Red Hat Files for Software Patents 323
Marsala writes "Apparently Red Hat has filed two patent applications for stuff related to the TUX webserver. The patents are for Embedded Protocol Objects and Method and apparatus for atomic file look-up. One has to wonder (if their patents are granted) what their licensing terms will be.... free for open source, or a tool to try and screw other Linux distros?" As reported by Linux Weekly News.
money or principle? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about MS in this deal (Score:5, Insightful)
-CPM
Software Patents = Bad (Score:2, Insightful)
What if this could defeat GNU license? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about MS in this deal (Score:3, Insightful)
(BTW - I don't mean to start a gun control thread, just for the sake of argument, okay? Please feel free to post a better metaphor if you can think of one.)
Pushy companies. (Score:3, Insightful)
Prior art. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Dynamic and static protocol objects are mixed together at a server and included in a dynamic reply to a communication request made by a client application."
Ahhhhm, so a client requests something and a reply is made that is partially dynamic and partially static? So, like php then? Like perl cgi pages? Like any reporting engine ever written?
And, check this out, step by step explainations of how the code works. This shit only exists to keep lawyers happy.
Don't get it.
Dave
Hard to say... (Score:3, Insightful)
But RedHat is a publicly-traded company now, so it has the same "duty to the shareholders" that every other large corporation in the U.S. has. Hence, I have a lot less faith in the company regarding the use of stuff like software patents only for Good. In short, I won't be surprised at all if they use these patents to smack down other commercial Linux distributions, all for Profit at Any Cost.
Only if a Good Guy retains a controlling share of the company would that not apply.
I'm far from being a Redhat apologist... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, as much as I dislike their product, I just get the strange feeling inside, that their company isn't run by the complete and utter assholes we see everywhere else.
To suspect them of pulling any dirty is just damn wrong. Maybe it's just me wanting at least one company out there to be ethical, some really corny wishful thinking on my part, but what have they ever done to you? They deserve an an apology.
Besides, they might be able to stick it to M$ somehow...
This has been proposed in the past as a defense. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have only seen one 'iffy' thing ever come out of Red Hat (the RHN server, which is an in-house secret...though they appear to be helpful with the Current developers), so I tend to believe they have no intention of using this offensively against Open Source companies or users.
Besides, I seem to recall the GPL protects us against anyone integrating incompatibly licensed code into GPL software. TUX is part of the Linux kernel, thus it cannot be restricted or fees enforced on its use. Red Hat would have a bear of a time rewriting TUX independently of the kernel (Ingo could do it, of course), but the damage is done. Those inventions (and inventions they are...Ingo does really cool stuff, this isn't a one-click patent folks) are already in the development kernels. We (the community) already own these developments.
So, what I'm trying to say is:
Thank you very much, Ingo and Red Hat. I am very appreciative of the interesting inventions you have given to us. I forward to learning about them, using them, and enjoying the benefits they give us. And boy, that sure was clever of you to patent it, so that Microsoft will have a bit of trouble stepping on your toes in the future. Way to play hardball!
Re:What if this could defeat GNU license? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so, but maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. I think these clauses from the GPL [gnu.org] pretty much cover this potential problem (along with the GPL as a whole and the associated rights that everyone are granted who receives GPLd code):
ooohhhh... quoting the GPL on Slashdot... (-1:Karmawhore)
License terms. (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the big deal? The GPL is pretty clear on this: So, Redhat can't use these patents in an abusive manner unless they're going to release this stuff in some kind of software that's released under a GPL-incompatible license.
Last i checked, Redhat had a policy of releasing software they write under Free Software licenses. So unless i'm badly mistaken, or Redhat is moving away from Free Software, which i haven't heard they were doing, then this is nothing at all to worry about.
Now, if redhat were going to announce they were going to start writing software and releasing it under non-free licenses, i would be worried indeed.
But for now.. Haven't you people ever heard of a defensive patent? Maybe a bit unecessary, maybe a bit worrying, but this isn't the end of the world.
- super ugly ultraman anonymous cowards filtered. if their comments aren't worth so much as a nom de plume why should i read them?
Re:What about MS in this deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn right they should file patents (Score:5, Insightful)
So Redhat has done some significant work on the TUX webserver and it's patentable. They should DEFINTELY file those patents.
Now don't get me wrong. Software patents are generally bad news - they are too long (even 10 years in software is an eternity) and a lot aren't even worth the paper they are written on. But for the software industry today they are part and parcel of developing software and protecting the work that a software company has put in.
Patents aren't like trademarks - there is no 'patent dilution' to worry about. So RedHat can be extremely selective about who is allowed to benefit from the patent (even free of charge) and who is never going to get a license. This is particularly important - MS has a vested interest in watching over a lot of the developments in the TUX webserver as TUX is the main performance competitor to IIS. If RedHat patents its best ideas, it makes a public record of the 'invention'. If MS patents something that RedHat came up with, yes, prior art may be used to fight a legal battle to have the patent nulled but that is considerably more expensive than simply patenting the good stuff first.
Now I look forward to the day when software patents last 3 years from filing (because I dont see software patents ever going away totally). I look forward to the day when all software patents are published PRIOR to the patent being awarded so that many eyes may suggest prior art challenges. But until that day comes, Free and Open source companies had better use the weapons at hand to protect their assets. And if that means filing patents so be it.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:and from the looks of it (Score:2, Insightful)
Where have you been, man? This stuff has been opened up. It is in development kernels already. Heck it might even be in the shipping Red Hat kernel (TUX was offered in my most recent Red Hat installation, and these patents regard nifty stuff Ingo wrote for TUX).
These things are a part of the kernel. Red Hat can't help but open it up.
Re:money or principle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Summary (Score:2, Insightful)
The 2nd one is probably the one most likely to have prior art. You'd need to find software which has a cache and which has a "if it isn't in the cache, don't do it at all" codepath.
Personally, I don't mind software patents too much. True, there are some well publicised stupidities; but I feel they do offer protection to smaller inventors.
Re:money or principle? (Score:3, Insightful)
If software patents were commonplace, this couldn't be done--even if you reinvent something patented yourself, you still are in violation of the patent. Even if a few "free software patents" were held, the FS community would never be able to make another free software workalike version of a patented program.
Software patents don't benefit anyone but pattent lawyers, and Red Hat is not doing anyone any favors by trying to legitimize it.
--
Benjamin Coates
patents aren't abandoned like trademarks (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Trademarks can be abandoned (i.e., revert to the public domain) if they are not defended against dilution. Patents don't work that way. They can lie in wait for the technology to be more widely used, even if by independent invention. The most public instance of such a "submarine patent" is the GIF patent [mit.edu]. Slashdot has also reported on BT's hyperlink patent [slashdot.org]. Ditto Rambus's SDRAM patents [slashdot.org].
The only obstacles to late enforcement of a patent are public opinion and laws against unfair business practices. The latter is mentioned in the Rambus link above.
Re:Software Patents = Bad (Score:2, Insightful)
No, regardless of what might come after this phrase.
-Chuck
Re:money or principle? (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no difference between offensive patents and defensive patents - they're just patents, and it depends on how are used.
If someone achieves a patent, but you have prior art, it's more difficult to prove that you were first because you didn't go via The System[TM]. Disproving a patent via prior art is significantly more difficult than disproving a patent via other patents.
Legitimate Reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe someone at Red Hat thought they should get a patent on it before some asshole from another company did. If Red Hat patents the technology they can let anybody or nobody use it - at least they have control. Some outside group might have gotten a patent on the concept and held it hostage, forcing all users to pay.
I'm not a fan of silly IP actions, but Red Hat filing for a patent is NOT the same as Red Hat preventing others from using the technology. There are occasionally good reasons for this stuff and you should wait and see what the company does before you jump on them.
Re:money or principle? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing the key feature of patents here. The one "proven" to invent first by virtue of a patent gets the privilege of setting arbitrary license terms for any use of the covered invention. Thus, a patent has everything to do with licensing, and it may be "closed" at the whim of the patent holder at any time.
If it was only about proving who invented first, a system like that used for acedemic publishing would fit the bill just fine. As a matter of fact, such a system would probably do more to "promote useful arts and sciences" for software than patents will. (Remember, promoting arts and sciences was the whole motivator for patents in the first place. Patents were *not* created just to institute a new form of "ownership" so that people can bask in additional property rights.)
Patents were originally intended to encourage people to not keep machines and manufacturing methods locked up as trade secrets, so everyone would benefit (initially from the shared knowledge, and using the invention directly after a few years). This does not match software development. Copyrights allow people to keep the actual implementation details secret for a century, so the patent disclosure doesn't do much good. Anything disclosed in the patent document can be trivially reverse engineered from the software product anyway, since all of the secrets are shipped with the product. The patent provides little if any additional knowledge to the general public. Therefore, due to the nature of software, a software patent provides essentially no value to the public in return for the monopoly granted to the patent holder.
Paranoia Runs Deep (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, RedHat has to *compete* with other Linux distributions, but "screw" them? I seriously doubt it.
Red Hat is not my favorite distro (although it is one of several that I use), but It's a pisser to see all the irrational, unfounded RedHat bashing that goes on.
Red Hat is one of the biggest Linux distributors (probably *the* biggest here in the US), and many people seem to feel that just because they are big, they are also evil.
First of all, TUX (and most everything else that Red Hat has added to its Linux distro) is licensed under the GPL, and others have pointed out that the GPL provides that a free license effectively be granted for any patented part of the code. (The method and apparatus are still protected, which gives them the protections they are trying to get against MS and others using the technology in a proprietary product). On this point alone, any fears of Red Hat screwing other Linux distributions seems little more than paranoia.
Red Hat is by no means a perfect company (is there such a thing in the real world?), but they have gone out of their way many times to help and assist the goals of Linux and open source in general. Of course doing something for Linux as a whole also benefits Red Hat, but because of the nature of open source it also benefits everyone as well.
Many people don't seem to realize that because they are bigger than most Linux distributors, they have some extra reasources that others don't have to apply to general causes. For example, pushing Linux in education, lobbying to fight really bad laws like the DMCA and the Hollings Disney protection act, providing the credibility and support to get Linux into large corporations, and many other things that in the end will benefit everyone in the OSS world.
Moreover, Microsoft has shown the ability to steal ideas from others. Software patents may be bad in general, but Red Hat is actually acting responsibly to protect IP that they've licensed under the GPL. Assuming the patents are valid, which I'm admittedly not in a position to evaluate, this will give them the ability to further protect the ideas in the GPL'd code from abuses by MS and others while still making the technology transparently and freely available to the open source community. Because the code is GPL's, the patents are actually a benefit rather than a liability.
Re:Damn right they should file patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is a protection of (intellectual) "work". If you really want to "protect" your work, don't open source it. Patents are a protection of inventions - new, original, non-obvious inventions - not just work. Just because you've done some "work", you shouldn't be able to charge people who want to do similar things.
RedHat can be extremely selective about who is allowed to benefit from the patent (even free of charge) and who is never going to get a license.
So now a single patent can be used to completely exclude any company, individual or group of individuals from doing something someone else did first? You really think this is a good thing?
So open source people should beat Microsoft through patents ? Yeah, forget all this technical work, making a better, more secure and reliable product than theirs. It's too hard. Let's just hire a couple of lawyers, and keep filing patents until we get one really good one we can really screw them with. That'll really make the world a better place for 100's of millions of people, won't it.
What if Red Hat gets sufficient patents to really hurt Microsoft financially? What happens then? If Microsoft are really hurting, they would just have to buy Red Hat. Remember that $40 billion in cash? Screw everything else in the company. Hell, it'll probably also hold up the development of Linux for a good few months. Not all the programmers will be able to find jobs elsewhere just like that, even if the Alan Cox's and similar are famous enough to do so. And then Microsoft get the patents. And then they can use them to screw over the rest of the world - especially the Linux community.
No, using patents in this way is not good. Look on it as a necessary evil at best.
I agree with your last paragraph, but I look forward to the day when big companies and small have all become so sick of being screwed over by patent leeches, and third-world countries with a more enlightened attitude to progress and fairness on this issue have begun overtaking the USA, that the whole concept of software patenting ideas (in the USA and everywhere else) has been thrown out.
Re:Legitimate Reason? (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea of "patenting it before some other asshole does" is unreasonable. Once I invent something, the patent cannot be granted to someone else who patents it post that invention because it is not an original work. If I can prove prior art (ie that I made the invention before that time), the patent will not be granted/invalidated.
Re:Gilmore Patent (Score:2, Insightful)
That is, the restriction is tied to the product, not the organization.
The idea of dealing only with Gilmore patent companies seems wrong to me. Companies are bought, merged, or sold. Inventing a system to maintain these Gilmore patents sensibly, across all potential acquisitions, mergers, deals, etc. seems excessively complicated.
It's also much easier to convince an existing "closed" company to release a single "open" product than it is to change their licensing/patents for all existing products.
Re:money or principle? (Score:2, Insightful)
It would seem to me that all a large company would have to do to get unlimited access to these patents is to start suing RedHat (it doesn't matter what for, and it doesn't have to be related to patents at all, as long as the legal costs of defense are mandatory and large) until Red Hat runs out of money, then show up when Red Hat's assets are sold at bankruptcy auction and walk away with a government-regulated monopoly on some useful pieces of free software.
This would result in the unfortunate situation that a critical component of certain free software might be held by an entity that refuses to license it on any but the most draconian terms.
Red Hat is (comparatively) well-funded for a Linux vendor. Smaller corporations shouldn't even attempt to play patent games, because the only two possible outcomes are 1) be ignored, or 2) lose everything.