[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ipr-ict] Hallo, and some thoughts

[ ENGLISH - see below for French translation]

Dear Chavoux:

Thanks for your contribution. You and other participants raise the issue of FOSS in the context of IPR. I agree that FOSS is an interesting example that is changing the way we look at the relationship between innovation and intellectual property rights.

You might like to hear that we have scheduled FOSS as one of the topics for Week 3 (3-9 August), when we intend to look at this in more detail.

Meanwhile, a recent article on this topic that I found interesting:

http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,1837245,00.asp

<snip>

But the real issue is the challenge open source presents to intellectual property rights.

Exactly. We don't know yet to what degree these closely held innovation processes might work better if increasing elements of the underlying infrastructure were a little bit commoditized, as in an open-source environment. But I can give you one example that friends of mine who work in the biotechnology industry would cite on the downside of holding lots of this stuff in proprietary IP rights.

They call it "the tragedy of the anti-commons." Let's say I'm a researcher working at a small biotech firm here in the Bay Area. And I think there's something interesting I would like to do with a particular molecule and its interaction with a particular gene. Much of this stuff is now patented, and there are so many competing patent claims on so many different parts of the things I would need to work on, that the cost of actually figuring out what permissions I need are astronomical. So lots of small companies simply can't work on it.

They call it the tragedy of the anti-commons in the sense that in order to work on this, they've got to get a permission to use this molecule and a license to play with this gene. That's just too expensive, so they walk away from it.

</snip>


[FRENCH TRANSLATION - bablefish.altavista.com]

Cher Chavoux :

Merci pour votre contribution. Vous et d'autres contribuants soulevez la question de FOSS dans le contexte d'IPR. Je crois que l'exemple de FOSS change la manière que nous regardons le rapport les droites entre l'innovation et propriété intellectuelle. Vous pourriez aimer entendre que nous avons programmé FOSS en tant qu'une des matières pour la semaine 3 (3-9 août), quand nous avons l'intention de regarder ceci en plus détail.

En attendant, un article récent sur cette matière que j'ai trouvé intéresser :

http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,1837245,00.asp

<snip>

Mais la vraie issue est les présenux ouverts de source de défi vers des droites de propriété intellectuelle.

Exactement. Nous ne savons pas encore à quel degré que ceux-ci ont étroitement tenu des processus d'innovation pourrait travailler mieux si les éléments croissants de l'infrastructure fondamentale étaient commoditized un peu, comme dans un environnement d'open source. Mais je peux vous donner un exemple que les amis à moi qui travaillent dans l'industrie de biotechnologie citeraient en baisse de tenir un bon nombre de cette substance dans des droites de propriété industrielle d'IP.

Ils l'appellent "la tragédie des anti-commons." Disons-moi suis un chercheur travaillant à une petite société biotechnologique ici dans la région de compartiment. Et je pense qu'il y a quelque chose intéressant que je voudrais faire avec une molécule particulière et son interaction avec un gène particulier. Beaucoup de cette substance est maintenant faite breveter, et il y a ainsi beaucoup des réclamations de concurrence de brevet sur ainsi beaucoup de différentes parties des choses que je devrais travailler dessus, qui le coût de figurer réellement hors de quelles permissions j'ai besoin sont astronomique. Ainsi un bon nombre de petites compagnies simplement ne peuvent pas travailler à lui.

Ils l'appellent la tragédie des anti-commons dans le sens qu'afin de travailler à ceci, ils doivent pour obtenir une permission d'employer cette molécule et un permis de jouer avec ce gène. C'est trop cher simplement, ainsi ils marchent loin de lui.

</snip>


On 26 Jul 2005, at 12:22 PM, Chavoux Luyt wrote:

Hi every-one

I'm a software developer and student in South Africa. Only found out
about this debate a bit late so I missed most of the first week's
session (quickly scanned the archives) .

Since Africa for the most part doesn't have a coherent/enforced IPC
policy, maybe we should take the lead. Most of the developed countries
are saddled with legacy laws that doesn't fit very well with the
information age. We can mostly start from scratch in Africa and maybe
get a system in place that are better fitted.

I was quite impressed with the article on IP in the information era:
http://selenasol.com/selena/personal/prose/ip_in_info_era.html

Some principles/ideas I'd like to propose for discussion:
1. Software should at most be copyrighted, not patented. Patents,
especially the half-baked patents allowed in the US and Europe, tie
the hands of software developers. It forces people to re-invent the
wheel instead of using the wheel to invent new cars. In addition, the
fact that the independant re-developement of a patented idea is not
allowed, makes it a bad idea.

2. If source code is not open, software (IP) should be treated as a
Trade Secret rather than patented. It will thus be the responsibility
of the creating company (using NDA's and other legal contracts) to
keep their IP out of the public domain if they wish to. This might
still legalize reverse engineering (which is in many ways just as
difficult a task (if not more difficult) than writing the software in
the first place.) For simple straightforward solutions, reverse
engineering becomes worthwhile and they will become common knowledge;
whereas solutions that was truly innovative will mostly be too hard to
be worthwhile reverse engineering.

3. In the infomation age, we are in many ways back at the stage before
the printing press and IP legislation, where everybody can make there
own copy of information and add on to it without explicit premission.
Although powerfull lobbies in the "developed" world try to prevent
this, they will at some stage have to accept it. In this new era,
forbidding plagiarism will need to be more strictly enforced, rather
than trying to forbid copies being made.

4. The whole registration process of IP should be cheaper, faster, and
more stringent. I whould propose something similar to the peer review
process found in the academic world. Any new invention should be
submitted to a number of independent experts in that specific field
(under a NDA) and only when they accept it as being novel, should the
application go through to a registration office where it can be
recorded and made publicly available to who-ever wants to use it (as
long as they pay the original inventor). Applications that are found
to be trivial should be recorded as such and also made available as
being in the public domain. The process of peer review will take most
of the time, whereas the actual registration should be fast en cheap.
This will prevent rich companies from submitting trivial "patents"
while good inventions by poor inventors are not patented.

5. On the other hand, Africa is still part of the global economy. It
will be important to get at least the US and Europe to accept IP
(patents and copyrights) registered in Africa. It should not be
necessary for an African inventor to patent his invention in the UK as
well as in the US if he has already patented it in Africa.

6. How are we going to implement all of this? I'm not sure, but maybe
this discussion is the first step in the right direction.

Regards
Chavoux Luyt
_______________________________________________
Ipr-ict mailing list
Ipr-ict@cipaco.org
http://mailman.cipaco.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ipr-ict