Slashdot Log In
Linux Violates 283 Patents, says Insurance Company
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:35 AM
from the prior-art-needed dept.
from the prior-art-needed dept.
Apro+im writes "According to this article over at ZDNet:
'Linux potentially infringes 283 patents, including 27 held by Microsoft but none that have been validated by court judgments, according to a group that sells insurance to protect those using or selling Linux against intellectual-property litigation.'
Dan Ravicher, founder and executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, conducted the analysis for Open Source Risk Management. OSRM is like an insurance company, selling legal protection against Linux copyright-infringement claims. It plans to expand the program to patent protections."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What a shame.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What a shame.... (Score:5, Insightful)
hopefully this will lead to the courts regarding software patents with the same contempt that I do.
An idea doesn't belong to a person, nor does it belong to a company... ideas belong to us all; it's society that inspires an idea, it should be scoiety that reaps the benifits!
Parent
Re:What a shame.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And this won't change, either, since it benefits large corporations at the expense of smaller entities, and large corporations are the only entities the U.S. government responds to anymore.
Parent
Re:What a shame.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most major ideas are basically bound to happen once a certain point of technological and intellectual advancement are reached. We celebrate the people who invented this or that, but the reality is in most cases of "major" inventions, there are actually several people who can lay claim to the invention and we just remember the one who happened to market it or get the patent. Radio [pbs.org],
Telephones [uh.edu], these are major inventions, but many people arrived at the same point more or less simultaneously.
In the distant past, things tended to get invented by one person at a time because few were educated and had the advantage of our species collective knowledge. Now with printing presses and near instant communication we've all got that benefit. Quite a lot of things get invented in several places at once.
Now, I'm not opposed to patents for real inventions. However, I think our patent system has gotten ridiculous. Business method patents are a mistake, as are in my opinion patents on software methods which should fall under the category of mathematical algorithms which are not patentable. In other words, lets start inforcing the provision about not patenting things that are obvious to people in the field and start requiring that you actually _invent_ something worth mentioning to get it patented.
I worked my ass off earning $8/hour, in a manufacturing job (wood products), in middle of f*cking August with no a/c to pay for my application. I did not get any 'help' from 'Society'; in fact, I was impeded by you idiots. "For the children" and "For the good of the people" bullsh*t. Get off your fat ass, quit complaining about your life, and actually do something.
As for this little rant: If you to sell your idea with government protection, you have to pay for the application. If you've really invented something unique, good for you. Go reap the fruits of your effort. On the other hand, if you've come up with the stunningly original idea of say, having a "buy it now at this price" button on an online auction, your sweating in a factory doesn't really justify my having to pay you to do that.
Parent
Re:What a shame.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:One interesting approach in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Microsoft's patent strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft's patent strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Microsoft's patent strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
And the US is worried about other countries having weapons of mass destruction. What about weapons like this, that harm the whole of society, and even Progress itself?
must...stop...rant....
Parent
Re:Microsoft's patent strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Parent
Cart's before the horse (Score:5, Insightful)
The drugs protected by patents wouldn't even exist to save anyone if the pharmaceutical companies didn't think they could profit from developing them.
Do you think that brilliant research doctors and investors decide to develop drugs because they'll get a warm, fuzzy feeling in their hearts?
Do you think that a geneticist is going to work his tail off to develop some vaccine to save some people in sub-saharan africa, who can't pay for it, or work for a profitible company that will reward him so he can live comfortably and maybe even send his kids to college?
I certainly appluad companies that decide to play nice and sell drugs cheap to third world countries. I hold no ill will against those who do not. Either way, nothing would get developed without the profit motive, and no one, rich or poor, would benefit from the non-existent drugs.
And if you're going to bring up 'public funding', at least show me an instance where a government lab in the same field as dozens of private companies has managed to hold even a candle to private enterprise. I'm not saying such an example doesn't exist, but they will be few and far between.
Parent
Same nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
This line of "reasoning" has gotten repeated so many times, people are starting to accept it as true without questioning it. So let's stop a moment to question it here. Yeah. And no one whould write an operating system from scratch if they weren't assured of making a fortune. Or, for that matter, a novel.
And, by the same logic, nobody ever makes food or thinks up new foods because you can't patent or copyright them.
No, the brilliant ones do it because they are obsessed. It's the dedicated ones that do it because they care.
Oh, and (in my experience) the ones that only do it for the money are the hacks that we'd be better of without. Pretty much the same as in any field.
Well, given the fact that they always seem to talk about the choice (again, in my experience) in terms like "selling out" vs. "doing what I love" the fact that many of them "sell out" doesn't mean they like it.
There are actually many logical steps here, all highly questionable if you stop to think about them:
- Nothing ever gets created without the creator being reasonably assured of a profit
- The more talented and creative people are, the more they are obsessed with money
- You can't make a profit at all unless you can crush anyone who tries to compete with you
- R&D is the reason companies need to make so much money, even though they spend far more on marketing, lobying, etc.
- The pharmaceutical companies profits are causing all the progress; and, by implication, general advances in science and technology have nothing to do with it (oh why didn't they think to give patents and promises of obscene profits to the alchemists! Think what they could have accomplished!)
...you get the idea
-- MarkusQParent
The keyword is "potentially" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The keyword is "potentially" (Score:4, Funny)
-
Until someone jumps up and down in court with their army of lawyers, we'll keep it at "potentially"....
Shhh, SCO might hear you and get ideas...Parent
Re:The keyword is "potentially" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Shooting self in foot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of like an auto insurer producing a report on which car locks are least secure, and how to pick them.
Re:Shooting self in foot? (Score:5, Insightful)
-
Surely if your business is in insuring against something, it's not in your interest to do the research to show exactly how that thing can be brought about, even if in the first instance it improves your sales?
Except in this case they're planning to expand insurance coverage to cover patent claims too. This is sort of a "hey, if you're using Linux without our insurance you may get your asses sued off, better sign up now!" Of course it's largely FUD (since none of this has stood up in court) and the insurance company may never have to fight a single suit. They might end up fighting a lot as well, that's the nature of insurance.So as odd as it may seem this is a pretty standard way to promote buying their insurance.
Parent
Re:Shooting self in foot? (Score:5, Informative)
But the patent problem is really scary, not just for Free Software but for any small-to-medium sized software manufacturer. It should not be discounted.
Bruce
Parent
Re:Shooting self in foot? (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Parent
Re:Shooting self in foot? (Score:5, Insightful)
To follow along with your car insurance analogy... for the same driver an insurance company will have different rates for a brand new sports car than they would for an older station wagon because of the perceived risks involved.
Parent
Re:Shooting self in foot? (Score:5, Informative)
They will show you the patents if you insist, but they recommend strongly that you not look, since if you know about the patents you are infringing, then in the US the infringement becomes wilful, and renders you liable to triple damages.
This is one of the reasons that people such as Linus recommend that engineers should not do prior patent research before coding anything.
Parent
Broken knees (Score:5, Funny)
Almost.
Re:Broken knees (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
yup.. .and here's a more critical analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
What kind of patents can a kernel have? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What kind of patents can a kernel have? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not our responsibility to enforce the property rights of other people.
Parent
Re:What kind of patents can a kernel have? (Score:4, Insightful)
If there's copyright infringing code that you're using, you're liable, period.
We're talking about patents.
Parent
Re:What kind of patents can a kernel have? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously - can anyone think of the kind of thing that anyone could have patented? Disk I/O? Threading?
Remember that anything already presented to the public cannot be patented. You have to file before presentation. For example, if you present your concepts to a conference before filing a patent, you're screwed. I'm wondering how many of these "patents" were filed after Linux was released with the incorporated code? Granted, the USPTO is back-logged and can't do prior art searches.
Parent
Re:What kind of patents can a kernel have? (Score:5, Informative)
That is only for international patents. US Patents are valid if filed within one year of public disclosure. A US Patent is all you need in most cases, due to the size of the market. Also note that 50% of patents that make it to a court ruling are found to be invalid. A much larger percentage of patents would be held invalid if they were brought to trial. My guess is that 99.999% of software patents would be held invalid after a well funded defence. The risk is not that someone with a valid patent sues you, the risk is that someone deep pocketed sues you based on one of their many invalid patents. The cost of invalidating a patent is huge in both time and legal fees.
Parent
This insurance doesn't make any sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand if the patent claims are bogus then your investment will be useless, too, as there is nothing to defend.
The money would be better invested in a real legal insurance which covers being sued by teh mad discrimination laywers of NAL-p'ThUK-NZer-RaK etc.
Re:This insurance doesn't make any sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, when Foo Corp claims that by using Linux you are infringing their patents you simply remain noncommittal (just as you should never accept blame at a car accident) and call OSRM. If OSRM is as good as my car insurer that's pretty much the end of the matter as far as you are concerned. They deal with Foo Corp and their lawyers and resolve the issue as best they can, whether that be getting the case dismissed or negotiating and paying your license fees. You'll probably get a letter every now and then letting you know of any developments, requesting information they might need and so on, but that's all. For many CTOs paying a company like OSRM some money each year might just be worth the removal of one less thing to fret and loose sleep over.
Parent
Gee... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with Linux is that there is no one organization with sufficient stake to specifically pursue such a strategy. Though I'm sure if push came to shove, IBM would be willing to use its patent arsenal in defense of its Linux-using customers, given how much they've invested in Linux deployments and Linux-based services work. Anyway, of course it's in this insurance company's interest to point out every possibly infringing instance.
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Informative)
The article is fairly well balanced.
>I don't know of any product that doesn't "potentially infringe" on other patents.
The article mentions that.
"That number isn't unusually high for a package comparable to Linux, he added. Microsoft, for example, faces several patent suits, he said."
>Certainly for every software product I've worked on, when we did a patent search,
Its not a case of Linux people not doing a patent search or not caring, its that they are better off not doing one.
From the article:
>"If you have knowledge and are found to infringe, a court can punish you," tripling financial penalties, Ravicher said. "If you say you didn't know and didn't see it, a court can't punish you. It's a screwed-up rule."
One way is to be proactive, as your companies were. Another is to remain ignorant, but still take responsible action if informed of an infringment. Sounds legally ok either way.
Parent
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, no kidding? It's interesting how the one time the OSRM guy doesn't get Bruce Perens and PJ Groklaw to be the company's public face, all the comments are suddenly about what a scam this is. Tomorrow there'll be an interview with Perens where he talks about what a noble, altruistic venture it is and the mob will instantly fall back in line again.
Parent
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the difference between noble altruism and fear-mongering.
I thought it was the difference between copyrights and patents. The statements above are not mutually exclusive....
Parent
skeptical (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly enough, at least one person works for both orginizations, Daniel B. Ravicher.
What does everyone else thing? is it something to be concerned about or is it a ploy to sell insurance and drive up the cost of linux adoption?
Sounds fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that, or OSS is screwed, and the other shoe is about to drop. ( don't think it would stop with the Linux kernel, much more is vunerable if its taken that far.. )
Won't happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone believe that is they really thought this could happen, they would sell insurances against it ?
I'd hate to see something happen to your nice OS.. (Score:5, Interesting)
419 (Score:5, Funny)
The "insurance" might be a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone does sue the OSRM insured companies, the insurance company's best interest is fighting the battle with its resources (insurance money) pooled together instead of each companies having to fight on their own.
It might not be that bad of thing.
Before you all go and get your panties in a bunch (Score:5, Informative)
Check this out. [osriskmanagement.com]
OSRM is the company PJ (you know, of Groklaw [groklaw.com]) joined a few months back to provide indemnification for Linux users. This organization isn't the enemy, folks.
[I thought that name (OSRM) sounded familiar.]
Patent violation is rampant (Score:5, Informative)
Sad commentary on our society (Score:4, Insightful)
The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation by protecting the income for the developer/innovator to recoup the cost of innovating/developing, not to discourage innovation.
If Linux truly violates patents, why are they only bringing it up now that Linux is becoming a viable alternative for mainstream america?
Besides, the whole thing is suspect simply because it comes from a company selling insurance for patent suits.
This violates my Patent. (Score:5, Funny)
283? That's it? (Score:5, Funny)
Kernel-land or User-land? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article didn't mention it, but are the potential violations in kernel-land, or do they also entend into user-land and ``Linux'' is being used in the broad sense of the term?
m$ patenting spree (Score:4, Insightful)
Inaccuracies in press release (Score:5, Informative)
corporations that are friendly to Linux - ones with some current financial interest in broad Linux
adoption, including: Cisco, HP, IBM, Intel, Novell, Oracle, Red Hat, Sony, and others However, to date,
no Linux vendor has [...] entered into an explicit agreement promising never to use its own patents against Linux users.
How about this one [gnu.org]?
Each time you redistribute the Program [...]. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
I think threatening patent infringement action against any user of a Linux distribution that you had provided them with would be placing a further restriction on usage, hence a violation of this term that a Linux distributor must have agreed to in order to distribute Linux.
Re:Yuck. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's like selling earthquake insurance to a farmer in Indiana.
Parent