The farmer, Vernan Bowman, bought official Monsanto seeds and planted his crops. Yet, Monsanto has rules that say you can't re-use "Roundup Ready" seeds, but you can apparently sell "second-generation" seeds to grain elevators for use as "commodity seeds," and doesn't require that there be any restriction on the sale. Bowman later bought a bunch of such "commodity seeds," which included some Roundup Ready seeds, and some that weren't. Bowman was able to determine which of the plants came from Roundup Ready seeds... and then saved those seeds for replanting. Monsanto claimed this was infringement, even though the seeds were legally sold to the grain elevator and then from the elevator to Bowman without restrictions. On top of that, while Bowman had signed an agreement for his original seeds, he did not with this batch (and, indeed, even Monsanto admits he didn't break the user agreement -- just patent infringement for using the seeds).

Simple economics makes clear that, if patent protection for software were curtailed, the adverse consequences would be swift and severe. With less profit to capture from the commercialization of the fruits of research and development, businesses would divert their resources into other ventures, and software development would suffer. That would have a ripple effect on productivity across the entire economy. Advanced software allows factory workers to be more precise, cars more fuel efficient, and healthcare more effective. Any new obstacles to software development would carry a penalizing multiplier effect that could threaten the continued technological advantage of the United States. For these reasons, “[d]iscrimination against a form of innovation that is increasingly critical to technological advancement, indeed that in many areas dominates technological advancement, makes no sense.”

Access Denied (content_filter_denied)

Your request was denied because this URL contains content that is categorized as: "Political/Activist Groups" which is blocked by USPTO policy. If you believe the categorization is inaccurate, please contact the USPTO Service Desk and request a manual review of the URL.

For assistance, contact USPTO OCIO IT Service Desk. (io-proxy4)

"The percentages come from a question in which people were asked if they had ever shared their log-in details for paid services. Some 15% of people in rich countries and 34% in poor countries said they had for personal use. For business use, it was 30% and 45% respectively...Moreover the respondents were only those who had paid for cloud services, which was a fraction of users. Cloud services are generally based on a “freemium” model, whereby basic use costs nothing and a premium version is paid for. According to the BSA's own data, only half of computer users tap cloud services, of which only one-third use it for business, of which two-thirds pay. Of the small subset that remain, the minority share log-ins. This changes things considerably. If the BSA figures were adjusted for all this, the potential piracy figures could be as low as between 2% and 6% of users—as much as 20 times less than the group claims. (The BSA's data is online here.)"

"There are other anomalies. The BSA only considered PC use, when many people use cloud services over tablets and mobile phones, especially in poor places. And the survey, of 14,702 people in 33 countries, presumes to speak with confidence about the “developing” world but not a single African country is represented—an odd omission, since it is a fast growing market."

In short, these BSA claims are a "study" in the same way that snake-handling is a "religion": it isn't.

First, the FBI believes that the APW Seal and accompanying warnings convey important messages to the public and are a significant component of its efforts to deter and to investigate federal crimes involving the piracy of intellectual property. Allowing use by copyright holders who are not members of industry associations will enhance those efforts. Second, although broader access may make unauthorized use more likely, this concern is overshadowed by the value of increasing public awareness of these prohibitions and the FBI’s role in investigating related criminal activity.

Five comments also expressed a concern that the broader accessibility of the APW Seal may have a “chilling effect” on fair use, as some copyright holders may attempt to use the APW Seal to discourage uses of their copyrighted work that would otherwise be permissible under the fair use doctrine. The FBI fully recognizes that fair use, which is authorized under Title 17, United States Code, Section 107, does not constitute infringement, much less a federal crime. The warning language does not suggest otherwise. The FBI intends to address this matter on its public website.

We believe that such measures will be used contrary to the modern advances in technology and the needs of consumers.

Microsoft isn't the only company to embrace Protect IP yet have reservations about SOPA. Tim McKone, AT&T's executive vice president of federal relations, told CNET last week that "we have been supportive of the general framework" of Protect IP. But when it comes to SOPA, all AT&T would say is that it is "working constructively with Chairman Smith and others toward a similar end in the House."

Valid and important questions have been raised about the bill. It is intended to get at the worst of the worst offenders. As it now stands, however, it could sweep in more than just truly egregious actors. To fix this problem, definitions of who can be the subject of legal actions and what remedies are imposed must be tightened and narrowed. Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights cannot be compromised. And the security of networks and communications is indispensable to a thriving Internet economy. Some observers have raised reasonable questions about whether certain SOPA provisions might have unintended consequences in these areas. BSA has long stood against filtering or monitoring the Internet. All of these concerns should be duly considered and addressed.

As the European Union considers changes to its intellectual property rules, it needs to make sure that higher damage payments deter pirates, who often benefit because of insufficient fines, said Warren Weertman, manager of legal affairs for Washington-based Business Software Alliance....

“Lump sum damages would act more as a deterrent than having two actuaries fight it out in a costly court case,” Weertman said in a phone interview from London. “It’s a vicious circle where the damages aren’t deterrent enough.”

In the digital world, it seems, there are two certainties: that every year the Business Software Alliance will put out a report that claims huge amounts of software are being “stolen”; and that the methodology employed by that report is deeply flawed.

So, here we go again:

The commercial value of software piracy grew 14 percent globally last year to a record total of $58.8 billion, according to the 2010 BSA Global Software Piracy Study.

Just six years ago, the commercial value of the PC software that was being pirated in emerging economies accounted for less than a third of the world total. Last year, it accounted for more than half — $31.9 billion.

Notice that immediately we have the phrase “commercial value”; just in case you had any doubts what this might mean, it is explained in the methodology section:

The commercial value of pirated software is the value of unlicensed software installed in a given year, as if it had been sold in the market.

“As if it had been sold in the market”: this is, of course, a meaningless figure. The very reason that people pirate software in developing countries - the main focus of the BSA report - is that they cannot afford Western-level prices. So there is no way that pirated software could ever be converted to sales at those prices - it is economically impossible. Using it as a measure is pure fantasy.

A more sophisticated study would attempt to establish at what price people would actually choose to buy from dealers rather than other sources: then that could be used to calculate a realistic estimate of how much revenue is lost in developing countries. To do that, a good place to start would be the recently-published Media Piracy in Emerging Economies, whose results can be summarised thus:

Based on three years of work by some thirty-five researchers, Media Piracy in Emerging Economies tells two overarching stories: one tracing the explosive growth of piracy as digital technologies became cheap and ubiquitous around the world, and another following the growth of industry lobbies that have reshaped laws and law enforcement around copyright protection. The report argues that these efforts have largely failed, and that the problem of piracy is better conceived as a failure of affordable access to media in legal markets.

Exactly the same forces are at work in the world of software: this is a market failure, not a failure of enforcement.

But even if the BSA report had attempted this more realistic analysis, it would still draw the wrong conclusions from its results. Summarised in a section called rather risibly “Anti-piracy equity” - as if Western holders of intellectual monopolies really cared about “equity” when it came to exploiting developing countries:

Reductions in software piracy produce widespread economic benefits. For example, the BSA-IDC Piracy Impact Study found in 2010 that reducing the global piracy rate for PC software by 10 percentage points — 2.5 points per year for four years — would create $142 billion in new economic activity globally by 2013 while adding nearly 500,000 new high-tech jobs and generating $32 billion in new tax revenues for governments. On average, more than 80 percent of these benefits would accrue to local economies.

I debunked this erroneous argument last year:

One thing that is always omitted in these analyses is the fact that the money not paid for software licences does not disappear, but is almost certainly spent elsewhere in the economy (I doubt whether people are banking all these "savings" that they are not even aware of.) As a result, it too creates jobs, local revenues and taxes.

Put another way, if people had to pay for their unlicensed copies of software, they would need to find the money by reducing their expenditure in other sectors. So in looking at the possible benefit of moving people to licensed copies of software, it is also necessary to take into account the losses that would accrue by eliminating these other economic inputs.

Thus the BSA's hypocritical plea for “equity” - how equitable is it trying to extract a month's wages from someone for a copy of Windows whose marginal cost is close to zero, say? - simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Eradicating piracy won't generate “new economic activity globally”, nor will it generate new tax revenues for governments. Again, as I pointed out last year:

One important factor is that proprietary software is mainly produced by US companies. So moving to licensed software will tend to move profits and jobs out of local, non-US economies.

...

Another factor that would tend to exacerbate these problems is that software has generally had a higher profit margin than most other kinds of goods: this means any switching from buying non-software goods locally to buying licensed copies of software would reduce the amount represented by costs (because the price is fixed and profits are now higher). So even if these were mostly incurred locally, switching from unlicensed to licensed copies would still represent a net loss for the local economy.

Similarly, it is probably the case that those working in the IT industry earn more than those in other sectors of the economy, and so switching a given amount of money from industries with lower pay to IT, with its higher wages, would again reduce the overall number of jobs, not increase them, as the report claims.

So, as expected, this year's BSA report rehashes all its old errors, simply introducing even more unrealistic figures in an attempt to frighten governments into even more disproportionate and unjustified attempts to enforce intellectual monopolies.

But to be fair, the 2010 report does sport one novelty:

this year’s study also adds a new dimension: Deeper and richer surveys of PC users in 32 countries, conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, one of the world’s leading public-opinion research firms.

Here's the context to the first questions:

“The laws that give someone who invents a new product or technology the right to decide how it is sold are called intellectual property rights. Which comes closer to your view...”

Two options were then presented:

“Intellectual property rights benefit people like me by creating jobs and improving the economy.”

or

“Intellectual property rights hurt people like me by making products I need too expensive.”

Notice how this is framed in terms of “rights” - the word is used twice. This is a biased term, of course - it suggests that it is “right” to have that right. But really the question should have been:

“The laws that give someone who invents a new product or technology a monopoly on how it is sold are called intellectual monopoly rights. Which comes closer to your view...”

Similarly, the questions already bias the response by hammering home the idea that these are “rights”. Reframing the questions as

“Intellectual monopolies benefit people like me by creating jobs and improving the economy.”

or

“Intellectual monopnolies hurt people like me by making products I need too expensive.”

might well have produced results less favourable to the report's position. Nonetheless, it's interesting that only 61% thought intellectual monopolies benefitted ordinary people, while 37% thought they harmed them - hardly a resounding vote of confidence.

Another question gave these alternatives:

“Intellectual property rights allow companies to generate profits which in turn benefit local economies.”

or

“Intellectual property rights concentrate wealth in the hands of multinational companies that do not deliver significant local economic benefits.”

Here, there was even more scepticism about the benefits - only 59% agreed with the first, while 40% chose the second option. Imagine what the results would have been had they been phrased thus:

“Intellectual monopolies allow companies to generate profits which in turn benefit local economies.”

or

“Intellectual monopolies concentrate wealth in the hands of multinational companies that do not deliver significant local economic benefits.”

Here's a third set of alternatives:

“It is important for people who invent new products or technologies to be paid for them, because it creates an incentive for people to produce more innovations. That is good for society because it drives technological progress and economic growth.”

or

“No company or individual should be allowed to control a product or technology that could benefit the rest of society. Laws like that limit the free flow of ideas, stifle innovation, and give too much power to too few people.”

Of course, the first question is loaded: who doesn't think that it's important for people who create new products or technologies should be paid for them? No wonder 79% chose this option. But that's not the issue: the issue is whether Western companies can charge unrealistic prices for their products in developing countries - prices that are literally unaffordable by the majority of the population there - and expect them to be enforced by local governments against the interests of their citizens.

Despite the bias of these questions, it is, however, interesting that BSA is trying to bolster its case with this supposed support for monopoly-friendly policies from ordinary citizens. It suggests that it knows that the days of its old approach - claiming implausibly large damage to economies based on flawed methodologies - are numbered, and that it must find an alternative soon. Otherwise we may have to forgo the pleasure of reading those entertaining annual reports...

Cross-posted from Computerworld UK.

The BSA argues that "[m]any of today's most widely-deployed open specifications incorporate patented innovations that were invented by commercial firms...including WiFi, GSM , and MPEG."

This is an attempt to create a false dichotomy between "commercial" companies inventing patented technology, in contrast to "non-commercial" inventions which are not patented. In reality a great wealth of unpatented modern technology originating in commercial companies constitute globally implemented standards (such as HTML5), whilst continuing to provide their creators with revenue. There is no such divide, either economical or ideological, between hardware and software technologies which are patented, and those which are not. Yet the BSA divisively implies there is a difference between conventional and accepted business methods, which they associate with patents, and un-businesslike non-commercial organisations, which they associate with patent-free technology. Given the increasing prevalence of Free Software in Europe's IT service market, such a claim is plainly false.

Ironically, the BSA has discovered one of the few ways to "pirate" open-source software, and is apparently an advocate. The BSA's website apparently runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux clone CentOS. Surely a license-respecting organization like the BSA would want to pay full freight for a RHEL license rather than undermine Red Hat by choosing CentOS? Evidently not.

One thing that is always omitted in these analyses is the fact that the money *not* paid for software licenses does not disappear, but is almost certainly spent elsewhere in the economy (I doubt whether people are banking all these "savings" that they are not even aware of.) As a result, it too creates jobs, local revenues and taxes.

Put another way, if people had to pay for their unlicensed copies of software, they would need to find the money by reducing their expenditure in other sectors. So in looking at the possible benefit of moving people to licensed copies of software, it is also necessary to take into account the *losses* that would accrue by eliminating these other economic inputs.

One important factor is that proprietary software is mainly produced by US companies. So moving to licensed software will tend to move profits and jobs *out* of local, non-US economies. Taxes may be paid on that licensed software, but remember that Microsoft, for example, minimises its tax bill in most European countries by locating its EU headquarters in Ireland, which has a particularly low corporate tax rate....

So in addition to causing money to be taken out of the country (and hence the local economy), licensed software would probably also bring in far less tax than money previously spent on local goods and services, which would generally pay the full local taxes.

Another factor that would tend to exacerbate these problems is that software has generally had a higher profit margin than most other kinds of goods: this means any switching from buying non-software goods locally to buying licensed copies of software would reduce the amount represented by costs (because the price is fixed and profits are now higher). So even if these were mostly incurred locally, switching from unlicensed to licensed copies would still represent a net loss for the local economy.

Similarly, it is probably the case that those working in the IT industry earn more than those in other sectors of the economy, and so switching a given amount of money from industries with lower pay to IT, with its higher wages, would again *reduce* the overall number of jobs, not increase them, as the report claims.

How was the 35 percent rate arrived at? It's a guess, or rather, a combination of guesses combined with some market data and presented as a final authoritative percentage.

South Africa wasn't surveyed at all for the current report.

The BSA says surveys were conducted in 28 countries representing "a mix of geographies, levels of IT sophistication, and geographic and cultural diversity". These included, among others, China, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Germany and Italy.

IDC extrapolates numbers from the 28 countries to form conclusions about the 111 that appear in the final report. But even for those countries that are surveyed, the sample size is woefully small given the number of PCs there are in the world: just 6 000 consumers and 4 300 business respondents are the world's global proxy for the final results. This works out to 150 businesses per four countries.

What's the statistical error and standard deviation of this sample? The BSA in the UK told Brainstorm that the study "is not a statistical estimation or survey that lends itself to probability analysis, so there is no standard deviation."

How then is the number of applications per South African PC calculated? Using, er, statistical analysis.

Andrew Rens, an intellectual property lawyer with the Shuttleworth Foundation, is unimpressed with the proposed changes.

"Over the last five months lawyers for the BSA, as well as the BSA chairperson, have been quite vocal about changes that the BSA wants made to South African law," he says. "Those changes would shift the onus of proof so that when the BSA brings a case against someone, that person would have the onus of proof on him. They claim that these changes are necessary to combat the allegedly high level of software infringement in South Africa. But now it emerges that the claims themselves are suspect...."

"estimates of piracy rates are based mostly on inferences and the 'gut feeling' of the BSA's research organisation IDC;

I'm concerned about how the BSA bullies small companies that lose paperwork, or are victimized by angry employees who destroy the single piece of evidence the BSA considers acceptable. What evidence is that? Want to guess? If you guess wrong, you pay a fine.

Is the original software packaging enough? Pay a fine. The Certificate of Authenticity on the computer? Pay a fine. The original disks holding the software? Pay a fine.

Adobe, another BSA founding member, has started a program to audit companies for font abuse. Yes, fonts. Each font includes a copyright and you need a license. If someone sends you a Word document with a licensed font, and that font gets used by anyone in your company, it becomes a federal case. Literally.

One of the BSA tricks Scott really hates is its unbundling tactic. Say you have a copy of Microsoft Office you can't prove is yours. Perhaps the shipping clerk stole the invoice as he left your company to call the BSA and get a reward (it happens all the time). The BSA comes, and charges you not for one piece of software, Office, but individually for each application within Office, like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. Each one brings a fine for illegal use.

I think a lot of this negative opinion was due not to specific alleged misdeeds, but to the very nature of the business and its product. Music is about fun, escapism, pleasure. The fact that music is also a business, populated with accountants, lawyers, enforcers, and other not-so-fun people, is quite jarring. It's natural that people react negatively when confronted with the harsh reality that it's about more than "the music" -- it's about making a buck.

The contrast with the public's attitude toward the software industry is instructive. The Business Software Alliance, the industry's equivalent of the RIAA, is very aggressive in its enforcement efforts, famously offering bounties for ratting out software pirates.... But my sense (admittedly anecdotal) is that most people have little problem with the BSA acting to enforce its members' copyrights; it's certainly a far less unpopular organization than the RIAA. (Can you imagine the outcry if the RIAA offered rewards for turning in your friends who "share" music without paying for it?) Why the difference? My hypothesis is that people have no trouble accepting that software is a serious business, and that owners of software copyrights, who spend millions developing their programs, have every right to stop people from copying them for free.

To be successful, copyright holders and legislators must consider the construction of ethos and credibility. This is done not only through the reputation that one gains, but also through the discourse itself. Legislators and copyright holders must portray themselves as trustworthy. More specifically, the recording industry must appear to be treating artists and fans fairly, and legislators must appear to be acting in the public interest.... Legislators and copyright holders must maintain a stance that encourages the public to obey copyright laws. When legislators consider altering copyright terms, the public domain is necessarily affected, and great consideration must be given to how the public will react to the proposed action. When the public sees little incentive to honor the ostensibly limited protection granted under copyright law, copyright law will increasingly become unenforceable. However, if the public is provided with compelling reasons why term limits are in the public interest, they may be more likely to support these terms. Likewise, copyright holders must make more compelling arguments concerning why the public should obey copyright law. If the people have a compelling narrative to follow, they will do so--whether it is true or not. The challenge, then, is not to craft better law; the challenge is to craft better rhetoric.