Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Businesses The Almighty Buck IT

IP Insurance For Software 85

Posted by michael from the solutions-in-search-of-a-problem dept.
isn't my name writes "We all know that OSRM has come out to offer insurance against intellectual property claims for open source software. Recently, we've seen IBM open up 500 patents and SUN up the ante with 1600. But all of these moves are targeted at F/OSS software. There's an article at IPW that looks at the state of patent insurance for non-F/OSS."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IP Insurance For Software More

IP Insurance For Software

Comments Filter:
  • Heh. "A forward post of the IP wars"?

    Fair and balanced reading, I suppose. ;)

  • Insurances (Score:4, Funny)

    by brutus_007 ( 769774 ) <slashdot@code-j e d i.com> on Saturday January 29, 2005 @01:38PM (#11514516)
    As soon as I sign up for this one, the only type of insurance plan that I will need which I don't already have will be insurance fraud insurance... and insurance fraud insurance insurance - just to be on the safe side.

    • Re:Insurances (Score:5, Funny)

      by The Hobo ( 783784 ) on Saturday January 29, 2005 @02:02PM (#11514675)
      Don't forget your volcano insurance!

      Peter: I dont need volcano insurance, I never used that rain cloud insurance
      Salesman: It never rains in rhode island!
      Peter: There's no vocanos either
      Salesman: Don't you think we're overdue for one?
      Peter: Touché salesman
    • Your post gave me a thought that one thing governments could do is require all software makers to have an active patent insurance to be a fully licensed and bonded software distributor. BSA or similar "industry group" could bribe their way into such a bill. That would put those GNU hippies out of business in a nanosecond.

      Of course, the next thing after that the governments will require will be a copyright insurance before you are allowed to speak courtesy of honest patriotic "industry groups" such as RIAA

  • Death to FOSS? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sirgallihad ( 846850 )
    Dosen't anyone suspect that these patent releases could be somehow used against FOSS, in some way? I mean, even though IBM and Sun seem to like it now, who knows what dastardly plans lie just out of sight?
    • because their agreements tend to read as 'legally binding' and not just as 'agreements'. meaning they can't just pick up their sticks and then be like BWHAHA, PAY BITCHES! sun and ibm arn't trying to screw open source, they rely on open source for alot of things, and with releasing their patents for FOSS they get free advertising and popularity of their 'ideas' basically...a win-win for both sides look for the actual pdf file papers on the releases, and read through the wording, and it tends to be quite

  • Not even all open source software (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vladd_rom ( 809133 ) on Saturday January 29, 2005 @01:39PM (#11514525) Homepage
    Sun released the patents only under their Creative OSI-approved license. The rest of the open source software, including GNU-based or MPL-based, is still in the air.

    This creates the precedent to have open source GNU-based programs that violate the patents and Creative-based programs that are perfectly legal.

    It certainly seems like a smart thing to do from Sun's point of view (trying to attract open source developers to their license scheme by giving access to software patents).

    • SUN is declaring war on the GPL (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 29, 2005 @01:50PM (#11514596)
      They don't really care about open source.

      If you listen to their PR people they claim that "the whole Linux thing" "wouldn't have happened" if they'd open soured Solaris ten years ago; they try to pretend that the Solaris open source thing is just something they should have done a long time ago, and Solaris will soon get all the benefits of open source community Linux has. As if open source is some kind of magical pixie dust that you sprinkle on software and bam! It's successful!

      In reality what is happening is that the GNU operating environment and the Linux operating system beat Sun in the marketplace fair and square-- not because of some "open source" magical pixie dust, but because it's a better product-- and Sun knows this.

      The reason Microsoft can never beat Linux is because they believe they're competing with RedHat when in truth they are competing with the GPL. You can't compete with the body of GPLed software the way you compete with a company; it isn't a single organization, it's millions of autonomous people working in concert. Knock out Redhat, something indistinguishable will rise up to take its place.

      Sun has finally figured out how to compete with this. Instead of targeting a company, they've declared war on the GPL itself. For awhile they did quite a lot of laying groundwork by running around telling people that GPL is full of IP flaws and in the future you'll need patents to operate in the software industry. Now they're trying to push out a huge body of work under an open source license which has no particular distinguishing features except that it's incompatible with the GPL, and offered as candy all these patents to "open source projects" while conspicuously not offering any sort of protection to the GPL. Sun recognizes that the threat to them at this point isn't Linux the software program, it's the community; and that as long as the community remains solid, directed and internally compatible, they can't defeat it. So they're trying to splinter the community. And this may work.
      • If you listen to their PR people they claim that "the whole Linux thing" "wouldn't have happened" if they'd open soured Solaris ten years ago

        Well, if they open sourced x86 Solaris before Linux was written and it was usable on Linus'es x86 box, he sure wouldn't have written another kernel. His original motivation was that Minix sucked and Andy Tanenbaum didn't want to do anything about that. If his OS didn't suck, he would just work on some other projects. Did you see him re-write compiler, editor or a UNI

        • Re:SUN is declaring war on the GPL (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Well that's the thing. RMS's whole thing about "GNU is the OS, Linux is just the kernel" is mostly bullshit but there is a kernel of truth in it. Linus Tourvalds did some great things but he isn't wholly responsible; to an extent there was a demand there for a GPL operating system, a void waiting to be filled, and Linus filled it.

          I mean there's a reason why Linux became popular, not BSD or OS/2, and I don't think it's just timing and the BSD lawsuit. It's just that the GPL's development model is a very pow
      • Amen, brother. I will continue giving for free my spare time for the Linux comunity via GPL. The GPL itself it is strong enough to make inviable porting GPLed applications then some patented code from Sun has to be added for any reason.

        Still Solaris it is quite cool (still I prefer gcc than CC), may be it is too late for a Solaris, at least for my spare time: I feel better running Linux, still not a perfect OS -as Solaris isn't-, it is enough for bringing lot of joy to my lonely but savage heart :-)

      • Zealots need not apply (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        How about a little open-mindedness?

        > In reality what is happening is that the GNU
        > operating environment and the Linux operating
        > system beat Sun in the marketplace fair and
        > square-- not because of some "open source" magical
        > pixie dust, but because it's a better product--
        > and Sun knows this.

        As a satan worshipping Sun engineer, I'd like to express my disagreement with this statement. We do not "know" that Linux is a better product. In fact, we most certainly do "know that Solaris is a
        • SGI is selling 512-processor boxes to the Gov't. and sub-contractors. And no, I do *not* mean clusters, I mean boxes. Meanwhile, there is progress on hot-swap CPU and RAM.
          • SGI is selling 512-processor boxes to the Gov't. and sub-contractors. And no, I do *not* mean clusters, I mean boxes. Meanwhile, there is progress on hot-swap CPU and RAM.

            Err getting an embarassingly parallel (hand up if you don't know what that means) workload to scale is rather different than getting a mixed workload to scale.

            Almost anything can to the former, Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, Windows. A much smaller subset reliably scales with the latter and Linux aint one of the members of that Subset.

            Ju
        • Linux and Solaris are both good operating systems that have their own areas that they run best on. Linux runs well on relatively cheap x86 hardware, although it will run on Sparcs as well. Solaris runs well on very expensive, big-ironish Sun servers.

          One of the reasons Linux is used so much in most servers is that you can get just as good performance for much less cost with x86 clusters. Some of Solaris's nice features, such as cpu partitioning, etc, aren't really applicable on lower-cost x86 units. I d
      • The reason Microsoft can never beat Linux...

        Wait, isn't Microsoft spanking Linux by a large margin?

        Unless you're talking about the, "I can run linux on my girlfriend's vibrator" crowd.

  • FUD (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If people start to feel like IP insurance is something [i]necessary[/i] to participate in open source, Microsoft has already won

    • Re:FUD (Score:1, Redundant)

      by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 )
      If, as OSRM implies, that various types of insurance, such as its latest offering, are prudent for Open Source projects, than I think that OSS loses a lot of its advantages. I've grown to suspect OSRM's motivations and think perhaps they might just be a little biased. Insurance companies tend to have hidden agendas.

  • So being sued is like a flood hitting now? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Polarism ( 736984 ) on Saturday January 29, 2005 @01:45PM (#11514566)
    I suppose that lawyers are some kind of new predator on the food chain that's just a part of life now?

    "Hey Johnny, don't think about anything without your IP insurance, never know when you might get jumped by a pack of lawyers."

    Granted, I realize that insurance has always worked like this on the legal side, especially with Auto and Property insurance, but this is going a little too far don't you think?

  • I can understand how an umbrella or general liability policy could protect you from this. Such policies have been around a long time and are heavily regulated by various state agencies.

    I don't think you have any such assurance (no pun intended) with IP specific policies. I'd wait until the market matures a bit before considering such a policy or you might witness your insurance company disappearing once it comes time to file a claim.
  • What about just plain liability insurance for SW? Running SW is becoming a lot like driving a car. While mandatory insurance is probably some time away, it's not too early to consider carrying insurance against SW damage, especially while malware producers are unaccountable. We might see a day where your OS, or app server, will run only objects signed by an insurer acceptable to your insurer. The technology is already available, and the damage is being done. Economically, we're ready. Culturally, the mainst
  • The real prob is to find a system where you don't need to go to european countries with funny names to avoid jail or fine (if you can). AWx

  • Patent infringement coverage (Score:3, Insightful)

    by freralqqvba ( 854326 ) on Saturday January 29, 2005 @01:47PM (#11514583) Homepage
    It is truely a sad day when, "Patent infringement coverage is needed by anyone involved in the software business, whether it is proprietary or open source." The courrupt payoff from a courrupt system. Patents were never intended to be used in this manner. If something was worthy to be pantented it should have been innovative enough such that no one else would, for the duration of the patent, indenpendently develop the same product. The only time "patent infringement coverage" would be needed then, is when either a member of the team gets lazy and copies some source, or the idea is indenpendently developed, exposing that the patent being infringed upon was insufficent to be patented in the first place - patents such as 'mouse clicking' and 'a method of interacting with electronic devices' come to mind. Hopefully those in power will some day stop shelling out to corporate interests and actually move the system back into doing what it was intended to do. Unill then, at least there's Poland.
  • when you need to deploy such an insurance. With European Patent refactored, I hope we'll end with a system not requiring such an insurance. AWx

  • Wrong solution - need better laws (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Saturday January 29, 2005 @01:52PM (#11514619)
    Legitimate patent licensing for non-free software doesn't cripple the product unless it's trying to just rip off other people's work without adding extra value. Office supplies companies don't buy patent insurance - they just pay 3 cents a piece for items they ship. If royalties are too steep, there is an option to ask government for compulsory licensing. That is rarely used, but patent owners know it's there and generally negotiate based on value of their invention.

    Instead of wasting money on insurance, concerned companies should pool funds for lobbying to reform patent and civil litigation laws.
  • Earthlings are stupid. That's why I'm moving to Mars.

  • The culprit = The USPTO (Score:4, Insightful)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Saturday January 29, 2005 @01:59PM (#11514656) Homepage

    The culprit here is the USPTO. The ease of getting a patent approved by the USPTO is shockingly easy. (I'm sure that comment will get me flamed by all the patent-lawyers reading this). But patents should be above all things: extremely rare.

    Innovation occurs in parallel. Period.

    Its almost time for a class action suit against the USPTO.
    • I'm sure that comment will get me flamed by all the patent-lawyers reading this.

      Actually, since you singled out the USPTO, probably not as other patent offices look down upon the USPTO as something of a joke. The biggest problem with the USPTO is that its staff get paid a bonus for approving a patent application instead of finding prior art which would render it invalid. Yup, you read that right. Is it any wonder that they seem to approve just about every patent they see, and then leave it to the IP l

    • Actually it is one trait of the US legal system. In *should* be that if you bring suit against someone else and you lose, then you are automatically liable for their legal costs. That way it ensures that people only bring cases where they have a good case, and won't cost defendants who are innocent anything (in the long term). I believe it is substantially like this in the UK.

      Sadly I doubt anything like this would happen since it would reduce the volume of lawsuits. And the people who win in every lawsu
      • Unfortunately, the "loser pays" rule means that nobody would dare bring suit against the big guys.

        Remember, AT&T was able to hold off the US Government for 30 years. Microsoft beat the US Department of Justice. Mere mortals (we) would never have a chance against the immortal corporations or government, since a large company has only to "discover" you to death to win. The only way the little guy can win is to get a large firm to take a case on contingency, and none would be willing if they risked hav
        • The big guys can already do this to you today, and the little guys don't have much of a chance of winning anyway. And note that it isn't always loser pays, but only if you initiate the lawsuit and only if you then lose do you pay the costs. I certainly agree that it is a good system but it is IMNSHO considerably less bad than the current system where people whose time is free can spray lawsuits around without much consideration for wether they are right, or adverse consequences to losing.

          It would also he
  • I am seriously tired of everyone comparing IBM's patent release to Sun's. IBM released 500 patents under every OSI licence aproved up to a certain date. Sun indirectly released the patents via releasing their code under the cddl. What exactly I can do with the patents is incredibly confusing, for instance if a piece of sun software does not impliement one of suns patents and I extend it to use that patent... even tho that patent is released under another file under the cddl from what I can tell I could stil
  • Those 1600 patents can only be used to contribute to OpenSolaris or related projects, all of which must also be licensed under the CDDL. I'd hardly call that open, especially considering that they can't even be used in conjunction with the linux kernel (a.k.a one of the largest open source projects alive)
    Regards,
    Steve

  • Forget insurance, get the best legal help (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Cowherd X ( 850136 ) on Saturday January 29, 2005 @02:16PM (#11514767) Journal

    IMHO, insurance is futile, you are better off hiring the best legal help you can find. If you are doing something that important you should consult with an IP law specialists about protecting your IP before you even start the project. Contrary to what most people believe the top law firms do a lot of pro bono work and are open to flexible payment arrangements. As someone with quite a bit of experience in the world of IP protection (I mean legal, not just firewalls), I can recommend the following law firms for IP protection pertaining to software, e-commerce and the Internet in general:

    For further details on those law firms check out the largest 250 law firms in the U.S. [ilrg.com] Oh and I am in no way affiliated with any of those firms, of course.

  • Why is orsm [orsm.net] offering insurance services?
  • Insurance like this is basically a scam. Even when the situation arises when you know the insurance should kick in, it doesn't, and you find yourself spending new money on a lawyer making sure the insurance provider upholds their part of the bargain. This is such a classic scam industry, it just feeds lawyers, and makes chumps of us all.
    • In Canada, as far as i've heard, it works like this with car insurance. If you hit someone and your cars get damaged, no matter how obvious it is that it was one person's fault, the insurance companies just kind of get along and split the cost of doing the repairs. It's a lot cheaper than going to court, trying to decide who is right, and which insurance company should pay. They just split the cost, and save on lawyer fees. So much easier.

  • Of course (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pan T. Hose ( 707794 )
    "We all know that OSRM has come out to offer insurance against intellectual property claims for open source software. Recently, we've seen IBM open up 500 patents and SUN up the ante with 1600. But all of these moves are targeted at F/OSS software."

    Of course those are targetted at free software, because free software is the main force opposing software patents. Check out who is giving their patents to free software, and then check out who is the main pusher of software patents in EU. What we have to reali

  • Racket (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by cyberfunk2 ( 656339 )
    Something tells me that these IP insurance lawyers are the same people as the patent lawyers. I mean the skillset would appear to be the same right ?

    Who's really suprised though? It's just lawyers creating work for themselves, i.e.: buisness as usual for them.
  • ...there is a reason [ffii.org] or two why this is not yet common knowledge amoung the public and probably a large percentage of software developers, proprietary and Open Source alike.

  • So software developers and publishers are able to purchase insurance against certain software patent infringements, and for purposes of this comment, we'll assume that's all well and good.

    Thing is, it would appear that songwriters and music publishers would need an analogous form of insurance against copyright infringement claims, given that there exist a finite number of distinct melodies in the Western musical scale [slashdot.org], and incumbent publishers like to sue startups for subconscious copying ( Bright Tunes [columbia.edu]

  • more like it. Try wading through such gems as "PJ Reaches New Height of Hypocrisy". Or, if Grokwars bore you, check out Harlan Wilkerson bashing RMS, Moglen, Perens, Salus, etc Edifying!
  • Following the same lines as Intellectual "Property," the government could create more business opportunities for the paper and money shuffling industries by making it illegal to step on a crack. There could be pole-mounted cameras eyeing cracks 24/7, face recognition software to identify violators, fully staffed monitoring centers, court-appointed private agents to issue citations and collect fines. There could be insurance policies for accidental crack stepping. Frequent walkers could set up speed-payment

  • 3000 times loss (Score:2, Informative)

    by Vitanova ( 715409 )
    Offering insurance against softwarepatents is difficult. Ian Lewis of Miller Insurance company said at the Brussels' FFII conference that a company lost 3000 times the premium. For every pound premium it received, it had to pay out 3000 pounds. [ffii.org](74th minute)

  • F/OSS means Free / Open Source Software. The "Free" means, essentially, GPL and other compatable licences, where the freedom of the software is guaranteed by clauses in the licence that appear to be restrictive, but maintain the freedom over the long term (i.e. that prevent the software from being proprietized).

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close