SFLC Argues On Same Side As Microsoft

MCRocker writes in with news that, while a few weeks old, didn't get a lot of traction before the holidays. The Software Freedom Law Center is one of the staunchest defenders of FOSS out there. The SFLC is arguing on the same side as Microsoft in a patent case before the Supreme Court. The case, "Microsoft vs. AT&T," turns on whether U.S. patents should apply to software that is copied and distributed overseas. Groklaw has more nitty-gritty details. In the Linux-Watch article, the SFLC's legal director, Daniel Ravicher, is quoted: "I expect many people will be surprised that the Software Freedom Law Center has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Microsoft. In this specific case, Microsoft and SFLC are both supporting the position that U.S. software patents have no right to cover activity outside of the United States, especially in places that have specifically rejected software patents."

Amazing.

[splutty]

An F/OSS supporter that is actually honest enough to see that what their 'enemy' is doing is only beneficial for the whole. Kudos to them, I say. At least they know what they stand for (as is obvious from their name, really :) and don't blindly deny the possibilities that this case gives them.

*cheers*

Case is so important, Microsoft is irrelevant.

[Kadin2048]

Well in this case it's sort of a "duh" position to take. It doesn't matter if the appellant was Lucifer, Prince of Darkness, the SFLC couldn't possibly ignore this case. It's one of the only USSC cases currently in the system that get at the concept of software patents so directly.

Although Linux supporters sometimes see the software-patent issue as one part of the landscape affecting their favorite OS, I suspect to people working at the SFLC, the whole Linux/Windows conflict is just one very front (and at least at the moment, one on which there's not a whole lot of movement) in a much larger war.

Re:On the contrary, my dear

[ShadowFalls]

Microsoft is looking at the big picture for themselves. With this type of implementation, they can implement products overseas with risk of being sued, taking and using the ideas of others to increase their own profit margin. Remember, Microsoft doesn't do it for the consumers, they do it because they think their bank account is getting short on funds.

Re:Case is so important, Microsoft is irrelevant.

[TheRaven64]

If they win this case, it could have a serious effect on software patents in the USA. Actually, whichever way the case goes could be good for the Free Software community. As I see it, there are two choices:

If US patents apply to activities of US corporations outside the US then this will mean that US companies are not able to compete as effectively in other markets. If it is possible for non-US software companies to undercut US-based ones in places like the EU and south-east Asia then this will have a serious effect on the US software industry. Anyone starting a software company will be likely to seriously consider starting it outside the US, even if they are from there. This will give a lot of weight to those campaigning to get software patents abolished in the USA, since they will be able to point to clear evidence that their existence is harming the economy. If this succeeds, then it will remove the 'aligning our IP laws with the US' argument that keeps being waved around by software patent proponents in the EU.

If the case goes the other way, then it means that those of us outside the USA will be able to get software products that are either better or cheaper (because they will either include code not found in the US versions, or because they will not include patent royalties) than those available in the USA. This can, again, be used as evidence of software patents harming the US economy.

Re:the author

[kfg]

I have read articles wherein he crucifies Linux and another where he praises it. I am not sure exactly where his loyalties lie.

I'm not exactly sure why he should have any.

Let us assume, however, for the sake of argument, that he has some. Perhaps they are to ideas rather than to groups or "movements." I understand that to people not used to supporting ideas this can be confusing.

See the very subject of the article.

KFG

Re:the author

[drsmithy]

I have read articles wherein he crucifies Linux and another where he praises it.

Possibly because there are some situations where Linux deserves praise and others where it deserves scathing criticism ?

Microsoft is not irrelevant this time

[msobkow]

In this specific case, Microsoft and SFLC are both supporting the position that U.S. software patents have no right to cover activity outside of the United States, especially in places that have specifically rejected software patents.

I don't even ascribe to that narrow restriction. Any patent or IP system should be national or managed by a trade union like the EU, not shoved down the throats of foreign citizens and businesses by one country. The current approach allows patent holders to literally leverage the military and economic pressures of the United States for their own personal gain.

Having the OSS symbol of evil (Microsoft) standing alongside the pro-OSS representatives on this issue highlights the broken nature of the current US patent system in double-height, double-width, bold, italic, flashing, underlined text.

Re:Well, colour me confused

[Aim Here]

Yeah, but if SCOTUS rules that patents aren't valid relative to section 271(f) because they're not valid at all, then there's no reason for that reasoning not to be applicable.

In fact, my uninformed guess is that it would be perverse for software to not be a component under 271(f) while being fully patentable under 101. The law so far has ruled diametrically opposite. The Eolas case, the one Supreme Court ruling (sortof) in favour of software patents, allowed for a computer running software to be part of a larger industrial process (and that is the foothold that was exploited by subsequent district courts to effectively legalise software patents without any congressional input). Software can be a component of a patentable invention, if not the invention itself. However, in this particular case, I have a sneaking recollection that the full invention that AT&T wants to patent is nothing but software, which works in favour of the SFLC again.

I don't know how it'll go, but it would be a brilliant legal move for the SFLC to abolish software patents with this drive-by hit on a passing lawsuit, though. It costs us nothing and might win us everything, so it's definitely worth a try.