Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Real Time Linux, Now Patented 231

Posted by sengan from the cough? dept.
This week's Linux Weekly News is reporting that Victor Yodaiken, the developer of RT-Linux (Real Time linux) has been granted a patent on method used by RT-linux. He intends that Linux users be granted a no royalty license, users of closed OS' may have to. It's unclear whether Hurd or *BSD would be granted a royalty-free license. While this could be heralded as the beginning of a new defensive patent trust for free software, it also jars somewhat with the hacker ethic. What do you think? Is Victor's idea one which is technically original, and which would not have been published had the author not had the protection afforded by a patent? Was RT-Linux's status as prior art not sufficient to keep RT-Linux free from other patent claims?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Real Time Linux, Now Patented More

Real Time Linux, Now Patented

Comments Filter:
  • The proposed strategy for the RTLinux patent sounds like a good idea at first. But I fear people are too quick to embrace the idea of Free Software "Defensive Patents."

    The whole idea of a defensive patent is flawed from the start. While it may be an effective deterrent against patent lawsuits, it sets up the patent system as a legal battleground, which was not at all the original intent of the patent system.

    The patent system exists to open up ideas which would otherwise be guarded as trade secrets. One poster referred to IBM's plethora of patents. It is true that Big Blue has done an amazing amount of excellent research. The patent system worked in that IBM was able to open up descriptions of their pioneering work without hurting their competitive advantage.

    But does it not bother anyone that companies try to patent everything imaginable for defensive purposes? Essentially, what they are doing is short-circuiting the patent system. Assuming I hold strong defensive patents, I can now go look up patents for some technology you developed that I am interested in selling. I can go right out and make a competing product and not worry about getting sued because I have a book of patents I can swing over your head. Rather than protecting the hard work you put into your research, the patent system has allowed me to profit from it.

    I am not saying the patent system needs to be abolished. I am not even saying software patents are evil. Some are quite legitimate. What I am saying (which I think most people agree with) is that the patent system needs a better system to research prior art and decide when a patent application is not of acceptable quality.

    In the research community we use peer review to decide when something is worth publishing. Can some similar system be used for patents? Clearly there would have to be some sort of NDA agreement to sign if you are a reviewer, but perhaps that's not too onerous if you are compensated in some way.

    --

  • Actually, for an example, look no further than Cirrus Logic. A company that built a patent portfolio for defensive purposes, and now that they've fallen on hard times is trying to build the portfolio up further (through aquisitions mainly) and intends to make charging royalties for said patents their main revenue stream.

  • Copyleft is an application of Copyright to subvert copyright itself.

    Could this be an "Open"Patent...an application of the patent system intended to subvert the patent?

    A Freetent! (opposite of pay-tent)

  • Not 'all open projects' - just Linux ones.

    This guy is *worse* that companies that use patents to agressivly protect their ideas, at least they're stuck in their old ways and its what they're used to. This guy is a Linux user, so you'd expect him to grok the whole sharing code is good thing...

    Its not even clear if the patent is enforceable ANYWAY, or if there is prior art.

  • I suspect that this has to do with the competing real-time system on linux, RTAI. Which is far better than RTLinux and doesn't suffer of having a benevolent dictator as a leader .... Did you know these guys can make user-processes become hard real-time with a single call? Try to beat that ...

    Umm... no, it can't. All RTAI tasks are kernel modules.

    --


  • What happens if he decides to sell the patent?

  • It's possible that he intends to use it this way. Depending on how he chooses to enforce this patent, it could really be used for good purposes. Much in the same way RMS has used a library being GPL'd in stead of LGPL'd to encourage application writers to GPL their works. It could potentially be even more powerful than RMS's method, because it would be applicable to all works that are covered by the patent, not just derivitave works of the code. Of course he could always just use it to make money as well, which is fine as long as GPL'd works can use it and does not infringe upon our freedoms granted by the GPL.
  • I think the most obvious answer is that Hurd will be able to use it, but BSD will not. The reason for this is that since the Hurd is GPL'd there will be no license incompatibilities. In fact, I believe the GPL has certian requirements on the licensing of a patent, otherwise there would be a conflict. If you were not able to use it in another non-Linux, but GPL'd project, It would seem to me that this would violate the GPL. It is an unfortunate side effect that this could not be used in BSD projects. Hopefully the patent owner could make an exception, without losing the ability to enforce his patent.
  • If Victor is against software patents, as most of the free software community seems to be, he should give royalty free licenses to anyone - including Microsoft. Otherwise this patent will make it harder for us to convince people that software patents are wrong. I hope this isn't just because Victor wants to make a few bucks for himself...
    %japh = (
    'name' => 'Niklas Nordebo', 'mail' => 'niklas@' . 'nordebo.com',
    'work' => 'www.sonox.com', 'phone' => '+46-708-405095'
  • It is not inconceivable that someone less sympathetic to the Open Source/Free Software movement will buy a company holding such patents.

    What is to prevent the new owner(s) from deciding to require royalties from, at least, all new users of their newly acquired technology, or futher restricting existing users. It has happened before.

    Also, if the intent of the patent is to protect against patents (an anti-patent as the GPL is an anti-license), what is the point of punishing those who wish to make money (as in a living) from their work?

    This would seem less unacceptable (I am opposed, in principal, to software patents) if any clauses regarding non-Linux compatible or proprietary use were dropped.

    After all, the GPL explicitly protects the user of the work, not the creator. There is no such restriction in the GPL regarding commercialization of code, only proprietizaton of code.

    It seems that patents speak more about ownership of ideas, and the ability to capitalize (through licensing) on such ownership. So, an anti-patent would prevent private ownership of an idea by making its owner, in effect, the entire community. The net effect prevents private ownership of that and similar ideas by others who would restrict the use of those ideas (as opposed to restricting the use of the product implementing the idea).

    I don't see a need to try and prevent proprietary use of an idea with an anti-patent. That is already covered under Open Source licenses like the GPL.

    The restrictions on use by non-Linux, or closed OS users also seems silly for pretty much the same reasons. Such patents would seem to discourage cross-platform software development. This seems a bit more anti-Microsoft than pro-Linux.
  • A copyright gives you the right to dispose of your own work as you will; it makes the creations of ideas behave like like physical property. This is good and fair.

    A patent on the other hand is a lie, that says you own someone else's work as long as it falls within the range of your patent claims. It's a charade, a system of legally enforced rigged competition, and it's only function is to make a gift of the market to the patent holder, in order to beg him to invent more things.

    By choosing to "fight on their terms" you make of yourself a liar and you invest your self-interest in maintaining your mutual charade; you use the law as your own hired gun to rig competition on your own behalf. Do that, and you lose the right and the leverage to call them on the lie itself.
  • This patent seems to me to be bad in just about every way conceivable.

    1) Hasn't RT-Linux already been released under the GPL? How comforting to be reassured by Yodaiken that users of RT-Linux would not have to pay a royalty, uh, I thought that's part of what the GPL guaranteed. So is Yodaiken claiming that his patent trumps the GPL in the United States? Okay, so what exactly is RT-Linux's license? Sure there is the statement on
    http://www.rtlinux.org/~rtlinux/
    that the software is GPLed. And whatever an author chooses as a license is fine, but can we at least have a firm statement of what this license is, because as far as I can tell there is nothing in the GPL that permits discrimination against other GPL(able|ed) operating systems such as the Hurd.

    The letter from Yodaiken posted at
    http://lwn.net/2000/0210/a/vy-patent.html
    states "Other base OS's are not covered." That means the Hurd is out right?

    2) Whatever happened to choice? Let's be real here, this patent is not going to inconvenience any of the major commercial players. This patent simply eliminates any other free operating system that is not Linux from even implementing the technology described by the patent. This strikes at what made Linux possible in the first place: The ability to freely implement as long as the source code was not derived from other works. I contend the ability to rewrite from scratch is an essential part of free software. That's why the movement is so strong, there is a continual stream of reinvention and destruction so that when one project falters another is able to spring up to take its place.

    3) RT-Linux's patent is yet another strike against the idea of secondary contributors to free software projects being treated as peers. One of the good things about the GPL is that at least the code one contributes can be re-used in other GPLed projects later in one's life. It seems to me that one of the good features of the previous community is that people could go from one project to another with transportable skills. Now I see a danger that projects will advertise themselves as GPLed projects to gain critical mass only to have one lead proponent patent a critical technology.
  • I agree, from a cursory reading of the patent description it seem awfully like Norsk Data's
    Sintran III OS that I used way back in 1982/3.
    There was both a real time and timeshared environment that actually ran as a rt process.
    The database system, SIBAS II was a rt process but the client were timeshared. It was actually quite a cool OS for it's day and the orange color of the cabinets matched really well with my Orange guitar amp and speakers :-)

    slightly off topic but: I believe Tim Berners-Lee did some very early work on what is now the W3 under Sintran.

    Anyways, once again the lack of expertise has allow another patent that should not be!

    Pip Pip!
    Jo
  • What's needed is a giant defensive organization (maybe the FSF...) that holds hundreds, or even thousands, of patents

    Only if there is some kind of check on the awesome power that such an organization would hold. We already have big organizations with lots of patents and no responsibility to free software, thank you.

    I would only let a "defensive organization" hold my patents (if/when I have any) if I had some kind of ironclad promise of defense. I don't want to be in a situation where my big-daddy white knight organization decides that my patent problem is too small or too messy to defend...

    Even the FSF, when asking for GNU contributors to sign over copyright, will give a return agreement pledging to only license the work under terms allowing free redistribution. I would expect nothing less from a group that wants me to sign over a patent.
    --

  • Something smells funny, here.

    Something smells putrid, even... I didn't even mention that the GPL is of no use whatsoever against the claims of a third party with a patent. They never agreed to the GPL, they have the patent covering the GPL'd work, the GPL doesn't apply to them. The only benefit in the GPL in this case is that it encourages prior-use precedents through earlier code release.

    A while ago I tried to put together a framework for explicit patent grants alongside GPL redistribution... and then I realized that that kind of agreement won't bind a third party.

    This sort of legal crap is why software patents are a Bad Idea[TM].
    --

  • The GPL does state that any patented code you use must be licensed free for everyone's use.

    Yes, in the preamble... Unfortunately, in the license itself, it says:

    Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted...
    Clause 7 only says that a patent license can't restrict the modification/distribution requirements of the GPL without violating the GPL. It doesn't forbid using a patent to restrict use of the program.

    I am not a lawyer, but as far as I do understand the law, a patent holder has the right to restrict your use of a GPL'd program that implements his/her patented process. GPL only protects you from copyright claims, and other attempts to deny you the copyright rights of modification, distribution, and copying; it doesn't protect you from a third party's claim against use.
    --

  • Hmmm. (Score:1)

    by simm_s ( 11519 )
    I have to admit this is a better way of using patents then using them to ensure monopolies. I think patents are good for protecting the rights of an inventor, but like anything they are abused to extreme by misguided business types. Sure many people hate patents, but they also can work in your favor for funding projects. For instance many companies are funding the human GNOME project in return for certain patents on creation of drugs to utilize certain areas of the DNA structure. This may sound bad but without it the GNOME project would not have made the remarkable progress it has made. I guess sometimes you must rob Peter to pay Paul.

  • This is a great point. Once his code is released, any future patents on the idea could be shot down via prior art, AND all the messiness with HURD/*BSD could have been avoided. Not to mention the point that IBM's been doing this for 20 years, as mentioned in another posting, so this patent in itself is probably flawed.

    He stated in his email [lwn.net] that he a) wanted to avoid paying royalties to someone else to use his idea and b) has had to pay extensive legal fees for getting the patent.

    It seems like he's traded the POSSIBILITY of paying a huge legal bill for the FACT of a huge legal bill.

    If someone tried to patent it later on and collect royalties, he might have to pay an attorney to shoot down the claim then (via prior art), OR a big company using RTLinux in a product would have sic'd their legal department on the fradulent claiment - saving Victor the hassle & expense. Either way - there's a good chance he'd never pay a cent.

  • I dont know the legal issues, the circumstances or what transpired with RT-Linux. except that I have a version that ISNT patented (1 year old).

    I write software, and I write only for Linux/BSD.
    and I can tell you this. I will never take the cowards way out and patent/copyright anything except under a "free for all to use GPL".

    A code hacker that feels the need for greed is a coward and almost as bad as Our beloved Micropuke founder.

    Code hackers fall from grace #1 : get greedy.
    Code hackers fall from grace #2 : Patent something that is not ENTIRELY your own.

    How about Linus changing his license to state : if your patented product is BASED on Linux you no longer have the right to use Linux.

    that will destroy that patent in seconds.
  • There are 2 problems I have with this kind of strategy - it uses software patents, and it reinforces problems that a lot of the non-linux OS community have been having. There are too many programs e.g. OSS(don't get me started), that say "here, the Linux version is free, but you have to pay for any other version". Giving things away for free is all fine and good, but doing it selectively is very frustrating for those of use that use any OSes like xBSd.

    Either make it open, or make it closed, don't be half-assed about it.

    -lx
  • Knee-jerk reactions aside - you can have one for either side of the issue - a more considered analysis yields two insights.

    Fighting fire with fire makes sense insofar as it furthers a *practical* objective : to highlight the obstacles that patent law as applied to software puts in the way of software innovation. Patents held by individuals, if effective in preventing large commercial concerns from capitalizing on "obvious" ideas, would have more economic impact than the reverse situation... The ideal outcome would be Company X (insert name of your favorite monopoly) actively seeking to knock down patents on the principle of the thing.

    From a broader perspective though, some arguments against applying patent law to purely abstract 'inventions' go well beyond the practical, such as some ideas being so 'necessary' in the context of a given problem that allowing such ideas to be patented amounts to loading the dice in favor of corporations who can afford to patent everything in sight.

    We should definitely be worried about undermining our own position in the patent debate by appearing to discard moral or philosophical objections to patenting software too easily in favor of a below the belt, practical attack against the patent system.
  • It's just like the "open source" world to close off other people's options in the name of "freedom". If I want to use a closed source OS, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to. Now the OSS world is doing the same thing the closed commercial world has done to them.

    Commercial companies would patent things and then attack open projects using those patents (MP3). So now the "open" people/projects/companies will be punishing the closed companies by requiring payment for the patent--only if you make money!

    Yes, this is his patent and he has the right to set the license rules. However, if he truly believed in an open world, he would never have patented it anyway. Since it already exists and is in use in RT-Linux, there would be plenty of prior art to get any similar patent (if it ever showed up) thrown out, right?

    This is the same kind of close minded actions that silly people who sue Microsoft use. They go after those with money. There's no real higher-purpose at work here. Just good old fashioned GREED disguised as activism.

    I say again: What a bunch of crap.

    l8r
    Sean
  • The abstract for this patent (titled "Adding real-time support to general purpose operating systems") is:
    A general purpose computer operating system is run using a real time operating system. A real time operating system is provided for running real time tasks. A general purpose operating system is provided as one of the real time tasks. The general purpose operating system is preempted as needed for the real time tasks and is prevented from blocking preemption of the non-real time tasks.
    Reading the details of the patent, it appears to be real-time code implemented as a wrapper around the general-purpose OS, tricking the OS into thinking the real-time stuff isn't really there.

    Although this isn't quite the same approach, the classic Amiga OS achieves the same goal in a cleaner, simpler fashion. The Amiga had real-time priorities associated with each task (analogous to a process in Unix), and a lower-priority task could never preempt a higher-priority task. However, tasks with the same priority would preempt each other with standard round-robin preemptive multitasking. Most user tasks would run at the default priority, in the middle of the range.

    It was a very elegant solution, integrated cleanly into the operating system instead of hacked around it. The downside, of course, is that you have to be very careful programming high-priority tasks, since they can starve lower-priority tasks completely with an endless loop...

    To illustrate the value of this system, consider the amazing responsiveness the Amiga's GUI had, despite running on an 8 MHz 68000. This was partly due to the fact that the tasks handling the GUI functions ran (by default) at a higher real-time priority, thus weren't slowed by CPU-hungry user tasks. (Also, since the Amiga didn't have virtual memory, paging couldn't slow down the system either...)

    Although this isn't the same approach, I'm not entirely convinced this patent is sufficiently novel to deserve a patent. If you give an engineer the task of retrofitting real-time support onto an existing OS with minimum impact, this seems like the obvious solution. (There might also be prior art in implementations of virtual machines...)
  • I think it's complete bull that from the same crowd that constantly complains about how patents stiffle innovatation, someone steps out and patents something with less than completely free licensing terms.

    Why should it matter if said patent is used in a commercial product or an opensource one?

    With that attitude, it's kind of hard to argue against patents... "they can't patent stuff, but we can?"... or "we can violate their patents, but they'ed better not violate ours?"

    Et cetra
  • Yes. But why the patent? Since RTLinux is GPL'd, any project that uses the code would already have to abide by that license.

    Are you saying that if Corel decided to come out with a "Corel RTLinux OS" distribution they should have to pay for the kernel because the distribution contains closed source software (Wordperfect 8)? That seems a bit rediculous to me.

    Let the GPL sort the issue out. The GPL has worked in the past and will continue to work in the future.

    My big question is how (if RTLinux is under the GPL) someone can force someone else to pay for the software's use. The GPL states the GPL software must remain freely available.

    I don't have a problem with someone making money off of GPL'd software. But this is NOT the way to do it.
  • While it may be wise for open source developers to register patents (to keep others from registering them) it is totally wrong to wrap a patent around open source software and then use it to extort money from persons wishing to use the code. Don't kill a good thing
  • Judges don't grant patents.

  • Or there's another defensive use of the patents. Right now, the companies getting and holding patents on things are telling everyone that if they want to use the patents, they have to play by those companies' rules. If open-source people hold similar patents, they can do the same thing and tell those companies that if they want to use the patents, they have to play by open-source rules or pay hefty license fees. And the same court rulings and legal rules that benefit the big companies can be used by the little guys. You're right about the expenses, but then again there are competent lawyers willing to do some pro-bono work for open-source projects too.

  • Hmmm....
    What great use for the Slash code.
  • Well, the GPL works in a method that can be described as "viral".. You could say that an "open" patent is a good thing simply because of the fact that once somebody patents something, no one else can.

    Of course, here you have to trust intentions of the person making the patent... I'd say give them all to the FSF or RMS, but RMS wouldn't allow free usage, he'd say you had to give all your patents away in order to use the "open" patents. :-)


    ---
  • Don't know enough about the technology to answer the questions posited. However, it sure looks like his hearts in the right place.

    I hope he intends it to be free to any free/Open Source version of Unix.

    I can't think of any problems with the concept, but I'd really have to look at the wording before I would make up my mind on whether or not this is really a Good Thing.

  • . . .it is totally wrong to wrap a patent around open source software and then use it to extort money from persons wishing to use the code.

    It appears he wants the patent to be usable on all open projects:

    If you want to use my idea for a non-Linux or
    non open project, you should think about how to pay.

    If you wish to "use the code", you'll have to abide by the GPL (RTLinux is GPLed) and there's no problem.

  • From the invention summary:

    Modifications to the Linux kernel are primarily in three places:

    • The cli routine to disable interrupts is modified to simply clear a global variable controlling soft interrupt enable.
    • The sti routine to enable interrupts is modified to generate emulated interrupts for any pending soft interrupts.
    • The low-level "wrapper" routines that save and restore state around calls to handlers have been changed to use soft return from interrupt code instead of using the machine instruction.

    It's clear here that he is modifying Linux; therefore, these changes under the GPL should be returned to the community. Since the purpose of modifying Linux is to give access to other code, it follows that this other code is also under the GPL. Therefore it cannot be patented.

  • You don't have to patent something to protect it from being patent. All you have to do is state it publically. Then it is prior art and cannot be patented.
  • To truly serve this purpose, it should be licensed royalty-free to anyone who either doesn't file for patents on software or things which are not genuinely novel, or who licenses all such patents in a similar defensive manner. It should not matter whether the software is Linux or not, or even whether it is open or not (people should have the right to license their software as they choose, even if many of us (myself included) prefer open software.

    I agree 100%. My comment about OpenSource was because I generally see that code as the most open to attack from those who currently HAVE large patent portfolios for several reasons:
    1) They are usually not funded by large companies with large defensive patent portfolios
    2) They generally (but far from always) tend to be more ambitious then a similar closed source project (provided, again, that they are not being funded by a corporation with either deep pockets, or big goals)
    3) They are providing their source code which could theoritically be examined by the Patent holder for infringment that might not be readily noticable from a binary executable.

    This wasn't ment as a 'Open Source or Death' comment, rather I felt that Open Source was the area that could benifit the most from something like a 'Free Patent Orginization'. Surely others who either have no patents, or else, are using them only for defensive purposes should be entitled to access, but the question of how to license it becomes important (I see lots of potential for abuse if we're not careful).

    As for the content of the patent, running an OS as a process of another OS is nothing new, and making the host OS a real-time OS is, IMAO, an obvious extension of that concept.

    I agree. It may not seem that 'novel' to us, but then, neither did Amazons 'one-click shopping'. Don't think of it as "If you can't beat them join them", rather think "If those are the current rules, I'll try my darndest to change them, but in the meantime, if they are going to exploit the rules and I don't, then one of us is going to have an advantage, and it won't be me." Maybe the granting of this 'obvious' patent will prompt some of the big companies to cry foul which may make enough people review the whole process (I doubt it but its nice to dream).

  • If there was a better method of patent review, then a patent on this would most likely be shot down die to prior art (in this case RT Linux, for one), however, in the current climate at the USPTO the patent obviously would be granted (there are other examples of Prior Art before RT Linux from my understanding).
  • This would definately be true, however I envision the following as equally likely:

    1. FSP impliments feature X first.
    2. EvilCorp, Inc. impliments feature X.
    3. EvilCorp, Inc. is granted a Patent on feature X
    (Dont tell me it couldn't happen, it very well could with the current poor reviewing)
    4. EvilCorp, Inc. sues FSP for infringing their patent on feature X.

    It is now up to FSP to prove they came first, it very well may be possable to prove in court, but the question is, how much money/time will it take?

    Will they (EvilCorp, Inc.) be able to get a Judge to grant a temporary injunction against the FSP project to essentially _suspend_ all developement on it?

    What effect would some enforced suspention of developement have on most projects over the period of time a legal battle usually involves? Will the project be able to maintain its momentum or will it 'shed' people?

    If on the other hand FSP has already patented feature X then they no longer have to worry about patent infringment over it, as well as having something to barter with as you mentioned.
  • While I agree that software patents are a "bad thing". It all comes down to enforcement. Take a look at IBM. They get more patents every year than any other company, but we never complain about them, because they use their patents defensivly. If somebody sues them on patent enfringement they just countersue with their huge array. A 'speak softly and carry a really big stick' stragegy.

    Urban legend has it that Microsoft tried to get IBM on patent enfringement. When their laywers met, IBM had a massive stack of patents that Microsoft had enfringed on, with a tab key patent on top...

    - Mike

  • 5. There is no standard GPLish license for patents, organization for common licensing, or solution to the posed problems suggested in the first fifty posts. Given the reality as presented, some solution should be found. Unfortunately, only the first fifty posts are ever reviewed.
    I'm trying to promote the notion of just such a GPLish patent license via the Open Patent License under development at www.openpatents.org [openpatents.org].

  • Where the hell are my damned "redundant" moderator points?
    Apologies.

    It was simply frustrating that something in one of the original links is discussed in comments as though it doesn't exist in any form. That's why I replied with that info a few times to those sorts of comments.

    I hadn't realized that I had posted twice in the same thread, which is, uhm, the very definition of redundant. Ackkk!

    Thanks for pointing it out. It would deserve to be moderated down.

  • On one hand, if a sufficiently large block of "Free Patents" were available then perhaps we could make the same kind of patent trades that the big companies do and get access to, say Unisys' patent on GIF, for example.
    That's the sort of thing I want the Open Patent License at www.openpatents.org/ [openpatents.org] to help do.

  • I guess that's always my underlying worry about the idea of defensive patents taken out by any well-meaning individual or organization. It might seem like a fine idea at first, but if of them starts racking up gambling debts in Vegas, how tempting is it going to be to start enforcing those patents and extorting huge fees?

    What we need is some sort of legal process where you can apply for a patent, and then "I leave this to the public now and forever."

    Under the Open Patent License under development at www.openpatents.org [openpatents.org], patents are submitted irrevocably, (after some different timeouts). I've talked with a patent attorney and find out that the general things I want the license to do can be done, but I didn't ask about the irrevocable submittions--I *think*, but haven't verified with any lawyer that it can be done. It's something I really want the license to do, otherwise it's not really fair to the other participants. (BTW, I also haven't asked that lawyer to debug the license in detail yet--a waste of time IMHO for a license that's still in flux. Once it settles down a bit, I'll pay for some legal debugging.)

  • I doubt that any BSD OS will accept these terms. The BSD license is preferred over the GPL for the BSD OS's because the developers want all others to be able to use the code without fear of stepping into some legal mess.
    Unfortunately, the legal mess of patents exists whether we want it to or not. The license provides for this Open Source only use, if that's how the owners submitted the patent.

    The OPL also allows people to submit patents under BSD-type "you can use it for anything" terms, but I doubt many patent owners will be interested in that Option.

    However, the OPL *also* lets patent owners submit patents such that they can be used in products containing only similarly OPL-licensed or mostly-less-restrictively OPL-licensed OPL-licensable IP. (As you can see, I haven't figured out how to succinctly say this stuff yet.) So if the BSD-derived+proprietary code contains no other patents, and the patent were licensed under at least the currently-labeled OPL Option 1, then it could be used in at least some BSD-derived but proprietary code.

  • Unfortunately, we keep seeing more and more reasons to start defensive-patenting.
    Against the "hacker's ethic"? Perhaps. But until patent law is fixed (or abolished), this may be the only option. Until the laws change, we will just have to use the existing laws to our advantage.

    Was RT-Linux's status as prior art not sufficient to keep RT-Linux free from other patent claims?

    Do we really need to ask this question? We've already seen numerous cases where prior-art is ignored. It seems to be getting to the point where one actually needs a patent to prove prior art.

    That said, I think we need to see how this patent is used before judging this patent. The *BSD and Hurd question is a good start. Do we treat those who support the Opensource/Free-Software community get to use it freely (as in both speach and beer). Do those companies and organizations that hold software patents get to use it:
    1) no strings attached?
    2) for a small fee?
    3) only if they "open" some of their software patents as well?

  • Patents are also prohibitively expensive compared to copyrights which are, in essence, free (as in beer).

    If you belive in OSS there is little point in obtaining a patent. Patents are meant to protect ideas, inventions and IP; this puts them in direct opposition to the whole spirit of Open Source.

    If you want to protect software Copyright/left it. Basically what I'm trying to say is
    NO SOFTWARE PATENTS PERIOD.

  • He'd just lose the patent if it went to court and the judge found that his technique was already common.
  • Derrr, patent farms don't use patents. They just collect, breed, and show them.
  • The GPL only says (in essence) that if you distribute the program you must accompany it with the source code. A patent on the techniques employed in the source code doesn't prevent you from doing this, but it will (potentially) prevent you from being allowed to run the program legally, which is something completely different.
  • I read somewhere that some company added to the kernel to allow rt features and was planning to incorporate the changes into the kernel under gpl.

    Could anyone confirm this? (Provide links =) )
  • OK. I read about 90% of the patent. I didn't look at the figures, however.

    Where is the "invention"? Who *HASN'T* done this? This is the same RTOS design that was being taught in college when I was there nearly 20 years ago.

    You subordinate a non-real-time OS (or its services) underneath a RTE. Duh.

    Is the guy patenting the Linux implementation of this ancient paradigm? Is this really worth a patent?

    No. I'm afraid that software patents, no matter how they are used, are B-A-D. It's like the chunk of evil in Time Bandits; there's just no proper way to handle it. You touch it, you die.

    The main problem I have with them is that there is just no justification for the level of monopoly they grant. Software is mathematics at its base level; that is what Turing kept saying (computer algorithms are actually a subset of mathematics, which gives rise to the Turing Test because there are some mathematical problems computer algorithms can't solve, so far at least). As a result, anyone with half a brain and a small bit of perseverance can come up with these "inventions"; things that are obvious and logically deducible with some small amount of thought.

    Then there is the issue of these hugely broad patents, like this one, which essentially lock out the entire base concept from an infinitum of possible implementations. It's like patenting transportation and then licensing every device (and these days, every method) developed to move people or things from one place to another.

    Then there is the huge issue of prior art, which I think this patent (and soooooooo many others like it) treads upon heavily.

    Ultimately, it is like the Amazon one-click bullsh*t patent. They knew that the patent system was broken. They knew that other people were abusing the hell out of it. Still, they went ahead and abused it themselves. There is no excuse for it. Period.

    Now, if I continue work on my own OS kernel (which has RTOS structure in it), I will have to pay this person some ridiculous royalty if I want to sell it (or even use it, if he doesn't like the way I hold my mouth). No thanks. My work is independent and will stay unpatentable, even if by my own hand (by publishing the algorithms or the source or whatever).

    Oh well. We all will go to Hell at some point in our lives. I was hoping Linux would be spared for a while yet at least.

    C'est la vie.

    Shawn Stamps
    Omega Microsystems, Inc.
    Nexus Internetworking Services
  • If Victor doesn't sue them for patent infringement, does that open the doors for a Microsoft or a Sun to come in and use it 'illegally' without paying a license?"

    I doubt this is will be a problem. Anybody remember Unisys and GIF's?

  • That's right. But the best thing to do is probably to assign them to a nonprofit like the FSF or SPI with strict instructions not to enforce the patent, just to prove your intentions. I don't know whether FSF or SPI will actually let you do that, I'm just speaking hypothetically!

  • How about when software becomes a 1.0 someone in the group files for a patent, and all the other contributors show the development tree as proof of it preexisting before the patent application and that it wasn't original (i.e. patent applicant doesn't have sole right). That way, it's all in the records of the patent office that said software is public domain and can't be patented....
  • The preamble to the GPL isn't the GPL. And so isn't part of the licensing terms. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but that particular pseudo-legalism doesn't help.

    --
  • Normally I have to say I'm against most software patents (really any overly broad patent) but I know Dr. Yodaiken and if anybody can be trusted to do right by the community with this it's him. He's not only one of the coolest professors I've known he's one of the coolest people I've ever met. I wasn't his best friend or anything so I may very well be wrong but I have to think that he won't be somebody we need to flame over his patent portfolio.
  • While I have no problems with defensively acquiring patents as a way to fight back against abusers of the patent system, this isn't the way to do it. To truly serve this purpose, it should be licensed royalty-free to anyone who either doesn't file for patents on software or things which are not genuinely novel, or who licenses all such patents in a similar defensive manner. It should not matter whether the software is Linux or not, or even whether it is open or not (people should have the right to license their software as they choose, even if many of us (myself included) prefer open software. If the users of the software don't want the problems associated with closed software, they don't have to buy/use it). As is, this patent is no better than the LZW patent, as it serves to restrict use strictly to those pieces of software the patent holder likes.

    As for the content of the patent, running an OS as a process of another OS is nothing new, and making the host OS a real-time OS is, IMAO, an obvious extension of that concept.

    --

  • I don't disagree with the idea of free software developers acquiring software patents. But they should allow other free software developers to use these patents without royalties---regardless of the operating system platform.

    That is to say, if someone creates free software under a GPL-like license which prohibits proprietization, then let them use the patented idea!

    On the other hand, I don't see a problem with makers of proprietary software being made to pay royalties. After all, they don't like freely sharing their ideas with others, so why freely share with them?

    I hope Yodaiken takes on a more enlightened attitude, and users the power inherent in his patent to do good. The main purpose should be to prevent a hostile organization from acquiring the patent, not to act as a hostile organization.

    I have a feeling that Yodaiken will probably grant use of his idea to anyone developing GNU style free software. but they shouldn't have to ask, know what I mean?
  • IMHO, it's not that important whether RT-Linux is unprotected, protected, real, integer, or Frankfurt.

    On the other hand, I think it's great that the Open Source community has finally cottened on to the fact that the commercial sector has zero ethics and even less morality.

    Does that mean the patent is "good"? "Bad"? Indifferent? Purple? IMHO, the only way to find that out is to talk about it, and that's something that a lot of people have either hedged around, ummed and aaahed, or ignored completely. Well, now that can't happen.

    The actual conclusion, though, on whether RT-Linux should be patented or not is not the important part of the discussion. That's a side-show, as good as RT-Linux is. What's important is that we talk about how to keep software Open and Free, whilst preventing abuses -of- that Openness and Freeness, by people who neither understand nor care for anything but their bank balance.

  • The GPL does state that any patented code you use must be licensed free for everyone's use. So I'm afraid this does violate the GPL unless the author licenses the code for free to everyone.
  • If Victor doesn't sue them for patent infringement, does that open the doors for a Microsoft or a Sun to come in and use it 'illegally' without paying a license?

    No. You don't have to defend a patent in the same way that you have to defend a trademark.

  • AT&T's MERT (which is actually referenced in this patent!) did basically the same thing as RT-Linux.

    I also dispute that the claims of this patent are non-obvious. I proposed a similar scheme when I worked at Telebit and we wanted to merge our router and modem code bases for a low-cost product. The modem had hard real-time requirements, so we were going to run the router operating system as a task under the modem's operating system. Neither I nor my coworkers thought this was a super-advanced non-obvious technique that should be patented.

    As it turned out, I came up with an even better method for building the product, but we didn't end up using it because the price of modem chipsets had dropped enough to make it unnecessary.

  • Imagine the following scenario:

    1. Free software projecf (FSP) implements feature X first.
    2. EvilCorp, Inc. implements feature Y and feature X, and patents Y.
    3. FSP now implements feature Y.
    4. EvilCorp, Inc. sue FSP for infringing patent Y.

    Now, had FSP patented X, they could have defended themselves agains EvilCorp.

  • I believe that we need to do this, but establish a holdings company to keep the patents and then make sure than any group which licenses it's product under X, Y and Z licenses can automatically have access to the patents... which neatly ties up the problem of other Free Software presently available and future ones yet to be created having access to such patents.

  • While the patent is probably bogus, your message is meaningless, because you include the description, and what matters for patent purposes are the claims.

  • Patents are a paradox in computers. And why? Because they try to cope an ancient "mechanical" view of enginnering with an quantum-artistic world of
    computers. A long time ago it was easy to make a patent. Classic mechanics are, by nature, quite deterministic. And so every appliance of its laws is quite
    straightforward. Besides Mechanics still lays in the capacity of humans to build instruments, mechanisms. Most of these things are palpable, some may require
    a microscope or something similar to be "seen". However a careful examination can always determine how the "mechanism" was made. And this was the
    fundament of the patent system. In one way or the other you can determine of one or other mechanism "copies" a patented one.

    This does not happen anymore with computers. Yes, you still can determine something on them. But you most of the time can fall in two problems. Two
    problems that make the classical patenting systems quite awkward in the Wonderful New World.

    First most of the computer "mechanisms" are not palpable or either visible. Most of them are "abstractions" of the behaviour of quantum laws in a relatively
    defined environment. Such environment can be a processor, a computer, a network or Internet. No matter the initial conceptions to create a functional structure for
    a specifical purpose, such creation has a high potential to overcome the expectations of its creator. You cannot always predict on computers where your idea
    may lead to. It is a problem that Intel had to deal with in the time when i286 came up. Protected mode was an "idea in the air" that was left on the 286 for a future.
    Most aspects of its functionality was never expected to be used in the way that later people used it. When it was occasionaly leaked out to the public, it created
    a different series of protected mode systems. Every of them depended on a inner nature of the processor. Some followed the "original idea" Intel had to create
    protected mode. But others went so much to the bottom that they exploited every single feature of the processor in this mode. Exactly in one of these "strange
    modes" one friend of mine used 286 for real-time control of system for observations of electro-magnetic ressonance.

    Intel tried to stop this thing and turn the "tides" back to where they thought things should go. However we have to note that some of the functionality of modern
    Intel processors carries somehow the remains of the ancient Flood...

    The second problem comes from the first and it is what puts in cause the use of patenting system. For most of computer uses, you have to use an "abstraction".
    Something that translates your ideas to the computer world. That is what for computer languages are used. But as every "abstraction" you loose some of the
    determinism innerent to mechanics. In one way or the other, the computer languages determine also an "art of programming". And so it is natural that they
    become abstract, that one "style" copies "another", that you may find two similar ideas in two different programs. More than this, as time goes, programs start to
    cite "old sources", programs start to embed over each other. Sometimes plagiates start to happen. Good or bad. Conscious or occasional.

    How one can determine what is correct or wrong in such world? Well somehow a programm is still a piece of text in most cases. So one may determine, u to
    some extent, if anyone violates the copyrights of the original author. But can this be used for patents? Certainly not. You cannot determine the full extent of the
    mechanism. Or if try to determine it then you cannot fully acknowledge its potential application. It would be the same as trying to jump over Heisenberg's Law.
    You may try to find either the position or the velocity of the electron. But you can't know both at the same time.
  • I hate to burst any bubbles, but...

    1. Noone needs to fake a "general purpose" OS if you have a real-time OS. A real-time OS has all the features of a "general" one and more. This is exactly like running DOS apps in Windows 2000, you can, but WHY?

    2. Didn't I learn about this method in college only for the general not linux specific case? To quote Tweety bird: "I did! I did!". Just becasue it's done with Linux doesn't make it new. Any company that has the interest will be able to challenge this patent, and get it tossed. But again, noone will care, becasue there is no need to do this.

    3. The problem with the patent system is that they are granting completely bogus patents on things in textbooks. When someone invents something new, they deserve a patent. Invents new, not discovers old. Everything in computer science was done in the 70, get over it already.

    4. This patent is no better then any other. Many people will not be able to use the method without paying the grantie lots of money. The only acceptable "defence" patent license is to place the method into the public domain. Anything else is no better then what every other patent holder does.

  • I wonder if IBM knows about this. The VM operating system has been doing this EXACTLY for over 30 years.

    VM consists of two parts -- CP (Control Program) is a virtual machine emulator that runs on the bare iron (or can run under another copy of VM).

    Other general purpose operating systems, such as MVS or CMS, run as "virtual machines" under the real-time CP.

    Among other things, CP intercepts the hardware interrupts, and emulates them to the guest operating system, EXACTLY as described in the patent.

    CP also allows the guest operating systems to use the regular hardware instructions to enter a "virtual interrupt-disabled" state so that the guest operating systems can safely proceed as if interrupts were actually disabled, while the actual hardware leaves the interrupts enabled, to allow continual real-time interrupts/data collection.

    Apparently the patent examiners had no awareness of this VERY long-standing prior art.

    - John
  • BSD can be repackaged as close source. Linux cannot. If the patent usage licence resembles GPL there is no such problem. The question is that... Yes... Yet Another License...
  • Generally, I like the idea of defensive open source patents. However, the approach taken by RT-Linux doesn't work.

    UNISYS, too, stated that some software could use the GIF patent free and later changed their mind. Promises and intents are just that; what matters for patent licensing is a contractual relationship between the licensor and the licensee, and merely posting one's intent on some site isn't sufficient. Also, the particular license chosen for RT-Linux looks like it imposes some serious burdens on other real time Linux developers. Besides a contractual relationship, the only other choice for patents is placing it in the public domain.

    The only choice I see for ensuring that open source-related patents remain credible and open is to assign them to an organization whose charter irrevocably binds them to particular licensing conditions.

    As for the specific patent, there is ample, specific prior art.

    I'd recommend to the author to abandon this patent and work with the open source community on a better approach for the next patent.

  • What I mean when I say that is NOT to approach it like so:

    Hey ya jagoff, why the hell can't I use your code with my BSD-flavor-of-choice?! Fear the Daemon, he's so much more righteous than Tux!

    Perhaps I should have said "politely" rather than carefully.

    I'll admit to not having followed LinuxRT from conception to present, so I don't know the origin of this code, but if he wrote it all on his own, then that code is his to license or patent however he chooses within the bounds of the law. If he wants to patent his invention and license it free of charge to GPL'ed code and tell people using the BSD license to pound sand - as much as I would disagree with him - that's his choice to make. The BSD people would probably come up with their own stuff, be more friendly in the licensing, and the world would probably follow.

    D

  • 1.) It doesn't matter if he EVER defends the patent. He's not (I don't think) patenting it to hold it ransom from the likes of Sun and Microsoft, but rather to prevent someone like Sun or Microsoft from patenting it themselves and trying to charge licensing fees.

    2.) I think, if approached carefully, that Hurd/BSD users would probably have little difficulty getting "free use" clauses.

    3.) While I understand that in some things, you have to "rush forward" to patent something, I think now is an excellent time to revisit an idea that was talked about once before, that being a "GPP" or General Public Patent... some structure that patent-holders can use as a boilerplate for releasing their patents to any and all "Free"/"Open" use.

  • I don't have moderator points right now, or I'd spend a good number of them on this thread. I think this discussion is exactly what needs to be held. So I guess I'll just post.

    The point is brought up that a patent license could be used just like the GPL uses copyright. And that's true. And it may even be what to work for.

    But there's two points to consider:

    1) A patent is broader than copyright -- and getting broader (if one can patent things like
    build-to-order manufacturing and collecting data in a cookie). Thus, a patent on a widget might extend to ALL widgets that provide similar services. This has been brought up, but it's worth considering, because the point has synergy with my second point.

    2) AFAIK, there's no currently accepted open patent license. And, in fact, there's no completely accepted open source license, either. The GPL is close, but even that one isn't universally embraced. But that's OK, because if you want to use someone else's code for the Whizzy Widget, hey, you do it by the license they released. If you don't, you can go write your own Whizzy Widget No problem. Release it under any license you want. HOWEVER, if Whizzy Widgets are patented under a license you find unacceptable, you're out of luck. Write your own, and you face patent infringement.

    I think it may be possible to write a license that would get around such problems. But until there's a widely accepted (and recognized as enlightened and effective) open patent scheme, there's gonna be some serious clashes, and probable abuses.

    Weston
  • Yes, patents aren't free, unlike copyrights. (Nor are they automatic.)

    But, the upfront costs are usually the low costs. The big $$ comes in when you defend the patent (or use it offensively.)

    And, if you (author) used a product that had a GPL-ish licensed patent, it wouldn't force you to patent something, it'd just require that any patented procedure in that program was also licensed in the same way.

    And yeah, the RT patent could be worth a few bucks. I haven't looked at it so I don't know how obvious it is. If it's a 'good' patent then he deserves a few bucks. And a company that wants to use RT Linux for a specific application could probably afford to shell out a few $$ for the privellage.

    Where I'm not happy with this is that the GPL doesn't forbid patent encumberance, or bundling the GPLed code and patented algorithms (non distributable and non freely usuable because of the patent). IMHO if you use GPLed code, it should be mandatory that it leave your hands as unencumbered as when you got it.

    (By which I mean, if RSA released the an RSA module which they GPLed, it would be patent encumbered, but if they created it from scratch, that would be fine. But if they took the existing network code or GPG code and made it dependant on patented algorithms, they should be in effect granting free use of that patent in any way, as might be derived from that code.) (ie, if someone took that theoretical GPG code and turned it into an encrypted file system, that should be allowed, the same as using any GPL code in your code, no matter the insignificance, turns your code GPL...)

    Hey RMS, if you read /. and this message... What are you doing wrt patents? Is the FSF working on a GPL-type license for this?
  • Patents are a defensive measure, which really, is what the GPL is. If we could trust everyone to look out for the best interests of the community, or to at least not hurt the community, the GPL would be pointless, people would keep code open simply for the benefits to everyone. We've seen though that this doesn't happen, something like the GPL is needed to keep people 'honest'.

    We've seen companies use patents in incredibly hostile ways. Amazon's 1-click patent, that company with the patent on selling any digital information over a network, etc. And they immediately lashed out with these, seeking exorbitant licensing fees or to put competitors out of business.

    We need a GPL-type license for patents, something where any company using the GPLed patent in any product has to similarly GPL all the code and patents in the product.

    Then a company could patent something, to keep anyone else from using it against them, but by releasing it under the GPL, prevent any fears that they're trying to dominate the industry.

    Note though that the article said that Linux users would be granted a royalty free license... nothing about home users, or free users, etc. If this is applied to any open source OS, then it's good in my opinion.

    But I would like to see RMS and the FSF come up with a GPL-like license for use with patents.

    If there was a standard GPL-type license, and it only forced other people to GPL their patents and code, then it would have the same effect as the GPL does on code, and couldn't be applied selectively. But commercial users who didn't like that provision could still negotiate other licenses. The best of both worlds.
  • But the GPL isn't a free license (as in BSD). The GPL has restrictions... A patent will be that free as long as the only restrictions are GPL-ish, as in derivative patents and copyrighted materials have to carry a similar license.

    The GPL is free in that it makes no restrictions as to who can use the material, or for what. A company is just as free to sell GPLed code as an end user is to use it (provided they follow the free distro rules, etc.) As long as the patents are similar, such that any use in an open-source, open-patent project is allowed, then I fully support it.

    I would like to see a standard license developed for this sort of thing. Maybe the FSF can develop one.

    Side note: I see patents being used to protect your business against competitors, not against anyone using the idea. As such, eventually having all patents free (as in, companies decide that being able to use the GPLed patent portfolio is more useful than keeping their patents secret) would still serve to prevent a hostile company from stealing research, because it would have to open all of its patents to use the free ones, but it would serve to advance knowledge more rapidly, ala open source.
  • If 'we' (the OpenSource Community) are going to have to put up with nonsense patents (LZW compression and the Gif format come to mind) then I think this is something I'm all for. Until we don't have to deal with these problems, then I think we have to take a pro-active (shudder... i think I found that word from being around management too long) view and build up our own 'patent portfolio' that we can use defensively if need be.

    A better question might be "Who will control the patent?" In order to really have a defensive patent portfolio, don't we need one orginization/group who can barter with them on behalf of the collective whole? (whether they control the individual patents or not)

    Now... if only a piece of software would come out of Unisys that we could Sue over :)

  • AFAIK, there's no currently accepted open patent license.

    Perhaps the Open Patent License [openpatents.org] I'm trying to promote at www.openpatents.org [openpatents.org] can eventually be accepted by the community.

  • Linus doesn't hold patents on Linux. Secondly, the concept of "protecting" Linux via software patents is more cockeyed than a three legged dolphin.

  • Re:BS (Score:2)

    by StenD ( 34260 )
    You don't need a patent in order to 'defend' against patent lawsuits. All you have to do is properly document (date,witness,etc) your invention and you have a very strong claim against anyone who tries to patent the same invention in the future.

    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that you're not one either, given your impression that having documented prior art is a "very strong claim". Unfortunately, that isn't the case, as a patent has a presumed to be valid, and you have to prove otheriwse. A competing, previously issued patent is a very strong claim. Documented prior art is not, at least it doesn't seem to be, from the outside of the legal profession looking in.

  • When (not if, but when) some 800 pound gorilla decides to extract some money from Open Source (distributors, corporate users, developers, etc...) based on a software patent, the best defense we may have is public sentiment. By showing the world how this closed-source company is extorting money, we might be able to put them in such a bad light that they choose to not continue the suit. Open Source currently enjoys much positive sentiment on the part of the general public (to the extent they have even heard of it).

    If members of the Open Source community have patents that are being used against closed source companies, it will be hard not to look disingenuous when we argue that they shouldn't use their patents against us. It will be pointed out that we stand by our convictions only when it is convenient to us, and we will look worse than the 800 pound gorilla. Because the patent situation is one of the few Achilles' heels that Open Source really has, I think this is a potentially dangerous development.

    Put me down as "against it."

    -Steve

  • Copyleft is an application of Copyright to subvert copyright itself.

    Could this be an "Open"Patent...an application of the patent system intended to subvert the patent? Essentially patenting it with the express permission for anybody to use/modify/distribute it...as the Copyleft copyrights something with the express permission for anybody to use/modify/distribute it.

    Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
  • 3. The problem with the patent system is that they are granting completely bogus patents on things in textbooks. When someone invents something new, they deserve a patent. Invents new, not discovers old. Everything in computer science was done in the 70, get over it already.
    It seems to be the New Wave for patents - first, we have a whole heap of commonly accepted business methods patented as being "applied to the web"; the next wave now seems to be "applied to Linux". will we have a whole heap of patents "applied to radio transmissions" now that WAP providers are coming in?
    --

  • I know Yodaiken too, at least by reputation. He's now on sabbatical, but until the end of last semester was the head of the computer science department at my school, New Mexico Tech.

    Yodaiken is reputed to be the most brilliant and innovative computer guy that anyone here knows. As far as I know, he pioneered the realtime Linux concept, and has worked closely with Linus Torvalds himself on this project. Yodaiken is highly acclaimed and has much respect both at this school and in the Linux and computing community as a whole.

    The purpose of this patent appears to be to protect the concept of a real-time OS from those who would use it for corporate evil, i.e. Microsoft, Sun, etc. Yodaiken appears to either strongly support, or only support, this concept on Linux, and doesn't want Linux/free OS users to have to pay to use the concept. As far as Windoze users (and Solaris, and...) goes, Yodaiken doesn't care if they have to pay. If they're willing to pay for the OS, why not for the RT concept too, I think is the attitude.

    Larger arguments of patent issues aside, this is a Good Thing. It's as much a personality issue as it is a free software / no patents issue. Yodaiken is doing this for the good of the Linux/free software community. Trust me.

  • A 'speak softly and carry a really big stick' stragegy.

    Make that a really, really freaking HUGE stick, I mean omigod that's a really huge stick. Where in the heck did they get that stick? It's more like a tree than a stick! (-1, offtopic)

  • I wouldn't want to be this guy unless I had asbestos shorts (come to think of it, not even then. Itchy...) because of the level of flames he's going to receive. Perhaps CERN could look for quark-gluon plasma around him: the flame temp should be more than high enough.


    However, I think this is A Good Thing. Not because I like patents on software, but, sorry folks, software patents exist. Be in the now. Until the wonderful day when we can strike down software patents, we must arm ourselves to fight on their terms. By patenting RTLinux, and forcing non-OSS (non-free software too, in deference to RMS) to pay for it, we gain a weapon we can use in the eventual fight to end software patents.

  • if this is so obvious, wheres your realtime implementation of linux?
  • While I applaud Victor's plan to allow Linux users royalty-free license to the patent, the fact is that already there is some amount of controversy with questions like, "Well what about BSD users? Hurd? What about other open/free OS's that might accidentally 'discover' the same way of doing things? If Victor doesn't sue them for patent infringement, does that open the doors for a Microsoft or a Sun to come in and use it 'illegally' without paying a license?"

    I just think that no matter who, no matter what, no matter how, no matter why, software patents are simply a Really Bad Thing for programmers.

    -=-=-=-=-

  • BS (Score:2)

    by gargle ( 97883 )
    You don't need a patent in order to 'defend' against patent lawsuits. All you have to do is properly document (date,witness,etc) your invention and you have a very strong claim against anyone who tries to patent the same invention in the future. The fact that he took out a patent shows an intention to license it, or to obtain monopoly rights.
  • The description of the patent reads as follows:

    A general purpose computer operating system is run using a real time operating system. A real time operating system is provided for running real time tasks. A general purpose operating system is provided as one of the real time tasks. The general purpose operating system is preempted as needed for the real time tasks and is prevented from blocking preemption of the non-real time tasks.

    Funny: Intel did this with Windows 3.1 quite a few years ago. It provided a real-time operating system kernel which ran beneath Windows and treated Windows as a task. It demonstrated it at the Embedded Systems Conference for a few years running and licensed it to embedded systems vendors.

    IBM's VM/CMS is also prior art and is even older.

    --Brett Glass

  • Interesting. An open source "advocate" gets a patent, and the first thing he does is threaten to lock the patented technology away from others. Not particularly "open," is it?

    --Brett Glass

  • The claims say very much the same thing as the abstract. They're very broad. There's a link to them in the initial article.

    --Brett Glass

  • If members of the Open Source community have patents that are being used against closed source companies, it will be hard not to look disingenuous when we argue that they shouldn't use their patents against us. It will be pointed out that we stand by our convictions only when it is convenient to us, and we will look worse than the 800 pound gorilla. Because the patent situation is one of the few Achilles' heels that Open Source really has, I think this is a potentially dangerous development.

    I agree, and, IIRC, I made the same point (using significantly different language) when this issue was being discussed among RMS and others on, again IIRC, the Free-Software Business mailing list (I think it's at fsb@crynwr.com, but have long since unsubscribed).

    The results of those discussions, which took place well over a year ago, I haven't tracked, but there looked to be significant effort directed towards creating some sort of Open Patent Pool.

    All in all it's a reasonable, and fairly direct, strategy.

    So while I share your concerns that once "we" (free-software enthusiasts) head down the path of taking up the same weapons being used against us, we won't have nearly the public support we'd have if we remained unarmed, I'll point out a few things:

    • It's probably already too late -- there might already be enough defensive-patenting going on in the free-software community to make this a non-issue.
    • It is probably better to prepare to defend oneself against a known enemy than to count on public support for having purposely avoided doing so.
    • Down the road, I'd like to think free software (or Open Source if you like) will be so successful it won't be seen as an underdog -- at which point, public sentiment might be less reliable than possessing suitable weaponry (i.e. defensive patents).
    Given that, it's probably best for us to, having registered our concerns with this approach, move on to supporting the other one being chosen.

    So, personally, I support aggressive patenting of software (even business and genetic) "inventions" for the purpose of using them defensively in support of free software (and free exchange of information overall), even though I don't support the patentability of inventions in those areas generally.

    (FWIW, I also agree that the GPL probably disallows distributing a version of the Linux kernel containing a patented technique that is licensed for use by only, say, Linux, as compared to any GPL'ed software. I suspect the fine points of this are yet to be worked out in this particular case, and expect the owner of this shiny new patent will appreciate the feedback provided here at /.)

  • The abstract:

    A general purpose computer operating system is run using a real time operating system. A real time operating system is provided for running real time tasks. A general purpose operating system is provided as one of the real time tasks. The general purpose operating system is preempted as needed for the real time tasks and is prevented from blocking preemption of the non-real time tasks.

    This looks a lot like a real-time Mach, or for that matter, a lot like QNX. Not that microkernel=realtime, but isn't that the basic idea behind a lot of RTOSs?
  • Gee, you think the GPL is viral. Patents infect people who don't even see the code.

    On one hand, if a sufficiently large block of "Free Patents" were available then perhaps we could make the same kind of patent trades that the big companies do and get access to, say Unisys' patent on GIF, for example.

    On the other hand, what corporation is going to deal with a bunch of lawless programmers who would copy "trade secrets" all over the world.

    On the gripping hand, if they need the patent, they gotta come to us. Heh heh heh.

    Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

  • Listen to yourself. (Score:3)

    by Chris Johnson ( 580 ) on Thursday February 10, 2000 @11:26AM (#1287926) Homepage Journal
    Why would a person wanting to make a GPLed variation of a GPLed program need to approach anybody _carefully_? That's not right. I don't use the GPL to set up that kind of dynamic with other developers. I use it because it permanently establishes a situation where nobody _has_ to come to me hat in hand begging permission to use my code- they only need to follow the rules and keep the situation the way it is. They can annoy me, they can call my code crap, they can work for Microsoft- none of that matters, all that matters is that they have access conditional on their willingness to offer EXACTLY THE SAME DEAL! to others. NO! substitutions.

    This is so, so wrong- just _listen_ to how it sounds. "Probably, maybe, other people can use this GPLed software, if they ask _nicely_ and he's not having a bad day- he probably doesn't have any reason to forbid their access to the GPLed software so it shouldn't be much of a problem..." I feel _ill_ :P isn't this exactly what's supposed to never happen? I want to see this situation nipped in the bud, immediately. This is the license I use for my software and I gave no permission for it to be rewritten in this manner...

  • It's been mentioned before....... (Score:3)

    by Roofus ( 15591 ) on Thursday February 10, 2000 @08:39AM (#1287927) Homepage
    ....but I'll reitterate it here. One of the best solutions to this whole software patent mess is to have the USPO provide an "Open Review/Comment Period", where we could view all pantent submissions, and then have the opportunity to provide prior art, or show that it is not really a novel idea. This would provide us with the ability to strike down retarded patents without ever having to go to court.
  • BSD can be repackaged as close source. Linux cannot. If the patent usage licence resembles GPL there is no such problem. The question is that... Yes... Yet Another License...
    Under the Open Patent License I'm trying to promote at www.openpatents.org [openpatents.org], if you submit a patent via the Option currently named Option F, (the license is still under development), then the patent can be used in any software where the work as a whole is distributable under an Open Source License, (and where all other patents are at least available for use under the same Open Source License.)

    The ramifications for BSD licensed code, (what's intended anyway), is that a patent in Pool F could be incorporated into that code and (usually) used freely, up until the code was made into a proprietary product. At that point someone would have to negotiate a separate patent license, as the OPL would no longer apply.

    I've talked with a Patent attorney about the license in general, and found to my relief that the things I want it to do are in fact doable. I haven't asked him to go over the license in detail yet, as I don't see much point in spending money on the legal debugging when the license itself hasn't fully settled down. Once it seems that the license probably does what most parties would want it to do, or at least their goals are incorporated into it in such a way that a lawyer rewrite the wording properly, I'll take it to the lawyers again and go through a few rounds of legal debugging/general debugging.

    If anyone is interested in discussing the topic in depth, there's a mailing list [openpatents.org] on the site.

  • point (Score:3)

    by vyesue ( 76216 ) on Thursday February 10, 2000 @09:00AM (#1287929)
    if the purpose of a patent is to encourage people to release details about their creation in exchange for protection from people stealign their idea, and thus advance technology in general, than whats the point of patenting somethign I can just go get the source for? (rtlinux is open source, I am imagining)

    seems to me that the only real reason to do this is to defend against someone else patenting it, but it exists as open sourced prior art, so that probably wouldn't (or at least shouldnt) fly.

    I don't get this at all.

  • Down with it! (Score:4)

    by mjuarez ( 12463 ) on Thursday February 10, 2000 @08:10AM (#1287930)
    If hackers all around the world started doing this, there would suddenly be no Open-Source anymore! I know I sound a bit like RMS, but you can't have "exceptions" in open source, and to have one "insider" doing it is a bad way to start.

    In my opinion, all open source hackers, and people committed to developing open, free software (as in speech, not beer), should also commit themselves that, if they're developing something for the community, to completely release it under the GPL.

    If we don't, developers will start like: "This software is free for end-users, home-users... etc, but not for commercial users." How exactly do you define a commercial user? Worse, how exactly do you enforce such a license? The simple, better-for-all way is simply to GPL it.

  • Can you say "GPL Violation"? I knew you could. (Score:4)

    by thedward ( 26360 ) on Thursday February 10, 2000 @08:31AM (#1287931) Homepage
    From the preamble to the GPL:

    Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Slashdot Top Deals

GREAT MOMENTS IN HISTORY (#7): April 2, 1751 Issac Newton becomes discouraged when he falls up a flight of stairs.

Close