position on freedom and patents, it doesn't sit well with me that IBM, one of the primary financiers of the FSF and some of its affiliated entities, gets away with much worse behavior.

IBM's patent threats against Hercules, a mainframe emulator that is available under a license recognized by the FSF as a free software license and by the OSI as an open source license, are actually much worse. Those threats became known five months ago, and there's been deafening silence on the part of many free software entities, to the extent that I conclude they are only selectively free.

One can argue that IBM has not (at least not yet) gone to court. However, litigation is always just the last resort for any patent holder. Whether a patent holder has strategic objectives or just wants to make money (like a "patent troll"), everyone prefers to get their way without having to go to court. Most of the damage that patents do is actually done outside the courts.

In IBM's case, there's a clear case of exclusionary strategic use: Big Blue uses those patents to draw a line in the sand and maintain its hugely lucrative mainframe monopoly, keep customers locked in with respect to mainframe legacy workloads, and to expand and extend that lock-in to enterprise cloud computing.

By contrast, there's no indication so far that Oracle wouldn't be willing to negotiate a license deal with Google.

But this isn't just about Oracle as compared to IBM. The FSF's criticism of Google, which I support, would also apply to IBM.

It's true that Google's Bilski brief didn't speak out against the patentability of software; it was basically just a request for slightly higher quality standards. But IBM's Bilski brief was much worse, claiming that software patents liberated programmers and were key to the rise of FOSS. The FSF should have taken Big Blue to task over this. Such unbelievable cynicism would actually have been more of a reason for a pressure campaign against a company than Oracle's dispute with Google, about which there are so many unknowns for now.

Finally, the FSF criticizes Google for having built Dalvik on top of (a part of) "an independent [Java] implementation under the Apache License". What the FSF means is a project named Harmony, which Google decided to fork. I said before that Google probably did this to facilitate closed-source Android products. But you know which company actually started Harmony and isn't mentioned by the FSF? IBM.

On the Harmony project's contributor page, about every second person (ten out of two dozen) is an IBM employee, about half of them from China and half of them from the UK. Plus, IBM is known to fund the Apache Foundation in general.

That doesn't excuse Google in any way. But IBM started this and the fact that it isn't even mentioned raises questions about the FSF's independence from Armonk.

If you'd like to be updated on patent issues affecting free software and open source, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.

Richard Stallman's Mono and DotGNU patent concerns

Glyn Moody, a true FOSS expert among journalists and author of the OpenDotDotDot blog, has interviewed Richard Stallman, the founder of the software freedom movement, by email to discuss RMS's concerns over software patents in connection with free implementations of the .NET programming interface (Mono and DotGNU).

Glyn's article was published by Computerworld UK.

To sum up the key points, RMS stated the following in the interview:

1. Due to patents held by Microsoft on its .NET technology, the availability of two .NET implementations (Mono and DotGNU) under free software licenses doesn't mean that free software developers should, according to RMS, write code for the platform. His call on the free software community: "You shouldn't write software to use .NET. No exceptions." RMS says that Microsoft could one day use patents against free .NET implementations.


2. RMS thinks that the C# ("C Sharp") programming language should also be avoided. He makes a distinction between that one and .NET because C# was "standardized by a standards committee" and Microsoft made "a stronger commitment" concerning patents than for alternative implementations of other elements of .NET.


3. As a requirement for RMS to encourage the development of free software on free implementations of .NET, Micosoft would have to "make an ironclad commitment that its present and future patents will never be used against implementations of DotNET."

The exchange between Glyn and Richard has raised important questions and resulted in interesting answers. I agree with RMS on the incompatibility of software patents with the notion of free software and on many other patent issues, but I don't think the advice he gives to the developer community makes any sense at all in this particular case.

RMS's utopian advice runs counter to commercial logic and fails to advance the cause of software freedom

Adopting his advice would be an utterly stupid decision for any developer from a business point of view, which is actually normal because RMS's agenda is all about software freedom and not at all about commercial success. But even from a non-commercial free software point of view I think this kind of advice doesn't make sense in the world in which we actually live.

The only alternatives in terms of programming languages and platforms that could perhaps be supported under RMS's premises would have had to be open-sourced in exactly the same form more than 20 years ago (without even the smallest modification made ever since) and then the new software one writes on top of it today wouldn't be guaranteed to be truly free software for another 20 years. 20 years is the potential life expectancy of a software patent, and I'll explain the logic of this further below.

So unless someone wants to waste 20 years or even an entire professional life of 40 years just for the sake of an ideology, it's better to reject such utopian advice and take a realistic perspective on patent-related risks.

There's no particular reason not to develop software for .NET (as compared to any other platform on this planet), and free implementations of .NET such as Mono and DotGNU aren't really less free than a free Java application server or a PHP interpreter for Apache.

RMS focuses on the lesser risk and ignores the greater one

The fundamental mistake made by RMS in the aforementioned interview is that he narrows the whole patent-related risk down to only one company (Microsoft), which actually has a stronger commercial interest than any other in the world to make the .NET platform popular and to ensure developers succeed with the applications they build on top of it. And we all know how much competition there is between platform companies for the hearts and minds of developers. More importantly, Richard completely ignores the fact that hostilities against Mono and DotGNU could also come from other patent holders.

Even if one sides with RMS concerning what the greater risk is and rejects my business logic for the platform company itself being most likely to want the best for its application developers, no one can reasonably deny that there's a huge number of patent holders other than Microsoft whom RMS fails to take into consideration. That mistake is sufficient all by itself -- regardless of how to assess the different risks -- to prove RMS's advice concerning C#, .NET, Mono and DotGNU wrong in the sense that there are also patent risks concerning any other programming language or platform out there.

Yes, free software is incompatible with patents, but software patents exist on pretty much every kind of software technology and therefore I don't think one can make the case that free .NET implementations or software written to run on them is inherently less free than other software available under the same licenses.

Time heals the wounded and invalidates patents

In the patent minefield that exists, there's no such thing as a reliably patent-unencumbered programming language or API (application programming interface) except for a hypothetical scenario of no practical relevance. That scenario is one in which all patents that may read on the platform have either expired or can be easily invalidated.

Since software patents (at least in the jurisdictions I know) have a maximum term of validity of 20 years and patented ideas must be new by the time of the application (or they can be invalidated later on the basis of "prior art"), one can argue that if software was published (as open source) more than 20 years ago, all patents will either have expired or the published source code (which should be time-stamped to prove its vintage year) could be used as prior art to take down younger patents on the same technology.

Therefore, free software developers would have to use free platforms that are more than 20 years old (and were published as free software back then, not just later). The applications they write couldn't be guaranteed to be patent-unencumbered for another 20 years after the publication of their source code.

In other words, the price to be paid for a guarantee of being patent-unencumbered is to be decades behind the evolution of technology, and to be extremely patient relative to the duration of a human professional life.

The pragmatic alternative is to regard free software as a great idea and a wonderful vision, but to understand that patents make all software potentially non-free, regardless of whether the patents in question are held by Microsoft or anyone else.

The solution proposed by RMS (an "ironclad commitment") would be desirable but insufficient

At the end of the interview, RMS made the proposal I mentioned in item 3 of my summary of his position at the beginning of this posting. He said that Microsoft should make an "ironclad commitment" not to use current or future patents against free implementations of the .NET API.

I, for my part, would very much welcome such a commitment. But I disagree that it would make all the difference that RMS suggests it would make. It wouldn't solve the problem of third-party patents. Every other current or future software patent holder in the world would also have to make that promise in order for RMS's vision to materialize.

The second part also applies to platforms for which the original developer makes an "ironclad" patent promise. Even a free programming language like PHP can infringe and almost certainly will infringe on some third-party patents out there, unless you take a programming platform that was open-sourced more than 20 years back (as I explained further above).

So I strongly recommend to focus on how patent holders actually use their rights. In that respect, I will comment on Microsoft in greater detail in some other posting, but I can already say at this stage that there simply isn't any evidence of Microsoft using patents in a way that would drive companies out of business or jeopardize the existence of FOSS projects.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face

RMS also refers to Eben Moglen's assessment that Microsoft's Open Specification Promise "is not something we can rely on." I can see why Richard and Eben say so. But I can also see reasons for which one could say the same about (to name but a few examples) Red Hat's patent policy, the promises Oracle made concerning the acquisition of MySQL (without wanting to comment on what Oracle is doing now), Google's vague assurances concerning WebM, the Open Invention Network's arbitrary scope of protection, or IBM's broken patent pledge.

Concerning IBM's pledge, I remember that RMS also commented on it unfavorably back in 2005 when it was made (not as aggressively as I did, but it was clear that Richard also rejected that approach). So he's aware of the fact that vendors don't make those public commitments in an "ironclad" form. That's a general problem and it's not particular to .NET, C#, Mono and DotGNU. Nor are the other concerns voiced by RMS specific to those technologies.

That's why I think a decision to write software for .NET, or to implement .NET interfaces in free software, isn't a statement against freedom any more than using any other current platform: Java, PHP, you name it. But acting in accordance with RMS's advice would be a self-imposed restriction of freedom, for no good reason.

With the greatest respect (which he deserves), he sometimes proposes to cut off one's nose to spite one's face.

If you'd like to be updated on patent issues affecting free software and open source, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.

IBM's Bilski brief spits in the face of the free software and open source movements

Later today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will most probably publish its long-awaited opinion in re Bilski, a decision that appears to relate to a business method patent but could also become the first landmark SCOTUS ruling on software patents in a long time.

A fellow activist recently pointed me to an outrageous document: In an effort to dissuade the SCOTUS from imposing restrictions on software patentability, IBM tells the court the blatant lie that software patents have made open source popular.

Even worse, IBM describes software patents as a liberating factor, making mockery of the whole software freedom movement founded and spearheaded by Richard Stallman. RMS has always opposed software patents. He travels the world to fight them (a speech he gave at a demonstration in Munich last year is on YouTube: part 1, part 2). But IBM shamelessly claims that it took software patents to liberate software developers and make Stallman's idea fly.

In a footnote on page 25 of its amicus curiae brief (submission to the court) in the Bilski case, IBM makes the following claim that is not only the exact opposite of the truth but also shows the ruthless and cynical enemy of open source that IBM is in the patent context:

"Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms---which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development."

I read this again and again, and I find it nothing short of appalling. This is absolutely in contradiction to the GPL, the Apache Software License and the spirit and the letter of other FOSS licenses.

The worst lie ever in the software patent debate

The absurd assertion that patents -- the most fundamental threat to software freedom -- promote "the free sharing of source code" and therefore open-source development is the most preposterous argument in favor of software patents that I've ever heard. And I've heard many, including many stupid ones, in countless debates in which I participated over the years. But this one is in a class of its own, in a negative sense.

Let me speak from my experience as a participant in so many public debates on software patents as well as private conversations with politicians and their advisers.

Those who advocate software patents will say a lot of things that are factually wrong just to get their way. During the legislative process concerning the EU software patent directive, the strategy of the pro-patent camp was to flatly deny that the law was about software patents. They claimed they just needed the law to make computer-controlled devices such as automatic transmission systems or new generations of washing machines work. The NoSoftwarePatents campaign, which I founded and managed until 2005, called this "the mother of all lies."

Another lie was to claim that the proposal would have restricted the European Patent Office in its practice of granting software patents. OpenForum Europe, a lobby organization whose biggest and most influential member is IBM, was among those spreading that message, falsely claiming to represent the open source community.

Many debates never got to the point of whether or not software should be patentable because it took so long to dismantle those lies about the legal meaning of the proposal that there usually wasn't any time left for the fundamental question of what's best to incentivize innovation.

The lesser evil: denying negative impact

When we had the chance to discuss the heart of the issue, we also saw many claims that FOSS could prosper under a software patent regime. Those claims were meant to alleviate concerns of FOSS-friendly politicians, almost all of whom opposed software patents. As part of that political strategy, IBM made its original "open source patent pledge" in January 2005. They wanted to lull politicians as well as the FOSS community into a false sense of security. This was in their interest with a view to the European process, so the timing wasn't a coincidence. Of course, their interests concerning the open source community go beyond Europe.

This ZDNet article, published on the day of the announcement of the pledge, quotes me as calling IBM's 500-patent pledge an act of hypocrisy because they were actively lobbying for software patents in Europe. I was fighting their lawyers and lobbyists all the time, and I told the ZDNet reporter who then called up politicians to double-check.

Mark MacGann, then the chief executive and lobbyist of a big IT industry association (with IBM among its members), is quoted in that article with his spin, calling IBM's pledge "a strong example of the compatibility of computer-implemented invention (CII) patents with the OSS development model." I haven't talked to him in several years, but next time I see him, I'll ask him what he thinks of IBM's betrayal of the pledge.

Still, it's the lesser evil if someone just denies that there's a negative impact and grossly overstates the benefit of pledges. What IBM does in its Bilski brief is much worse: IBM attributes the rise of free and open source software to the liberating effect of software patents, which is not just wrong but turns the facts upside down.

Right or wrong, it serves their purposes. I can only hope that the judges figured it out.

IBM probably tells the same story around the globe

IBM recently also lobbied for software patents in New Zealand, where the abolition of software patents was a political possibility but it seems that a trend reversal has occurred, with IBM and Microsoft advocating software patents. I don't know what exactly they said. New Zealand is antipodal to where I live, and I don't have any contacts there. Presumably, IBM will have made pretty much the same points as in its Bilski brief.

I don't deny companies their right to push for software patents, just like I have the right to oppose them. That's democracy, but there's a right way and a wrong way to make the case. Mockery of freedom is simply unacceptable.

I don't know how IBM discusses software freedom internally. I guess it's similar to the attitude of CNN reporter Rick Sanchez:

"What, what the hell does that mean, freedom? The biggest tent is freedom? Freedom?! I mean you gotta do better than that."

Whatever freedom may mean, Messrs. Sanchez and Sutor, software patents aren't part of it.

If you'd like to be updated on patent issues affecting free software and open source, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.

The 'Patent Absurdity' movie: well-meant but ineffectual

Several of the people with whom I fought against a proposed European law on software patents a few years back have recently mentioned the new "Patent Absurdity" movie, a 30-minute production trying to make the case against software patents for a broader audience. So I took a look. My take: it's certainly well-meant and was probably done under severe budget constraints, but it's not going to change anything for the better, not even on a very small scale.

Web 2.0 campaigning

I regret having to say so because in recent years I saw videos on YouTube covering other information society causes. They were also low-budget and struggled to project complex, abstract issues onto the screen, but some of them seemed more effective than this one. Whenever I saw those, I felt that anti-software-patent activism had failed to embrace Web 2.0 techniques. When I did my campaign, we didn't have YouTube (it was just founded when the EU process on software patents was already in the home stretch) nor Twitter (founded years later). We clearly operated in a Web 1.0 world.

About a year ago there was a demonstration in Munich against patents on animals and plants (euphemistically labeled "biotechnological inventions") and Richard Stallman gave a speech, translated to German by Hartmut Pilch, trying hard to make the case that software patents are just as undesirable as animal and plant patents and that even farmers should care about them. The speech was filmed and uploaded to YouTube (part 1, part 2). While I'm not sure the farmers really ended up caring about software patents as much as about patents affecting their own trade, that recorded speech is actually a better piece of video against software patents than "Patent Absurdity". Especially if one added the animation at the end of "Patent Absurdity" (showing a musical composition falling apart due to patents) to that video. That final part is far better than the rest of "Patent Absurdity".

Trying to achieve the impossible

The biggest problem of the "Patent Absurdity" project is that the makers of the movie tried to achieve the impossible: to explain the issue of software patents to a broader audience in an understandable, convincing format.

I have my own experience with that and it's sobering. When fighting against a proposal for European software patent legislation, we had to try to explain the issue to politicians all the time. Of all the politicians I met, only one had a computer science degree and professional experience in that field (Ulrich Kelber, now a vice chairman of the social democratic group in the German federal parliament). I never even tried to get an appointment with Angela Merkel, now the German federal chancellor. It is known that she, a scientist, did a certain amount of programming in the 1980s. But the largest professional group among politicians are definitely lawyers (and 99% of their advisers), probably followed by teachers, and I think there are still considerably more farmers among them than programmers.

None of us software patent critics ever managed to make a non-programmer really understand the issue the way we can understand it. It's just not possible. If someone tried to explain to me the beauty of a Chinese poem, how would I, not speaking a word of Chinese, be able to understand? Theoretically I might: if I learned Chinese to fluency (an effort that would take years) and then looked at the poem and got an explanation. With software patents it's quite similar.

Abolitionism and line-drawing

In order to do away with software patents, there would be two political approaches. One is to demand a far-reaching or even complete abolition of the entire patent system. "Patent Absurdity" contains a couple of statements that can be interpreted as that kind of a demand, and a variety of critical remarks that are not specific to software patents. However, complete abolition is unrealistic. That system is hundreds of years old, influential, and resilient. The average citizen isn't going to support abolitionism because most people still believe (right or wrong) that a patent is fundamentally a good thing.

The other approach is to accept patents in general but to try to exclude software from the scope of patentable subject matter. That's the line-drawing approach. That's exactly what the European Parliament tried to do in the legislative process we had over here, and the Bilski case (the context in which "Patent Absurdity" was made) could result in a US Supreme Court decision to that effect.

Much of "Patent Absurdity" indeed seems to advocate line-drawing, though not very clearly. The makers apparently wanted it to be just about informing people, not about voicing explicit demands. But I believe it's not very realistic in a political context to talk about a problem without proposing a practical solution. By failing to do the latter, "Patent Absurdity" doesn't end up being "all things to all people". It's more like being "nothing to anybody".

A matter of trust

Does it represent a diversity of opinions? Not really.

The two guys in the beginning who defend a software and business method patent don't give real representation to the proponents of those kinds of patents, such as big industry.

Then there are the critics, who get most of the speaking time. Some of those are absolutely sincere critics of software patents: RMS (who has been fighting against them since 1990), Jim Bessen (with whom I was on a discussion panel in Brussels years ago), Ciarán O'Riordan (whom I saw on a couple of occasions during the fight against software patents; however, I may feel forced to criticize the FSFE's approach to interoperability at some later point in time). I also do have the feeling that Ben Klemens is sincere about his opposition (I read an excerpt from his book "Math You Can't Use"), and of all the lawyers in the movie (some of whom I never met), the one I would place by far and away most trust in is Dan Ravicher. But I can't vouch for anyone else I know in the organizations he works for.

In the movie I spotted a lawyer who tried to keep the European software patent proposal alive when we had already defeated it. I published proof of that a few years ago and it's probably still somewhere on the Internet. Since he doesn't say anything really new in the movie, there's no need to bring up that story from five years ago until he does negative things in the software patent context again. There's also at least one other person who has shown a greater interest in benefitting from the software patent system than in bringing about change.

So what's the point?

I guess they wouldn't even have been able to agree among that kind of group on what they'd like to see happen. But then, what's the point? Education won't work without getting people to learn programming. A proposal for the future or call to action is not made. And why in the world would anyone spend 30 minutes watching a video that is neither exciting nor entertaining, and not even particularly enlightening? I can't see that.

I regret having had to say all of the above and I can only hope that someone else will do something better at some time, maybe with a more realistic goal, maybe with a bigger budget. But realistically, software patents won't go away until the call for abolition is supported by some of the major players in the industry. Theoretically it could also work with small and medium-sized businesses but in my experience that just doesn't work because those SMEs who oppose software patents don't want to spend any significant amount of time and money on it. As long as it looks to politicians like mostly a cause for the FOSS community without major economic interests behind it, it's hard to see how change could be brought about. Watching "Patent Absurdity" just reaffirms that view. Unfortunately.

If you'd like to be updated on patent issues affecting free software and open source, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.