From the Bytes for All list
==========================================
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:05:06 +0200
From: "Darius Cuplinskas" <cuplinsk@OSI.HU>
Subject: Lawrence Lessig on US-WIPO conflict over open source
the extremists in power
Lawrence Lessig
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml
I don't even know how to begin this story, so stupid and extreme it is.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was convinced by Jamie
Love and others to hold a meeting about "open collaborative models to
develop public goods." One of those models is, of course, open source and
free software. Lobbyists for Microsoft and others apparently (according to
this extraordinary story by Jonathan Krim
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html>)
started lobbying the US government to get the meeting cancelled. No surprise
there.
Open source and free software is a competitor to MSFT's products.
Lobbying is increasingly the way competition is waged in America.
But the astonishing part is the justification for the US opposing the
meeting. According to the Post, Lois Boland, director of international
relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said "that open-source
software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote
intellectual-property rights." As she is quoted as saying, "To hold a
meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to
us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."
If Lois Boland said this, then she should be asked to resign. The level of
ignorance built into that statement is astonishing, and the idea that a
government official of her level would be so ignorant is an embarrassment.
First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in
intellectual-property rights. It can't exist (and free software can't have
its effect) without it. Second, the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any
government, should be to promote the right balance of
intellectual-property rights, not simply to promote intellectual property
rights. And finally, if an intellectual property right holder wants to
"disclaim" or "waive" her rights, what business is it of WIPOs? Why
should WIPO oppose a copyright or patent rights holder's choice to do
with his or her rights what he or she wants?
These points are basic. They should be fundamental. That someone who
doesn't understand them is at a high level of this government just shows
how extreme IP policy in America has become.
[see also the lively discussion following the post on Lessig's weblog]