__/ [ Ian Hilliard ] on Saturday 13 January 2007 16:29 \__
> [H]omer wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about copyrights, patents, and DRM issue quite a
>> bit recently, esp. WRT the diametrically opposed views of the FOSS
>> crowd Vs the CS crowd.
>>
>> First the arguments for the above "protections":
>>
>> Take the case of a man who makes his living writing software. He has
>> no skills other than software engineering, much less any interest in
>> pursuing other vocations. He earns a decent living contracting, but
>> grows weary of the endless database and "babysitting" jobs he's hired
>> to do, esp. when said babysitting jobs are essentially just training a
>> replacement.
>>
>> He'd love to break out of the contracts prison, and go independent,
>> and he has a couple of good ideas that he thinks have potential. So he
>> begins a case study, a bit of market research, and starts a conceptual
>> design.
>>
>> Two years later, having lived very frugally on occasional short-term
>> contracts, and dedicated most of his time to his pet project, it is
>> finally ready. It's a classic; a "killer" app., no question. It also
>> incorporates many ideas, concepts and implementations that he believes
>> are unique in the industry.
>>
>> Because he's a small start-up, with virtually zero resources, he
>> realises that in order for him to make a success of this software, and
>> make a decent living, he will need to:
>>
>> 1. Sell under commercial license, to prevent other's from undercutting
>> him with his own software.
>>
>> 2. Patent his ideas, to prevent others from reimplementing them;
>> potentially having the same effect as 1. above.
>>
>> 3. Protect his software from crackers and pirates, to prevent losing
>> sales. For this, he has decided to use the hardware-assisted NGSCB
>> mechanisms tied into Windows Vista, since he believes this to be
>> the most effective available.
>>
>> Upon release, his software is an instant success, rapidly garnering
>> support and sales. However, not everything smells sweet in the garden;
>> a contingent of FOSS advocates starts protesting against his software
>> on the following basis:
>>
>> 1. His application produces data files of a closed, proprietary format
>> (part of his invention), and thus prevents others from using those
>> data files in other applications, and on other platforms, unless
>> they are granted permission, sign an NDA, and buy a prohibitively
>> expensive commercial developers licence.
>>
>> 2. These data files are further protected by DRM encryption, making
>> reverse engineering difficult, if not impossible, and also illegal
>> under the DMCA. The application itself is also protected against
>> tampering, using the NGSCB framework, further inhibiting the
>> reverse engineering which would lead to interoperability.
>>
>> 3. By not offering an unencumbered, copyleft version of the software,
>> and by not using open standards, the developer is inhibiting
>> adoption of his technology throughout different sectors of the
>> industry, by tying users to one application on one platform. This
>> combined with copyright incompatibilities, patents, and DRM
>> restrictions, makes supporting his technology virtually impossible,
>> in those sectors.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, the reality is somewhat different. A little one man company
> can no longer write a killer apt and expect to get a market with it.
>
> 1) The corporations with deep pockets have rules that require that any
> company that supplies programs must be of a certain size or they must be
> able to take ownership of the program.
>
> 2) If the software starts to sell well, the programmer will be made an
> offer to sell the program to one of the large players in the industry. The
> price will probably be much less that it should be.
>
> 3) If the programmer does not sell, he will be so wrapped up in court cases
> and red tape that he will go broke. Once he goes broke, the IP for the
> program will be purchased by one of the big boys at fire-sale prices.
>
> There is no level playing field in the software development industry. This
> is one reason why so many packages have been released under the GPL. At
> least under this license the programmer will be able to earn money doing
> further development of the package.
>
> The days where a lone programmer could take over the world have long since
> gone, if they ever existed.
I'm not sure these days ever existed. One person could bring up a company
through expansion (look at Google), but what tends to happen these days
involves a sole programmer with an idea that's being absobred by a giant
with resources. The luckier startups can attract venture capitals, but as
the whole Web 2.0 bubble teaches us, giants soon catch up, imitate
(sometimes patent) and then take over the market. Remember the recent Blake
Ross whine about Google? If you search Google for 'calendar' you'd get their
own product at the top... and it's by design. Google quickly changed this
because people yelled "do know evil?".
--
~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | "All your archives are (sic) belong to Google"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
12:05pm up 87 days 22:19, 7 users, load average: 0.16, 0.47, 0.75
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
