The FSF in the United Kingdoms

Alex Hudson | 6 Dec 14:08

Gowers

I haven't seen the full thing yet, but they're releasing some of the
ancilliary reports:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowersreview_index.cfm

The one on copyright extension for audio works is available, which I'm
guessing is what people got an early peek at.

The economic analysis of the copyright system looks particularly
rigorous, on both the part of the report writers and
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, who did a report for the BPI. Telling is this
quote, pp32:

        "Thus, according to the PwC report, retrospective term
        extensions will deliver a maximum 1.9% increase in the present
        value of revenue from existing recordings"

So much for Cliff Richard's pension plan - 2% is a modest increase in
anyone's language.

They also estimate the prospective increase in revenue due to term
extension to be less than 1%!

The reciprocity argument ("we should do the same as others") is also
shot down:

        "[The US and Australia are our main markets, and copyright is
        already extended their - our actions will make not difference in
        those cases]
        "Only India, Honduras and Guatemala apply 'comparison of terms'
        and if we (generously) assume that British recordings account
        for half the international repertoire, the trade benefit from an
        increase in the copyright term is unlikely to be substantial
        (some portion of
        $17 million)."

And finally, cost to the consumer:

        "Taking the upper bounds for producer gains determined in
        previous sections, this implies consumer costs of between 240
        and 480 million pounds from retrospective term extensions."

Having only briefly read this, it does seem to be a stunning critique on
the general arguments for extension of intellectual property.

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Alex Hudson | 6 Dec 14:34

Re: Gowers

On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 13:08 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> I haven't seen the full thing yet

I have now :D

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pre_budget_report/prebud_pbr06/other_docs/prebud_pbr06_odgowers.cfm

For:
* introduction of private copying right for format-shifting (could
this be DRM-busting? wouldn't be retrospective, see points
below)
* unlocking of 'orphan works'
* no change on audio copyright term length
* adopt principle of no retrospective changes to IP law
* broader rights for libraries
* new exception in copyright for parodies
* "Maintain policy of not extending patent rights beyond their
present limits within the areas of software, business methods
and genes." - this is an important principle!!
* Says vague things about patent quality
* Accelerated grant process for patents
* Says vague things about IP and competitiveness

Against:
* Support for the community patent idea to reduce costs of IP
litigation. COMPAT isn't a bad idea per se, but that is seen as
a back-door route to software patents again
* Stronger penalties associated with IP infringement? Whether this
is actually bad depends on the implementation I suspect.
* Lots about sending the lawyers to Africa to educate the poor
people about TRIPS. Hooray for civilised white men.
* ISPs making data available to rights holders to get the pirates

Unsure:
* voluntary copyright register - UKPO gets more work to do :/
* Investiation of DRM labelling system. Eh.
* "Open standards" web database - I don't totally understand this
proposal. Seems to be about patents.
* New EU court to mediate cross-border IP infringement
* Secondment for IP policy staff at UKPO
* UKPO becomes UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO)

On balance, not really that much to shout about, some things to be
displeased about, but some of the principles it propounds look pretty
good.

Cheers,

Alex.

headers

Alex Hudson | 6 Dec 15:07

Re: Gowers (on software patents)

I think it's worth expanding on:

*

>       * "Maintain policy of not extending patent rights beyond their
>         present limits within the areas of software, business methods
>         and genes." - this is an important principle!!

The report says this, in detail:

4.114    There have been calls in the UK to introduce pure computer
software patents to ensure that innovation is properly protected and
encouraged. In Europe, patents are not granted for computer programs as
such, but patents have been granted to computer-based innovations
provided they have a technical effect. In the USA, pure computer
software patents can be granted. The evidence on the success of pure
computer software patents is mixed. The software industry in the USA
grew exponentially without pure software patents, suggesting they are
not necessary to promote innovation. The evidence suggests software
patents are used strategically; that is, to prevent competitors from
developing in a similar field, rather than to incentivise innovation.

4.115 In addition to the concerns that increased protection does not
increase incentives, some have commented that pure software patents do
not meet the criteria for patentability. The most profound problem with
using patent law to protect software is that innovation in the field is
usually accomplished in increments too small to be viewed as inventive
steps. Several submissions to the Call for Evidence, for example the
Professional Contractors Group’s submission, argued that software should
not be patentable in principle. Where freelance businesses develop
software, they rely on copyright to protect it. This protection is free
and automatic. The copying of as little as 1.7 per cent of a program’s
code has in the past been found to be infringement of copyright.

4.116    Introducing pure software patents could raise the costs for
small software developers to mitigate against risks surrounding R&D,
thereby inflating the capital needs of software development. Sun
Microsystems argued that without exceptions that allowed for reverse
engineering for interoperability, pure software patents could stifle
competition.

4.117    Last year, the European Parliament rejected the Computer
Implemented Inventions Directive, but this issue has been raised again.
The economic evidence suggests that such patents have done little to
raise incentives to innovate, and other evidence suggests that the
introduction of such patents will have a chilling effect on innovation.
In the absence of such evidence, a new right for pure software patents
should not be introduced, and so the scope of patentability should not
be extended to cover computer programs as such.

Cheers,

Alex.