Thank you for a great week
Thanks for the good comments on the last post. I definitely get questions here that I don't usually hear on the campaign trail!
There was an interesting back-and-forth over whether changes in the drug approval process would discourage innovation. Of course nobody wants that to happen. But for a long time now, we’ve seen drug companies too focused on profiting not from genuine innovation, but from games with patents and FDA filings. There are similar concerns about the growing emphasis on so-called "me-too" drugs, which provide fewer benefits than breakthrough drugs. We want lower drug prices AND more innovation--and I know the right set of reforms can get us there.
I'd like to close by touching on a different IP issue. Besides ensuring a fair balance in intellectual property law, we also need to have a level playing field for different kinds of innovations. That level playing field is at issue in the current competition between proprietary licensing and open source IP protection. My view here is simple: the government should not favor one means of IP protection over another. People should be free to make choices for themselves. Software businesses using proprietary licensing and open source each have a big presence in my home state, and I am proud of both. We should continue to support an environment where companies and individuals can freely choose whether to use open source, proprietary licensing, or another mode of intellectual property protection that someone will invent someday in the future. When a government official stepped forward and opposed an international forum on open source, that was a mistake--just as it would be a mistake to oppose a discussion of proprietary licensing. As I said, the role of government is to establish a level playing field, not pick a winner.
I've really enjoyed the opportunity to blog with all of you about the future of technology and the future of our country. I know I haven't answered every question, but I will continue to work hard on the topics you all have raised here over the last week. The time here has been a big help. I’ll be watching the comments here, and soon I'll continue this discussion on my blog, at blog.johnedwards2004.com. Hope to hear from you there. Thanks again to Larry Lessig, and to all of you who have written in or read.
Comments (11)
Umm.. Doesn't open source software mean there is no IP protection? IP "protection" means preventing your IP from being disclosed to competitors, or to anyone. Open source is just that, open, and anyone can use it. It doesn't need protection because it's open. Or am I wrong?
Brett, that is a common misconception about open source software. However, open source software still is distributed under a license that must be agreed to. The current legal battle going on between Linux (see http://kt.tux.org/kernel-traffic/kt20031024_235.html#8 for more on this), where a company is redistributing Linux and ignoring the license, is a perfect example of that. If I was redistributing Windows for free, everyone would understand Microsoft becoming upset; yet Linksys, however, appears to think they can ignore some software licenses if they choose.
(See also Prof. Lessig's work on the Creative Commons to see a variety of "open" licences that place a variety of restrictions on their redistribution.)
Senator Edwards' comments about "choice" alarmingly resemble the lobbying group for "Software Choice" (http://www.softwarechoice.org/), which is paid for by proprietary vendors. I hope we all keep in mind that it is impossible for there to be a "level playing field" between two fundamentally different models-- as there is neither a way for open source to pay for lobbyists, nor a way for industry to compete on price terms with something given away for free-- and that any attempts to create fairness must keep both sides' limitations in mind.
Edwards is saying that he disagrees with the government's efforts to favor proprietary licensing over open source, including the ridiculous comments of the USPTO on the WIPO meeting, which Professor Lessig and others here did such a good job dismantling. With the support for open source--as with his support for reform of patent laws, the protection of the net's freedoms, and for Wi-Fi--Edwards is staking out positions that no other candidate has taken, at least as far as I know.
The SCO group has sued IBM for $3 billion and they are claming that the GPL (General Public License) is unconstitutional. They are also claming that the open source development model is flawed and leads to IP violations.
(The GPL is one of the most widely used Open Source software licenses.)
What are your thought about this?
Do you think it should be legal for me as a US citizens to write open source software?
I wouldn't take the SCO's arguements as genuine value-driven objections...they're in it strictly for the money they hope to take from everyone in the open-source community.
Open-source software is a beautiful thing, the perfect example of how in this age, a few dedicated people can give something tangible and extremely useful to the entire world, for free. The only catch: you have to keep it free by publishing the code for any modified version you publish. Very easy, but that is basically the GPL.
From theWashington Post:
Senator Edwards: You cannot claim ignorance of the issue. You, sir, are a despicable coward.
I agree with Sen. Edwards that government should not mandate one type of software over another when it comes to federal, state, or local governments choosing software.
That said, I hope that governments choose open-source software whenever possible. Open-Source ('Free') software is the only way to validate 'what you see is what you get'. I'm not too worried about the future - I think the advantages of Free software are so great and so easily discernible that it is just a question of time until it permeates most levels of government.
Ned, I don't think this is necessarily the case. I think that Senator Edwards is simply participating in a game in which the levels of complexity and convolusion are above your ability to understand them (this statement is not intended as an insult in any way). Our presidential elections are far from ideal. You are not always allowed to take sides on controversial issues. I, personally, am of the belief that many candidates must take care to suppress their actual beliefs thoughout the duration of an electoral race. Because some of those beliefs, as honest and/or commendable as they may be, are simply not acceptible to some people.
I think every reasonably intelligent man or woman out there has strong views on certain things. Believing strongly in something implies in a person a certain seriousness about life and being which can only be gained from increased levels of understanding and insight. Unfortunately, not everyone has the luxury of truly expressing this seriousness overtly. I think Senator Edwards is one of those people.
Ned Ulbricht - You sir, are an overreacting blowhard.
So he didn't get tou your question. So keep asking it. Don't be a prick.
Ignorant I may be.
I understand that young American men and women are taking casualties
in an effort that they are being told is to bring democracy to Iraq.
I also understand that my home county's elections director was sacked
a couple months ago over this issue. I understand that I have no
assurance that my vote a few days ago was counted. I further
understand that others around the nation are rightfully fearful that
their votes will not be counted.
I fail to understand how someone who swore an oath to defend the
United States, as I believe Senators still do, can place his personal
ambition to be president ahead of a clear moral duty to speak when a
cornerstone of our American experiment--the right to fairly elected
representation--faces danger.