Freedom Of Information

Our freedom of information and communication is at risk. The underlying technologies over which we communicate are increasingly a matter of software, and some want to gain control over them through aggressive patenting.

The Internet would not have had nearly the same success if its basic concepts and standards had been patented. There is wide consensus about that, and it was just recently emphasized by Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. For a long time, it has been a rule that official Internet standards should not include patented technology.

There is now a tendency by some large corporations to try to establish patented concepts as universal standards. In a way, they want to make up now for an "opportunity" on which they missed out last time. For instance, there is quite some controversy about patents that Microsoft holds on Sender ID anti-spam techniques and the terms under which Microsoft may license those patents. An initial licensing proposal by Microsoft was considered by some to be directed against open-source software. Also, Microsoft and SAP left the United Nations' CEFACT (Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business) because other members of the consortium were against their proposal to declare patented technologies as standards.

In April of 2004, Microsoft and Time Warner jointly acquired a company named ContentGuard, and the European Union started an investigation later. The issue is that ContentGuard holds very significant patents related to Digital Rights Management. DRM is the term that stands for all sorts of ways in which the publishers of content (such as music and movies) can control the distribution of such content and ensure that they get paid. If the world's largest software company and the largest media conglomerate own key patents in this field, it could have terrible implications to the entire media business.

Software patents would have negative effects on our freedom of information and communication. There would be no change of the law on free speech but what we would see may practically be just as bad. A small number of large corporations would gain exclusive control over future communications standards, and would then determine the content that is delivered over those new media technologies. Quite probably, the cartel that owns the communications technology would then form a very close alliances with a few large media conglomerates that provides most of the content. Ultimately, we would all have fewer choices and less pluralism.

Of course, old technologies that are patent-free would stay patent-free, but they will become obsolete. In a matter of years, Internet technology will be way ahead of where it is now. There would still be freedom of information and communication on the Internet as we know it today but there will be much more exciting technologies that would be controlled by a very few companies.

Click here to read why software patents have negative effects on the job market and overall economy, beyond the IT industry