Maybe Software Patents Won't Kill FOSS After All 305
Roblimo writes "Lawrence Rosen, attorney for the Open Source Initiative, doesn't seem to be as worried about software patents' effects on open source development as some Slashdot readers. In this article he says, 'Don't be too paranoid about the patent problem. It's a real problem, but not a catastrophe. Any patent owner that tries to assert its patents against open source software has many hurdles to leap before the royalty checks start to arrive.'"
It's not about the royalty checks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that Sun already lost (almost) all of its assets to Linux.
Microsoft isn't the only player, even if it's a big one.
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:2)
Sun the next SCO. Another MS puppet attacking open source.
No so sure. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what Open Source is all about. We know how to build most of the software people need to use today. Why keep paying for that, when we could be advancing the art of computer science, or helping people make the most of exists now. Good OSS people can build complex, powerful solutions right off the net. They are worth paying for. Software companies can build new things that are worth paying for as well.
The fortunes of the big software houses were built on the general ignorance the rest of us had. Problem is they stopped innovating and began simply selling and locking in to keep their position. This benefits nobody really, including them, because the backlash from their overselling will tarnish their customer relations to a point where it might almost be better to let new companies, with a clue, step in and show how it should be done.
Linux and OSS will eventually force a new model. Open operating systems, standards, and applications will provide most of what people need. The software worth paying for will be new software that is tough to write, it will be new software that actually delivers its value in terms of its raw capability. Services will continue to be big as people understand they can pay for solutions that fit them, and perhaps only them, instead of boxed software stamped and sold by the billions. This is where IBM has it right, and also where SUN has some learning to do yet.
I will pay for software that is new, or that is difficult to write and maintain because those that do the work deserve it. Sadly, this does not fit most of what SUN and Microsoft and their partners package and sell today.
SUN still has a lot of very bright people capable of great things --they just need to buckle down now, while they have some position and cash in the market and really take things to the next level. They should do this on Linux and let the OSS community do the rest.
SGI, BTW is beginning to see some real success doing exactly this. Almost cost them the company because they were late to the party and had a very vulnerable position to begin with. SUN is in far better shape, they should have a good chance at keeping things that way, if they work at it...
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:5, Interesting)
At my previous place of employment, management was scared away from Open Source Software. We had a "consultant" audit our shop. Apparently, Samba has the potential to create "future legal headaches." The SCO debacle was also brought up and used to scare management into purging open source software from every server and workstation. "Future interoperability concerns" were cited as well, since the world stops spinning without Microsoft, and Microsoft doesn't endorse our practice of using OSS.
I didn't find any actual out and out lies in the review. It's true that in the future, there is a potential for "legal headaches." It's not likely, and I imagine I'm probably more likely to be struck by lightning, while being eaten by a shark, while also holding the winning Powerball ticket.
Clearly, this is an example of terminal rectal-cranial-inversion, but I doubt it's an isolated case. Suits listen to suits, not to programmers.
It's not patents per se, but the uncertain (by whose standards I couldn't say) legal water that OSS exists in. The danger exists in the fostering of legal uncertainty.
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:3, Insightful)
Two reasons, first from the historical perspective Microsoft has taken action against end users.
Second, Microsoft is actively auditing end user organisations and causing no end of headaches.
The Open Source community (and Samba) has shown no indication of taking such action. While SCO has blustered about couty action agaist some Open Source users, it has not actually won a case yet.
O
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:5, Insightful)
On that basis, Open Source software is safer than Microsoft software.
Agreed. However, you have another problem.
I talk with a lot of businesses about open source. My big push has recently been Mozilla, and most of my customers are really impressed by it. That being said, you have two groups of customers.
The first sees open source as the "cheap alternative for those who don't want to spend money." They tend to see open source as too informal to be a safe bet. For good reason, I might add-- most open source projects, like most commercial software, never gets off the ground. The difference is that the prereleases or early versions are still publically available. A patent infringement suit would make these people think "I told you so" and go back into their hole.
The second type sees open source as a low-budget solution which has strategic and legal benefits to offer their organization. These folks are likely to be more interested in control over their infrastructure, standards compliance, modularity of infrastructure than they are over license fees, though these may come into it at some point. I think that these people would probably NOT be scared away from using open source by a patent suit.
My father, a non-technical physician who has been following the recent fiaSCO said to me the other day, "SCO is giving people a really good reason to use open source software."
So, such an infringement suit would likely deepen the existing divisions in the business world, as, I think, the SCO suits (both types) are.
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:3, Informative)
3 words: Timeline v. Microssoft.
A real case where a real court found that real users were infringing Timeline's copyrights and/or licenses because they used code they recieved from Microsoft the way Microsoft told them to. Not bulls*** like the SCO "cases".
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:3, Interesting)
I recently had a law firm set a windows 2003 server in place and upgraded all the workstations to new dells running windows XP. I was against the move but didn't have mmuch say in the matter because they used another consultant that was recomended by a vender trying to sell them some softwar
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:4, Informative)
Note that this is different from how copyrights work. Once you have a copy of a copyrighted work, you have (at least in the United States) certain "fair use" rights.
So, in theory at least, a patent holder can sue an end user to prevent him/her from using the patented invention without a license, and the patent holder can obtain an injunction from a court to forbid use of the patented invention by an unlicensed end user.
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies when confronted with alleged patent violations often roll over and pay up. For them it is a business decision. Pay $x million now for the right to use the technology, or pay $x million + $y million for laywers if they fight and lose. Sometimes it's better to pay $x and be done with it than pay $x+$y.
Open source is a different story. When open source gets attacked it's as like when a bear tries to get into the beehive-it's personal! The opensource bees get riled up and come out to protect the open source honey.
One bee against a bear in no match, but thousands will eventually come out, attack, and drive off the bear. If the bear gets stung too many times, it leaves the bees alone and wanders off to look for something else. The bees are smarter, more alert, and more wary, and notice sooner when a bear approaches. They know the bear wants their honey and work harder to protect it.
Now the bear thinks twice about trying to get the open source honey. Other bears that heard what happened stay away from the honey because they know how bad the first bear got stung and realize it isn't worth it. And all other creatures who know nothing about the open source honey hear of this bear and think of the bear as foolish, deparate, and a big bully and want nothing to do with the bear.
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:2)
I'd like to think you're right, but I'm not sure you are. Do we really have any evidence that community efforts such as Groklaw have had any effect on SCO? So far as I can tell, they are losing solely on the merits.
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:2)
You could attribute the apparent lack of action to just that; the fact that we know SCO is going down. There is not much for the average Linux user to do to speed this up except for the things which have been done -- detailed analysis of SCO's claims (which I'm sure IBMs people have found helpful), (often successful) attempts to soil SCO's PR, support for vendors being sued by SCO (there was a movement for OSS folk to buy something from AutoZone
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:3, Interesting)
What other kind of sting do you have in mind?
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:2)
But these are Open Source bees.
Massive stings inside the nasal cavities and multiple stings to the eyeballs are likely to make the bears rather uncomfortable.
It's about shutting down small projects too (Score:2)
Who wants to work on a project that, if it looks successful is going to end up being beaten up and shut down by the patent holder. Since OSS has no revenue stream, even a small royalty can kill it.
Big biz backers of OSS (IBM, Novell,...) could perceive a threat of big royalties or civil cases if they assist OSS projects. For example, the patent owners could make a case that apart from dire
Re:It's about shutting down small projects too (Score:2)
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:2)
Kinda like a county whose county seat scared off the railroads when the railroads were expanding across the American west.
This isn't about shooting yourself in the foot. It's about cutting off the industry's air supply. To whose benefit?
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:2)
But we can count on "our side" those companies who stand to profit immensely from open source, rather than relying solely upon their own R&D investments to further their products. There's some big names in there, including IBM, Novell, HP, Sun, etc.
And remember, no product can succeed that stands still
Re:It's not about the royalty checks (Score:2)
They don't even need to scare the customers in order to kill the product. It's as simple as saying "You don't have permission to use my patent -- cease and desist immediately." Unless the patent is trivially invalid, the courts will tend to side with the patent holder and issue the necessary orders to make the infringer halt while the case is decided. There are no re
OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
No money issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No money issue? (Score:2)
Don't tell it to Caldera^H^H^H^H^H^HSCO, they think they can make $5BN by suing IBM, RH and Novell over Linux.
Re:No money issue? (Score:3, Informative)
But if IBM settles with $PLAINTIFF by a cross-licensing deal, independent developers are left out in the cold and $PLAINTIFF can still shut them down.
Royalties (Score:5, Insightful)
Except much of the concern is not only paying out royalties, but being dragged through useless court proceeding after court proceeding by companies that find it much more to their benefit to drag OSS through the mud, and strike fear of legal action into the hearts of OS proponents.
There comes a point where it doesn't really matter if you win in court, particular if one hsa gone through a costly multi-year court battle just to be proclaimed "innocent" of any wrongdoing.
Re:Royalties (Score:2)
How open source should deal with sofware patents (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How open source should deal with sofware patent (Score:2)
The irony in using a command that started in the proprietary IRIX system to show "how open source should deal with software patents" is something I fear shall be forever lost on most Slashdotters...
Re:How open source should deal with sofware patent (Score:2)
its not the royalties (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing to fear but ... (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Is this an issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the OSS community comes up with an idea first, they can claim prior art, no? Otherwise, the idea (or implementation) rightfully belongs to the person or corporation that comes up with it.
Proving prior art is a major nusaince, but if it happens enough, will companies place their patents under more scrutiny rather than figting for something they'll likely lose?
--
http://acostas.org [acostas.org]
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:2)
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with that? In the software industry, the implementation is what costs money.
See - it's took me 30 seconds to prototype that. The actual investment would have been filling in that comment. And if someone else can do that part cheaper, then let them - everyone gets cheaper widgets, and the company's real investment, the implementation, remains protected by copyright law. This also gives them an incentive to improve their implementation, whereas if they patented it, not only would they not need to improve it, they could keep others from improving it.Re:Is this an issue? (Score:2, Insightful)
Both fortunately and unfortunately, we live in a more-or-less capitalist society. I am definitely a caplitalist, although I see the socialist side of this, in a capitalist kind of way. While I do oppose the idea of "patenting ideas" (maybe I should patent that), I do see the benefit of patents, even in software (like a pos
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:2)
Because most sane people figured it was too obvious, and wouldn't be patentable?
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:2)
That raises another question - why does the first one to
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:2)
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
And as a seperate problem, no, you can't "just" claim prior art. You have to be dragged into court, comply with C&D letters for several months, and give huge amounts of money to lawyers. Individuals simply can't afford this - for any project smaller than Linux itself, the maintainers would likely give up for financial reasons. Our legal system is too bloated and ineffective to rely on it as a safety valve for the chilling effects of patents.
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:2)
Exactly. The article mentions that overturning a patent requires "clear and convincing" evidence. Good luck making something clear and convincing to a non-technical lawyer (the judge) while the plaintiff's lawyers work day and night to make it unclear and unconvincing.
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:2)
Math isn't patentable.
Algorithms are math.
Why is this so complicated?
Re:Is this an issue? (Score:2)
Its not the royalty check that is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You cant get blood out of a turnip, but you can make the turnip's life miserable...
Security matters (Score:3, Interesting)
And if well could be difficult for individuals holding patents, what about patent trading? If my project puts in the way of i.e. some Microsoft commercial program and starts to be viewed as a threath or at least a cause of not so high profits they could have the resources and the will to probably end my entire project.
It's not just about royalties (Score:2)
The claim would be that the "inventor" is losing money, because the "invention" is illegally available for free as open source.
However we twist and turn it, patents are there to get a lock on an idea to make money of said idea. Any way to limit the possibility of making money can be prosecuted. Hence Software patents still are bad.
Re:It's not just about royalties (Score:2)
My own feeling is that we are headed for serious economic trouble over this. Serious. Other nations are moving ahead full-steam, picking up the pace of technological development, while we are pu
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Big company, little company (Score:5, Insightful)
Although big corporations have very deep pockets, they also have something called a reputation that they value greatly. Attracting the wrath of IT managers throughout the world is no small matter to them. For this reason, their claws often remained sheathed.
Might I suggest that it's a new breed of company, small or mid-sized ones, whose very raison d'etre is to collect valuable intellectual property, that we have the most to fear from. They've got everything to win, little to lose, and they don't give rat's ass about their reputation.
One example - SCO. A near worthless organization (about $10 million in market capitalization) until they discovered they "owned" Linux. They have been accused of ties with Microsoft (there is some evidence through BlueStar), but I'm not convinced. The Justice Department is ever watchful these days.
A second example - Teleshuttle Technologies, subject of a recent post ( http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/21/15 39205&tid=155 [slashdot.org] ).
Expect to see more of them as time goes by.
Re:Big company, little company (Score:2)
Corporations are amoral. they are soul-less immortal beings whose purpose is to make money and nothing else. Yes that's greedy. Yes that's nasty. And yes if you believe in the bible and jesus it's the root of all evil.
"Although big corporations have very deep pockets, they also have something called a reputation that they value greatly."
Bullshit. As evidence I point you to Mic
Re:Big company, little company (Score:2)
Personally, I'd see it as a counterargument to your claim -- a large company fighting a proxy war using a small medium-sized company.
Re:Big company, little company (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Corporate bullies (Score:2)
A question I've always had... (Score:5, Interesting)
Although IANAL, I maintain that patents pose no real threat to OSS development, since authorship of OSS is a "moving target" (especially where derivative works come into play). Most OSS author are not likely to agree to royalty payments, so exactly what recourse does the accuser have at that point?
Re:A question I've always had... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A question I've always had... (Score:3, Insightful)
Clarification: They can make it illegal to use in certain countries where that patent is valid. Now you know one reason that some companies are pushing so hard for software patents in the EU. Without it, development and use continue in Europe and the rest of the world (and with users in the US who are willing to violate the patent).
Re:A question I've always had... (Score:2)
Re:A question I've always had... (Score:2)
*nods* (Score:2, Insightful)
But I think it's more likely there's more prior art to debunk the patent and drop any case in court.
Mixed message (Score:2)
Re:Mixed message (Score:3, Interesting)
Think before you do a patent search (Score:5, Insightful)
To reproduce this bug, go through the following steps:
1. Look for patents in the area where you're working.
2. Find a patent which is related but not identical to what you're doing.
3. Continue what you're doing.
4. Get sued for infringement by the patent owner.
Expected:
Someone gives you credit for due diligence.
Actual:
Owner of related but not identical patent asks for triple damages for "willful infringement" using your knowledge of their patent as evidence. The threat of paying out three times as much forces you to settle unfavorably.
Then do what Linus suggested.. (Score:3, Insightful)
don't care to know of them.
create your work, and enjoy it.
[my step]
if it steps on someone's toe (which is doubtful) then ignore him until you have positive proof presented that you did in fact do what you did with willful intent to violate his patent... in that case, he can't
disagree, this will become a war against FOSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Rosen is a smart guy who knows about open source. (And I appreciate his "summary" at the end of the article, for those of us who never RTFA ;-). But I
find his recommendations a little hard to swallow.
1. Don't be too paranoid about the patent problem
The guys with the patents only have two hurdle to cross: writing the cease and desist letter, and writing the FUD press release ("Linux stole are technology"). This *first* step in patent litigition can kill an open source project, never mind the *last* step (getting the royalty checks).
Sure, maybe Mozilla and Apache will survive a patent attack. But what about a smaller open source project? The "guy in mom's basement". These guys will just pull their projects, regardless of the merits of the case.
2. Don't try to out-invent the big guys.
Don't try to out-code them either, right? Wrong!
If open source can produce a product that competes with a multi-billion dollar company's product, it can pool its resources to generate patents. We should find a way to achieve this goal.
I bet many clever open source programmers can find all kinds of stuff to patent in their code.. do you use a checksum to save some computation? Use a clever algorithm to distribute work among nodes? Transfer data out-of-order to exploit some optimizable properties of data? Look in your code, start thinking in terms of patents. Keep your bar LOW. Even the simplest thing is patentable, as we have seen time and time again.
Take software licenses as an example: before the GPL, software licenses were an afterthought.. you just wanted to make sure you got credit. But the GPL is a tactical weapon that opened people's eyes to the issue of software licensing and the world of draconian EULAs we now deal with. Even if you don't like the GPL you must agree that licensing is almost as important as the quality of the code itself.
We need to have the same eye-opener when it comes to patents. Maybe one of the big guys like FSF or Apache should take the first step and start applying for patents. Start a "patent fund" to research and file the patents.
3. Conduct a reasonably diligent search for patents we might infringe.
Why? What do we do when we find a patented technology that has no substitute (like "1-click ordering", the best you can do is make it "2 clicks")? Might as well ignore them until the C&D comes. Let *their* legal departments do the work.
Design around patented technology wherever possible.
What if it's not possible? What if the patent depends on, say, some part of a public spec? Either violate the patent, violate the spec, or go home. But generally this is good advice. If you know you are violating a patent, come up with something better, if you can..
5. Identify allies who can defend us with their patent shields.
This is good advice. Find a company with a "patent promise" that they won't litigate patents offensively.
6. Withhold our software from those who sue us for patent infringement.
Uh, okay, that'll show em. Hey microsoft! Your license to distribute Linux has just expired! TAKE THAT! And how will "the guy in the basement" enforce this anyway???
Make no mistake, the bigco's (microsoft in particular) are salivating at the thought of destroying open source and painting them as "IP theives" all in one blow.
If the sky isn't falling yet, it will be someday.
I would add a #7 to his list:
Make sure the business world understands the value proposition of open source and software freedom. It's not about altruism or people sitting at home saying "I'd like to write a content management system today, for free". It's about talented people solving real business problems for their own benefit. It works in the free market because it *is* the free market. It's not anti-competitive, it *is* competition: you're as good as your code, and no better.
When microsoft tr
Re:disagree, this will become a war against FOSS (Score:2)
Re:disagree, this will become a war against FOSS (Score:3, Informative)
It's not that we couldn't, but it would be against our values. Software patents are plainly wrong and it is very reasonable to think them unconstitutional. If the Open Source community started grabbing for patents, we'd be legitimizing software patents and might even help to encourage their adoption outside the US!
Faulty premises (Score:5, Insightful)
Both of those arguments fail when applied to Microsoft. Microsoft would never use its software patents to collect royalties. It would use them to make companies afraid to use open source and compel them to use Microsoft's products.
Thus, it does not matter if Microsoft's patents are valid or not, when a company gets sued, Microsoft will offer a deal similar to this: Stop using open source and buy our products.
The money monkeys in charge of the companies will fold because it will be more cost effective to simply buy Microsoft's products rather than risk losing at trial. After Micrsoft wins a few of these "settlements" open source will begin to look unattractive to anyone else considering it.
Re:Faulty premises (Score:2)
(Hint: I've asked this question on
Re:Faulty premises (Score:2)
Let's think about this... (Score:2, Interesting)
2) Microsoft patents anything and everything in an attempt to both block open source competition and pave the way for Longhorn's release. Result? Apple upstages MS with the demonstration of Longhorn'
Remember the cotton gin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Remember the cotton gin (Score:2)
Re:Remember the cotton gin (Score:2)
Patents as a double edged sword? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can we devise something analogous to GPL for a software or hardware patent, so that if you use it in your product or design, then you must provide full source code and/or schematics and/or ensure that all other patents used in the product or software are available under the same terms. Then all open source advocates have to do, is create their own patent portfolio, as long as we can find lawyers willing to help with the filing. We can fight fire with fire, the next time somebody tries to embrace and extend, they will have serious trouble if the interface is protected by a public patent.
Hello, RMS - are you out there? Wanna bite?
Can't Design Around (Score:2, Interesting)
Can anyone think of any other case were a patent could not be designed around? If so, would the author still be liable if the patent was designed around after they were informed of the infringment?
Royalties is not the problem (Score:2)
I'm Chicken Little I guess . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article...
"Does the dramatic increase in the number of software patents portend a catastrophe for open source software?
Some argue that the threat of patents is vastly overstated. They point out that, while there are from time to time serious assertions of software patents, patent litigation is in practice very rare. This reflects both the high cost of such litigation and the difficulty of winning. "
Although patent litigation has so far been rare, it is my belief that Microsoft sees the writing on the wall and will either directly or indirectly though the use of SCO-Like actions fund law suites in an effort to destroy any open source project that it feels is on its turf. Just because patent litigation has been rare in the past is no assurance that it will remain so. How many copyright litigation cases have been levied against the open source community? Microsoft helped SCO fund it's current litigation and I believe that it is a signal that they intend to use the law as a new anti-competitive tool.
Litigation against a well funded corporation like IBM would be incredibly expensive but for smaller groups like the SAMBA team it wouldn't. Microsoft wouldn't have to win. All they would have to do is drain the open source company's coffers dry. Unless we all stick together, of course. Will we? Would there be a white knight corporation out there willing to swoop in and save the small open source developer? I don't know the answer to that.
I believe that Microsoft's strategy is to ensure that Linux cannot be compatible with their next version of Windows. They have been filing ten or more patents every day related to Longhorn. The idea is simple. Find standards that you feel will become important and then patent as much technology as close to those standards as possible.
Remember that Microsoft doesn't want to allow Linux to talk to it's monopoly OS. If they succeed in their strategy Linux, they hope, will wither on the vine. Look for Microsoft try to patent new protocols and force them to become "the standard." If they can control the way in which computers talk to each other via their monopoly and patent the way computers talk to each other then Linux as we know it could be toast.
Better Blackmail!! (Score:2)
Especially if this strong liscenscing clause revoked the right even to *use* the software in this case the FSF would have a very strong position. Almost any large s
Re:Better Blackmail!! (Score:2)
Article owner misses point.... (Score:5, Insightful)
A few points both have missed so far, though. One is that a methodical patent search is impossible; patents use such opaque and obfuscatory language (often deliberately) that there's no way you can search for a patent on any given technique you've been using. Further, it may be a submarine patent.
Prior art is largely irrelevant because the patent system is broken; the patent office doesn't seem to check it, even when the prior art is other patents (see, e.g. the LZW patent mess). Part of this is because patents (as I mentioned above) are essentially unsearchable. Prior art works when you've got deep pockets and the lawyers to overcome the assumption of validity. When you're Joe Open Source Programmer, you're screwed as soon as they file a lawsuit (assuming you had the nerve to ignore the C&D), regardless of how much prior art there is.
So, on his recommendations --
1) is good. Not because the patent problem isn't serious, but because there's nothing you can actually do about it. Like Global Thermonuclear War, you just have to plan for it not coming.
2) is pointless. Our own prior art won't prevent the patents from being issued
3) is a mistake. Each patent you discover is more work you have to do to avoid it, if that's even possible, and more chance of getting nailed for willfull infringement. Doing a patent search under these circumstances is like searching for mines with a metal probe.
4) is good -- if you happen to know about the patent, you should avoid it.
5) is fine, if you have allies you can trust. You probably don't.
6) Pointless again. So you terminate their right to use their software. They're either a litigation company which does nothing, a single-product company which is trying to force the world to use their product, or a giant megacorporation. The first two won't use your software anyway, and the last has the lawyers to spit on your termination agreement -- not to mention the programmers to replace your software if necessary. Terminating the rights of patent-users is a feel-good measure only.
The solution direction is clear... (Score:2)
Using this exact lingo technique but in describing something in terms fitting the classifications of what cannot be patented.....
Time to study what qualities cannot be patented and why....
The killer patent... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh damn... I forgot about prior art... Never mind...
One Simple Defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents REQUIRE full disclosure. Think of a 19th century inventor like Edison. He has to fully describe his invention in a patent disclosure so that anyone in the field can make use of the invention. That is the spirit of a patent. It is required, or the patent is invalid.
Fast forward to the 21st century. If a patent holder cannot fully disclose a working model and description of an invention (i.e. source code.), then the patent holder has violated the responsibilities of a patent holder and looses rights to the patent. Yes there are examples of this, and yes it is clearly spelled out in law.
There are probably concepts that don't require source code to demonstrate, but most code-level innovations that geeks are worried about do. Furthermore, court action brings the possibility that source code could become exposed as evidence - something many companies may greatly fear. A company might not mind leaking some demo code for a single patent. But with a whole arsenal of patents, the burden starts to fall on the patent holder.
This isn't a totally bullet-proof defense, but one worth exploring.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:One Simple Defense (Score:2)
I disagree. Any algorithm can be described in plain english. Most algorithmic patents are described in pseudocode.
Both sides (Score:2)
Apple once sued Microsoft and HP for stealing their GUI (I know, most people do not remember that HP was involved in the lawsuit, but they were). One of the specific claims in Apple's suit related to "overlapping windows". I happened to have worked in a research group that had bought (in 1981) an Apollo workstation which had overlapping windows (not a GUI, each window had a UNIX(tm) style shell). I told one of the defendants about this and later hear
Change country (Score:2)
I can see the day when... (Score:2)
No point in worrying. (Score:3, Interesting)
Overall I would just ignore all software patents. If you don't pay attention to any the odds are the penalties will be far far less. Also it makes it easier to invalidate a patent if you knew nothing about it when you infringed. Overall just try and write verty good software and get large businesses hooked on it. When it costs far less money to get the patent thrown out then it does to switch to some other system they will defend it.
Also remember that proprietary software offers no real advantages here. Any proprietary product you use could be nailed by this at any time also and it could put them out of business so it seems the risks are pretty close to me but free software is more likely to be defended by a larger number of people.
I suspect at some point free software is going to end up with some kind of get out of jail free type thing with resepect to patents like nasa has. Patents just won't apply to it since it hurts the society too much.
Inevitability of Civil Technology Revolt (Score:2, Interesting)
We, the faithful, already know what is "right". And, I believe, as the general public becomes more technologically knowledgeable (as has happened in the automotive industry in the last century), t
Re:GPL is incompatible with patnets (Score:2)
You Sir are quite a poor troll [novalis.org].
Re:GPL is incompatible with patnets (Score:2)
Re:Constitutional solution (Score:2)
Re:The real OSS enemy are lawyers (Score:2, Flamebait)
Many patent holders would not go make a case against OSS, but there are a certain breed of scumbags out there who make it their biz to go search for patents and potential violators. They then contact the patent holder and ask for the right to go chace the infringer at no cost to the patent holder, except for a slice of the action.
Once the lawyer bastard has a "percentage ownership", the patent holder loses a lot of their rights as to whom they will pursue or
Re:``like d'oh`` (Score:2)
This isn't including the fun stuff the DMCA gives us to play with.