# LANGUAGE translation of https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/patent-practice-panel.html # Copyright (C) YEAR Free Software Foundation, Inc. # This file is distributed under the same license as the original article. # FIRST AUTHOR , YEAR. # #, fuzzy msgid "" msgstr "" "Project-Id-Version: patent-practice-panel.html\n" "POT-Creation-Date: 2022-05-31 08:57+0000\n" "PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n" "Last-Translator: FULL NAME \n" "Language-Team: LANGUAGE \n" "Language: \n" "MIME-Version: 1.0\n" "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=CHARSET\n" "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n" #. type: Content of: msgid "" "Daniel Ravicher's FFII panel presentation - GNU Project - Free Software " "Foundation" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><h2> msgid "" "New Developments in Patent Practice: Assessing the Risks and Cost of " "Portfolio Licensing and Hold-ups" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><address> msgid "by Daniel B. Ravicher" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><div><p> msgid "" "This is a transcript of a panel presentation given by Daniel B. Ravicher as " "the executive director of the Public Patent Foundation on Wednesday, " "November 10, 2004, at a conference organized by the Foundation for a Free " "Information Infrastructure (FFII) in Brussels, Belgium. The transcription " "was done by Aendrew Rininsland." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><div><p> msgid "" "The GNU Project agrees with the premise that <a " "href=\"/philosophy/limit-patent-effect.html\">patents on computational ideas " "are bad</a>, but it disagrees with the assumption that nonfree programs are " "morally legitimate competitors." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Thanks. I think, for me, the whole two days of conferences boils to really " "one question, and the whole debate boils down to one question: “How do " "we want success in the software industry to be determined?”" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Or, another way, who do we want to determine those who succeed and those who " "fail in the software industry? Because there are various people who can make " "this decision. We can have bureaucrats make the decision about who wins and " "who fails, or we can let consumers make the decision about who wins and who " "fails. If we want software to succeed because we want it to succeed on its " "merits and be the best software that the public can have, it's more likely " "we want a system that lets consumers and end-users make the decision about " "which software is selected—not bureaucrats." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Now, what does that have to do with patents? The larger you make a patent " "system, the more you allow the patent system to impact software, and the " "more you're allowing success in the software industry to be determined by " "patent-based bureaucrats, those who can take advantage of the bureaucracy " "which grants and resolves disputes regarding patent rights. It's a " "bureaucratic competition, not one based on the decision of consumers. That " "means it's less likely for the merits to be determinative of what software " "succeeds." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "We have to recognize that even without software patents, large developers " "have intrinsic advantages over small developers. Large developers have the " "resources, large developers have the relationships, large developers have " "the distribution channels, large developers have the brand. So even without " "software patents, large developers are still at an advantage—they " "start out at an advantage. Well, then, the next question to me is, “If " "we have software patents, does that increase the advantage of large " "developers or decrease it?” because the patent system could benefit " "small developers and therefore that could erode some of the naturally " "existing benefits that large corporations have." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "I think that point's been belaboured already. We know that small developers " "are not benefited by a patent system, in fact, they are prejudiced by a " "patent system. So, enlarging a patent system to apply to software " "development only enlarges the disadvantage small developers have in " "competition. Again, it comes back: Who do we want to make the decision about " "which software developers succeed, do we want consumers, based on merits and " "functionality and price, or bureaucrats, based on whom patents are granted " "to and who wins patent infringement cases?" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "The other thing we need to recognize is whether or not the patent system has " "a preference for users of certain types of software. A patent system as we " "have in the United States benefits those under a software distribution " "scheme which allows them to charge royalties. This is because all software " "has to deal with the risk of infringing on patents. Patents don't " "discriminate between open-source or freely licensed software and proprietary " "software: a patent covers certain technology, it doesn't matter how the " "software's distributed. But proprietary software is licensed with a fee so " "the cost of that risk can be passed on to the consumer without them " "recognizing it. They don't see it, it's baked into the price of the software " "they're buying and if you were to ask a consumer if they've bought insurance " "against being sued for patent infringement, they would say they don't " "believe that have." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "But in fact they had, because if someone sues a user of Microsoft software, " "Microsoft has built in the cost of stepping in to defend them from that into " "the cost of the license fee. On the other side, if you have royalty-free " "distributed software such as open-source or free software, you can't bake in " "the cost of that risk so it becomes more transparent. And this makes " "consumers or users think that open-source is in a worse position than " "proprietary software when it's actually not. It's just because the " "open-source distribution scheme does not allow someone to sneak in the cost " "of that risk to make it opaque instead of transparent. So the patent system " "not only prefers large developers over small developers, it also prefers " "users of proprietary software over open-source software." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "If we come back to the initial question, which I think this is all about, " "how do we want success in the software market to be determined? Do we want " "it to be determined by these types of factors, or do we want it to be " "determined by who can get the best software at the best price?" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Now, I think it's important to concede the point that people on the other " "side will make, which is, will a less-onerous patent system, or they would " "call it a “less-beneficial” patent system, I call it " "less-onerous, will harm their business, because people could copy " "them. Well, large businesses aren't worried about being copied. They really " "aren't. At least not by other large businesses, this is why they enter into " "cross-licenses all the time." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "If a large company really didn't want its software to be copied, why is it " "licensing its patent portfolio to every other big company in the world? " "Because it can't stop them from copying it once they enter into that " "agreement, so this argument that, “Well, we're worried about people " "copying our software,” the most likely people to copy your software " "are other large businesses because they have the resources and the ability " "and the distribution channels and the brand and the relationships. Why are " "you letting them copy it? You must not be that worried about it." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "And so the question is, then, does a patent system have a net-beneficial " "effect or a net-detrimental effect on software development? I think we've " "seen already it only decreases the ability for open-source or royalty-free " "license software to compete with proprietary software. In the end you have " "to ask, is less competition beneficial for the software industry? I don't " "know what Europeans think about that, I think Europeans are very " "pro-competition and I know us on the other side of the Atlantic are very " "pro-competition as well, and so the answer is never less competition is " "better for consumers. And so I think as we bring the point home, if we had " "two seconds in an elevator to pitch this idea to someone, software patents " "have a net-negative effect on competition in the software industry." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "True, they may increase competition in some ways, but the net-effect is " "anti-competitive. And that's what putting the ability to decide success in " "the software industry in the hands of the patent office or in hands of the " "courts does. If you need examples, if people think that's just rhetoric or " "your opinion, just point to the United States. Microsoft is a very " "successful software company, I don't think anyone would debate that. They've " "never had to sue anyone for patent infringement. So they claim they need " "patents, but yet they've never had to use them. They cross-license them and " "that's where we wonder, “If you're worried about people copying, then " "why are you cross-licensing them to people?”" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "You know, the last point is, who else does a patent system benefit? If it " "benefits large developers over small developers, is there anyone else? A " "patent system benefits non-developers. Do we really want a bureaucratic " "system that helps people who aren't adding anything to society? What I mean " "by non-developers are trolls—which everyone here is familiar " "with—people who get a patent either by applying for it or acquiring it " "in some asset purchase and then use it to tax other developers, other " "distributors of a product." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Do we really want a system which encourages people to not add products or " "services to the market place but only detracts from the profits and " "capabilities of those that do?" msgstr "" #. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes. #. type: Content of: <div> msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><div><p> msgid "" "Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a " "href=\"mailto:gnu@gnu.org\"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a " "href=\"/contact/\">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and " "other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a " "href=\"mailto:webmasters@gnu.org\"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>." msgstr "" #. TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, #. replace it with the translation of these two: # #. We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality #. translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. #. Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard #. to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> # #. <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> # #. <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of #. our web pages, see <a #. href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations #. README</a>. #. type: Content of: <div><div><p> msgid "" "Please see the <a " "href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Translations README</a> " "for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this " "article." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "Copyright © 2006 Daniel B. Ravicher" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any " "medium, provided this notice is preserved." msgstr "" #. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits. #. type: Content of: <div><div> msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*" msgstr "" #. timestamp start #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "Updated:" msgstr ""