Conclusions
Australia is a well educated, capable and creative nation. To compete in the world economy we need strong copyright protections so our smaller firms can protect their innovation against the larger marketing and distribution engines of multinationals. Accordingly, the IP provisions of the FTA do no harm to us, and will be in our interests.
References
ABS, 2003, Balance of Payments and International Investment Position, December 2003, Cat. no. 5302.0, cited in Richardson D, 2004, Intellectual property rights and the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, Research Paper No 14 2004-04, Information and Research Services, Australian Parliamentary Library
Adobe, 2004, Statement on the Sklyarov case
Akerlof GA et al, 2002, The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998: An Economic Analysis, as Amici Curiae in support of Petitioners in Eldred v Ashcroft No 01-618
Bessen J & Hunt R, 2004a, An Empirical Look at Software Patents, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper 03-17R, March 2004
Bessen J & Hunt R, 2004b, A Reply to Hahn and Wallsten, 10 Mar 2004
Broersma M, 2004, Flaw in main Linux Kernel flaw makes Linux crash easy, CNet, 16 June 2004
Copyright Agency, 2004, Submission to Senate Select Committee on the FTA
Ergas H, 2002, Review of intellectual property legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement, Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee (The Ergas Report)
Google, 2003, Google Zeitgeist - Search patterns, trends, and surprises according to Google, Sept. 2003
Hahn R & Wallsten S, 2003, A Review of Bessen and Hunt's Analysis of Software Patents, AEI-Brookings Joint Center, mimeo
Hahn R, 2002, Government Policy toward Open Source Software: An Overview in Robert Hahn, ed, Government Policy toward Open Source Software, AEI Brookings Joint Centre for Regulatory Studies, Washington DC
Hall BH & Ziedonis RH, 2001, The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1, Spring 2001
Hansard, 2004a, Senate, Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America, 17 May 2004
Hansard, 2004b, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, 20 April 2004
Healy T, 2004, Has open source reached its limits? Institute for Policy Innovation, Dallas
Liebowitz S & Margolis S, 2004, Seventeen Famous Economists Weigh in on Copyright: The Role of Theory, Empirics and Network Effects, AEI-Brookings Joint Centre for Regulatory Studies
Lyons D, 2004, Free Software? Not For You, Baby, Forbes Magazine, 15 June 2004
Manes S, 2004, The Trouble With Larry, Forbes Magazine, 29 March 2004
Mann RJ, 2004, The Myth of the Software Patent Thicket: An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Intellectual Property and Innovation in Software Firms, The University of Texas School of Law, Feb 2004
OECD, 2004, OECD 2004/01 Report on Patents and Economic Performance, Feb 2004
Editor's note: The PDF version of this document can be found here.
Tony Healy is a software developer and policy researcher based in Sydney, Australia.
6%
3%
"Open Source is bad for Australia" is such a blanket statement that I would have to disagree.
The author makes valid points about GPL on occasions hindering, rather than enhancing business, but GPL is not the only Open Source model. GPL is often used with the attitude "I am not making any money out of publishing this code, so why should anyone else." Unfortunately, R&D investment can not be warranted "commercially" on a GPL system, because the entity spending the money does not get any benefit (except knowing they might make the world a better place).
There are also instances where Open Source would be detrimental to commercial interests in Australia. But Open Source often brings benefits, which is why I disagree. One of the problems with proprietary source code is that if the particular vendor goes bankrupt, or a relationship sours with a vendor, your data is effectively held hostage (Most of the time, you can not simply port to another vendor's package). Whilst open source doesn't guarentee flexibility (there may be binding contracts even in open source), in my view you are certainly more secure.
Secondly, many open source products are free. This is not co-incidental, but a consequence of GPL and alike. In fact, this is one of the factors hinted at in the article. I would like to suggest that Open Source classes, databases, languages, APIs and alike can significantly reduce development time. Most open source products have public documentation, so they don't need to be re-documented. Furthermore, not having to pay license fees can assist a software company to be more profitable.
Thirdly, on following on from point two, cheaper development costs inevitably lead to more competitive markets and cheaper prices to the end user. This makes software more accessable to Australians.