path: root/doc/freedom.texi

@c Copyright (C) 1992 Karl Berry.
@c For copying conditions, see the file copying.texi.

@node Freedom, Index, Copying, Top
@appendix Regain your programming freedom

@cindex freedom, programming
Until a few years ago, programmers in the United States could write any
program they wished.  This freedom has now been taken away by two
developments: software patents, which grant the patent holder an
absolute monopoly on some programming technique, and user interface
copyright, which forbid compatible implementations of an existing user
interface.

In Europe, especially through the GATT treaty, things are rapidly
approaching the same pass.

@menu
* Software patents::            Algorithm monopolies.
* User interface copyright::    Forbidding upward-compatibility.
* What to do?::                 What to do?
@end menu


@node Software patents, User interface copyright,  , Freedom
@section Software patents

@cindex patents, software
@cindex software patents

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted numerous software
patents on software techniques.  Patents are an absolute
monopoly---independent reinvention is precluded.  This monopoly lasts
for seventeen years, i.e., forever (with respect to computer science).

One patent relevant to @TeX{} is patent 4,956,809, issued to the Mark
Williams company on September 11, 1990, applied for in 1982, which
covers (among other things)
@quotation
representing in a standardized order
consisting of a standard binary structure file stored on auxiliary
memory or transported on a communications means, said standardized
order being different from a different order used on at least one
of the different computers;

Converting in each of the different computers binary data read from an
auxiliary data storage or communications means from the standardized
order to the natural order of the respective host computer after said
binary data are read from said auxiliary data storage or
communications means and before said binary data are used by the
respective host computer; and

Converting in each of the different computers binary data written into
auxiliary data storage or communications means from the natural order
of the respective host computer to the standardized order prior to
said writing.
@end quotation

@noindent @dots{} in other words, storing data on disk in
a machine-independent order, as the DVI, TFM, GF, and PK file formats
specify.  Even though @TeX{} is ``prior art'' in this respect, the
patent was granted (the patent examiners not being computer scientists,
even less computer typographers).  Since there is a strong presumption
in the courts of a patent's validity once it has been granted, there is
a good chance that users or implementors of @TeX{} could be successfully
sued on the issue.

As another example, the X window system, which was intended to be able
to be used freely by everyone, is now being threatened by two patents:
4,197,590 on the use of exclusive-or to redraw cursors, held by Cadtrak,
a litigation company (this has been upheld twice in court); and
4,555,775, held by AT&T, on the use of backing store to redraw windows
quickly.

Here is one excerpt from a recent mailing by the League for Programming
Freedom (@pxref{What to do?}) which I feel sums up the situation rather
well.  It comes from an article in @cite{Think} magazine, issue #5,
1990.  The comments after the quote were written by Richard Stallman.

@quotation
    ``You get value from patents in two ways,'' says Roger Smith, IBM
    Assistant General Counsel, intellectual property law.  ``Through fees,
    and through licensing negotiations that give IBM access to other
    patents.

    ``The IBM patent portfolio gains us the freedom to do what we need to
    do through cross-licensing---it gives us access to the inventions of
    others that are the key to rapid innovation.  Access is far more
    valuable to IBM than the fees it receives from its 9,000 active
    patents.  There's no direct calculation of this value, but it's many
    times larger than the fee income, perhaps an order of magnitude
    larger.''
@end quotation

This information should dispel the belief that the patent system will
``protect'' a small software developer from competition from IBM.  IBM
can always find patents in its collection which the small developer is
infringing, and thus obtain a cross-license.

However, the patent system does cause trouble for the smaller
companies which, like IBM, need access to patented techniques in order
to do useful work in software.  Unlike IBM, the smaller companies do
not have 9,000 patents and cannot usually get a cross-license.  No
matter how hard they try, they cannot have enough patents to do this.

Only the elimination of patents from the software field can enable
most software developers to continue with their work.

The value IBM gets from cross-licensing is a measure of the amount of
harm that the patent system would do to IBM if IBM could not avoid it.
IBM's estimate is that the trouble could easily be ten times the good
one can expect from one's own patents---even for a company with 9,000
of them.


@node User interface copyright, What to do?, Software patents, Freedom
@section User interface copyright

@cindex rms
@cindex user interface copyright
@cindex interface copyright
(This section is copied from the GCC manual, by Richard Stallman.)

@quotation
@i{This section is a political message from the League for Programming
Freedom to the users of the GNU font utilities.  It is included here as
an expression of support for the League on my part.}
@end quotation

Apple, Lotus and Xerox are trying to create a new form of
legal monopoly: a copyright on a class of user interfaces.  These
monopolies would cause serious problems for users and developers of
computer software and systems.

Until a few years ago, the law seemed clear: no one could restrict
others from using a user interface; programmers were free to implement
any interface they chose.  Imitating interfaces, sometimes with changes,
was standard practice in the computer field.  The interfaces we know
evolved gradually in this way; for example, the Macintosh user interface
drew ideas from the Xerox interface, which in turn drew on work done at
Stanford and SRI.  1-2-3 imitated VisiCalc, and dBase imitated a
database program from JPL.

Most computer companies, and nearly all computer users, were happy with
this state of affairs.  The companies that are suing say it does not
offer ``enough incentive'' to develop their products, but they must have
considered it ``enough'' when they made their decision to do so.  It
seems they are not satisfied with the opportunity to continue to compete
in the marketplace---not even with a head start.

If Xerox, Lotus, and Apple are permitted to make law through
the courts, the precedent will hobble the software industry:

@itemize @bullet
@item
Gratuitous incompatibilities will burden users.  Imagine if each
car manufacturer had to arrange the pedals in a different order.

@item
Software will become and remain more expensive.  Users will be
``locked in'' to proprietary interfaces, for which there is no real
competition.

@item
Large companies have an unfair advantage wherever lawsuits become
commonplace.  Since they can easily afford to sue, they can intimidate
small companies with threats even when they don't really have a case.

@item
User interface improvements will come slower, since incremental
evolution through creative imitation will no longer be permitted.

@item
Even Apple, etc., will find it harder to make improvements if
they can no longer adapt the good ideas that others introduce, for
fear of weakening their own legal positions.  Some users suggest that
this stagnation may already have started.

@item
If you use GNU software, you might find it of some concern that user
interface copyright will make it hard for the Free Software Foundation
to develop programs compatible with the interfaces that you already
know.
@end itemize


@node What to do?,  , User interface copyright, Freedom
@section What to do?

(This section is copied from the GCC manual, by Richard Stallman.)

To protect our freedom from lawsuits like these, a group of programmers
and users have formed a new grass-roots political organization, the
League for Programming Freedom.

The purpose of the League is to oppose new monopolistic practices such
as user-interface copyright and software patents; it calls for a return
to the legal policies of the recent past, in which these practices were
not allowed.  The League is not concerned with free software as an
issue, and not affiliated with the Free Software Foundation.

The League's membership rolls include John McCarthy, inventor of Lisp,
Marvin Minsky, founder of the Artificial Intelligence lab, Guy L.
Steele, Jr., author of well-known books on Lisp and C, as well as
Richard Stallman, the developer of GNU CC.  Please join and add your
name to the list.  Membership dues in the League are $42 per year for
programmers, managers and professionals; $10.50 for students; $21 for
others.

The League needs both activist members and members who only pay their
dues.

To join, or for more information, phone (617) 492-0023 or write to:

@display
League for Programming Freedom
1 Kendall Square #143
P.O. Box 9171
Cambridge, MA 02139
@end display

You can also send electronic mail to @code{league@@prep.ai.mit.edu}.

Here are some suggestions from the League for things you can do to
protect your freedom to write programs:

@itemize @bullet
@item
Don't buy from Xerox, Lotus or Apple.  Buy from their competitors or
from the defendants they are suing.

@item
Don't develop software to work with the systems made by these companies.

@item
Port your existing software to competing systems, so that you encourage
users to switch.

@item
Write letters to company presidents to let them know their conduct
is unacceptable.

@item
Tell your friends and colleagues about this issue and how it threatens
to ruin the computer industry.

@item
Above all, don't work for the look-and-feel plaintiffs, and don't
accept contracts from them.

@item
Write to Congress to explain the importance of this issue.

@display
House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
2137 Rayburn Bldg
Washington, DC 20515

Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
@end display

(These committees have received lots of mail already; let's give them
even more.)
@end itemize

Express your opinion!  You can make a difference.