Perens Dismisses Torvald's Patent Pool

ficken writes "Open source activist Bruce Perens has dismissed as inadequate a new IP initiative backed by Linus Torvalds. The Open Source Development Labs' (OSDL) patent commons project is intended to provide patent protection to open source developers. Perens, speaking at LinuxWorld, compared the patent pool to "spitting in the wind" -because the patents it contained come from "the wrong people.""

Stop the infighting

[Yo Maing]

It's dissapointing to hear this event played up for the media's benefit. I read this article yesterday and while Perens' comments seem out of place, the open source community needs to work together instead of becoming splintered with bad press like this.

Re:Stop the infighting

[KiloByte]

Wrong. Having the community work together doesn't really help here -- IBM cannot use its patents to attack any possible foes due to agreements and mutual assured destruction.

Re:Stop the infighting

[BillyBlaze]

Maybe it's time some large company does launch a patent missile. Frankly I'd prefer a patent winter to what we have now. All the fallout might convince Joe Public to oppose software patents.

Re:Stop the infighting

[file-exists-p]

I agree with this. All those "patents for the open-source movement" look like a way to reduce the strain so that there will never be a major crisis forcing the system to change drastically.

In Europe especially, instead of playing that insane game of the US-patent system, it is time to use our rights [european-p...office.org] and implement algorithms for which the EPO granted illegal patents.

Freedom gets worn-out when you don't use it.

Cheers!

--
FF

Re:Stop the infighting

[Bruce Perens]

The main problem I see is that companies don't have much economic inducement to apply for their patents in the name of the pool, which would give them all essentially the same advantage from the patents as if they had simply published the invention as prior art. In general the companies wish to continue to license their patents to proprietary software creators and to trade them with other companies not in the pool for cross licenses. The companies that have contributed to the OSDL pool in general only want to carve out a narrow permission for Open Source software without otherwise losing the value of their patents. For the plan to work, it has to be visibly in the company's best interest. The problem we have is that the patent system pits the company's best interest against Open Source. Of course it's worse than that, I think it pits the company's best interests against the entire economy.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Stop the infighting

[Qzukk]

Perens is right though. The idea is a good one, but what's needed isn't patents from IBM and Sun, but patents from regular human beings who have never signed an agreement with Microsoft that would keep the patents from being usable in a lawsuit.

Re:Stop the infighting

[CountBrass]

Actually they're both wrong.

Let's face Linus may be a great project manager (although that's dubious: I'd expect a pm to be a bit more of a diplomat and have a lot less ego) but he's clueless when it comes to the basis of FS/OS: look at the Bitkeeper debacle: a tool he mandated blew up in exactly the way fs advocates would predict. And now he's promoting a patent pool on the same basis which is: if you can't beat them join them.

If I want to hear an informed opinion about OS/FS issues Linus is pretty much the last person I'd turn to.

Re:Stop the infighting

[lightknight]

"look at the Bitkeeper debacle: a tool he mandated blew up in exactly the way fs advocates would predict. "

Because of those FS advocates. It's no different if a friend (and I use the term loosely) tells you not to buy a new Ford Mustang, and then steals it when you do. That's what we call fucked up.

"And now he's promoting a patent pool on the same basis which is: if you can't beat them join them. "

Which works. Face it, with MAD agreements with half the software companies out there, patent litigation is somewhat negated. It's not full proof (lone inventors/companies without agreements will still pose a challenge), but it offers some comfort that a number of the big boys will not come knocking.

Do I think this strategy will be successful in the long run? To a limited extent. But I'd be lying if I said that Linux will not be facing a war soon. And unlike MS, it does not have deep enough pockets to fight off all its challengers.

Re:Stop the infighting

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Because of those FS advocates. It's no different if a friend (and I use the term loosely) tells you not to buy a new Ford Mustang, and then steals it when you do. That's what we call fucked up.

Your analogy and attribution of blame are both nonsensical. The FS advocates claimed that granting a single individual whole and absolute control over revision control system was foolish. The individual in question, Larry, did prove them right by going off and demanding that 3rd parties cease and desist doing what was not only perfectly within their rights but what is the cornerstone of the whole FS movement: providing compatibility based on reverse-engineering of protocols.

To come back to your "analogy", it would be as if a friend advised you not to use a Larry's Specially Converted Ford Mustang which runs only on Larry Gas (tm). Following which some unrelated party attempted to produce a compatible version of Larry Gas to which Larry reacted by coming over and smashing the Mustang to pieces.

Re:Stop the infighting

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I would have at least respected the fact that Linus prefers BitKeeper unless I could put together a system to replace it.

But Linus was wrong in this also. It turned out that BitKeeper could be replaced within weeks of Larry's going crazy. The "git" revision control system was constructed by Linus with a lot of willing help by others, because, unlike BitKeeper, git is GPL software. So not only was Linus wrong as to his short-sighted reliance on closed source from assholes like Larry, but the whole "unique" quality of BitKeeper was proven to be utter hogwash within weeks. The end result is quite positive in my books, Larry was put in his place and Linux (and the whole FS community) now have a superior and truly free system. The only regret is that this should have happened without imtermissions and detours instigated by the likes of Larry and the "pragmatic" members of Linux community who do not subscribe to its phillosophy and instead are here just to get something working for themselves now, without any care as to consequences of their actions for others or even long-term repercussions for themselves.

Re:Stop the infighting

[Ruie]

"look at the Bitkeeper debacle: a tool he mandated blew up in exactly the way fs advocates would predict. "

Because of those FS advocates. It's no different if a friend (and I use the term loosely) tells you not to buy a new Ford Mustang, and then steals it when you do. That's what we call fucked up.

Hey - wait a moment !

If closed-source vendors want to play nice then this should be mutual and, in particular, I expect to see no clauses in EULA that prohibit me from writing any kind of software I choose and I expect the vendors to protect there competitiveness by implementing features that users want themselves instead of trying to lock me in to particular format and going all nutty when someone creates a conversion utility.

Andrew Tridgell was absolutely right in trying to make a utility to extract the metadata in human readable format.

Re:Stop the infighting

[BillyBlaze]

See, the thing is, Mutually Assured Destruction is a very non-optimial solution. It has worked in the nuclear arms race, (provided only sane governments get the bomb, a big if), but much better would be simply not having nuclear weapons. It's not possible to get all countries to stop building nukes, forget how, and destroy the ones they have. It is, however, possible to put an end to software patents. (Or in the short term, to keep them from proliferating.)

Re:Stop the infighting

[martyn s]

Why is it not possible in the case of nukes, but possible in the case of software patents? You say it's possible to put an end to software patents, why don't you tell us how that is possible.

Re:Stop the infighting

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Because of those FS advocates. It's no different if a friend (and I use the term loosely) tells you not to buy a new Ford Mustang, and then steals it when you do. That's what we call fucked up.

No. Bitkeeper was a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode. Sooner or later, it would have come right back to bite everyone in the ass.

The situation is analagous to Linus accepting a booby trapped Ford Mustang, gratis from McVoy, and then getting irritated when Tridgell safely detonates the device while he's in the store buying supplies for an offroad camping trip.

Re:Stop the infighting

[Kent Recal]

Gentlemen, can you please stop the Ford Mustang analogies.

Please do realize that the issue at hand can not be compared to anything involving a car.

Thanks.

Re:Stop the infighting

[inode_buddha]

FWIW Groklaw had some commentary on this a few days ago.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508092 21240129 [groklaw.net]

Re:Stop the infighting

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm not sure why people can't accept Linus Torvalds as a great systems coder, or even a man who was in the right place at the right time and did the right thing.

I guess some primitive drive for leaders and heros causes us to put Linus upon a pedestal and burn TechNet mailings in homage.

It probably drives him crazy.

Re:Stop the infighting

[Master of Transhuman]

I agree.

Perens is simply keeping his name in the press.

While some of his remarks may be partially correct - namely, that it's not terribly useful to have a patent portfolio built from people who already support OSS - his primary mission here is simply to denigrate some useful work.

Where are his solutions to the problem? I see lots of criticism and no ideas from him.

Eben Moglen, at LinuxWorld this past week, outlined a program involving not merely the Patent Commons Project, but attempts to change patent laws and to actually reverse patents that are of particular threat to OSS.

Perens concentrates only on the Patent Commons Project, and ignores the rest. This proves his only motive is to start a flame war.

Nothing like handing Microsoft some talking points, Bruce. Way to go.

Re:Stop the infighting

[Bruce Perens]

I support Eben's efforts to change patent law. Daniel Ravicher has been successful at reversing a Microsoft patent, and we need to do a lot more of those. I don't support the pool at this time because I feel it can actually hurt the overall effort. Note that I am not alone in this, Florian of NoSoftwarePatents.org, an organization that has been incredibly effective in saving our butts in Europe, said the same thing.

When OSDL has an effective patent pool, they will show us how it can be effective. Until then, I believe that belief in the pool only diverts people from solving the problem.

Bruce

Re:Stop the infighting

[Almost-Retired]

When OSDL has an effective patent pool, they will show us how it can be effective. Until then, I believe that belief in the pool only diverts people from solving the problem.

Bruce

Ok, I'll buy that Bruce, but can you or someone privy to the info tell us frogs, if for example, the 500 patents IBM donated have in fact been transferred to the full ownership of the EFF?

If that was the case, and I highly doubt it, the the EFF & Eban would be relatively free to take any detected violations to court, with a decent chance of prevailing I'd think.

But as I doubt the actual transfer of the patents has taken place, then Ebans hands are quite tightly bound and he can do nothing except posture for the press. He simply has no 'standing' in the legal sense. It remains I've Been Moved's game in its entirety since they are the only one with 'standing' in the matter. And that, as IBM very well knows, is a double edged sword, to be used very carefully.

So I see the next step after forming the patent pool, is to populate it, which will take a considerable sum of money for the application fees, money the EFF probably doesn't have access to right now.

But while doing that, keep looking over our collective shoulders too because until its big enough to represent a club we can swing a wide clear path with, there is gonna be some 2-bit shyster nibbling at our heels and any revenue streams the OS folks can use to pay the rent.

And yes, I'd put SCO in the 2 bit shyster pidgenhole. Hopefully, Novells asking for the jugular vein in cash will be granted since that will, in one swell foop, put an end to all the fud coming from Linden Utah.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re:Stop the infighting

[Bruce Perens]

if for example, the 500 patents IBM donated have in fact been transferred to the full ownership of the EFF?

What we had from IBM was a covenant not to sue, not any sort of transfer. It was not useful for defensive purposes. And Stu's remarks in Business Week led me to believe that the 3000 patents were all that sort of covenant. I asked him to clear this up in email. He did not put anthing concrete in writing and offered to talk with me on the phone. That probably won't happen until late this week.

I surmise that there is no strength to the pool at this time.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Stop the infighting

[Almost-Retired]

I was afraid of that Bruce. So the EFF has in fact, no standing in regards to defending these patents. Unforch, if anything concrete is developed in the next month, I probably won't hear about it as I'll be netless during that time, working on location in upstate MI. Its kind of nice that they think an old (70) fart like me can walk on water when it comes to fixing tv related stuff, in this case a dual Harris 50kw transmitter that got zapped by lightning a couple of weeks back. I get a nice take home that screws me into the next tax bracket on 4/15 next year plus all expenses except food. Since most of my income these days is SS, it comes in handy for buying new toys etc. :-)

At any rate, I've noticed a lot of AC's denegrating your comments. Ignore them if they aren't willing to put their handle on the comment. In the longer view, the current skepticism you are exhibiting is good. Being "from Missouri" has kept me out of some stuff that later proved to have been bad judgement, even the promoter who was selling it sees it too.

There's that old saw about experience I can't quite repeat verbatum, but you get the picture I'm sure.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re: infighting? no. publicity stunt? yes.

[Bruce Perens]

No, your idea of reverse publicity to promote the pool wasn't what I planned. I am a pretty straightforward guy and say what I mean. Sorry.

But if it did result in a discussion that made the pool into something effective, that would be cool.

Bruce?

I don't get patents

[skynare]

I'm not a prograwyer...

Re:I don't get patents

[ScrewMaster]

I think you mean "lawrammer"

Only the bravest of people...

[rob_squared]

...submit stories that read as flamebait on slashdot.

(since I've been modded in all sorts of directions today, this is an observation, not a troll, flamebait, or anything else negative)

Re:Only the bravest of people...

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

...submit stories that read as flamebait on slashdot.

Flamebait is also known as the catalyst to heated debate. And while there is a difference between something being said just to stir up the bee hive and constructive pondering and comments, I think its important that people don't automatically dismiss a subject with "strong" proponents and opponents as flamebait.

Re:Only the bravest of people...

[BarryNorton]

Might take bravery, but it doesn't take much intelligence to quote the first two paragraphs of a story from The Register word for word!

Re:Patent it all or none

[dnixon112]

While we're at it, all criminals should be either executed or set free. Because everything is black and white, and there's never any middle ground. Yeah.. that makes a lot of sense. /sarcasm

What you're forgetting is that there are valid reasons to differentiate between things that should be patented and things that shouldn't. In fact the patent system already takes such things into account. You cannot for example patent a mathematical algorithm. This is a valid and logical thing to dissallow from the patent system, the big problem with software patents is that software is a mix of mathematical algorithms and creative innovation. It takes careful examination to tell which side of the fence a certain program or system falls on. Yet, the patent office doesn't seem to realize this, or doesn't have the skill to deal with it, and therefore tends to grant patents that are nothing more then simple mathematical algorithms with no innovation.

When customs officials are reviewing people for acceptance into America, they check to see if you're a criminal. If you are, you won't be allowed in. Just because some people are criminals, they don't ban everyone from coming into the country, they examine the person with skilled employees on a case by case basis and make a decision. This is what the patent office *should* be doing, but they are failing and in the meantime letting all kinds of criminals into the system.

Some FUD spreading perhaps?

[cc-rider-Texas]

He noted open source infringes on "tens of thousands" of patents granted in the US and that companies taken to court over these would "lose some of the cases."

I sure wish he would have given some examples of these "tens of thousands" because IMHO that is just a thrown out figure aka FUD.

Re:Some FUD spreading perhaps?

[Russ Nelson]

A patent only gives you the legal right to sue somebody. It doesn't give you the resources to succeed in your suit. Nor does bringing suit prevent the plaintiff from implementing a work-around for the patent. Look at what Keith Packard did with his font renderer. It avoids Apple's TrueType patent by rendering the font in a non-infringing manner.

Patent infringement isn't a serious problem for open source projects. It might be a problem for open source companies, but that's their problem.
-russ

Re:Some FUD spreading perhaps?

[Russ Nelson]

Without a patent you have no right to sue someone for patent infringement. Yes, you can sue anybody for anything (and if you disagree with me, I'll sue you!!!).
-russ

Re:Some FUD spreading perhaps?

[Master of Transhuman]

I suggest you wander over to Groklaw and get a clue about "legal standing".

Yes, if you do not have a patent or any other basis for suing somebody, your case will be kicked out of court in a heartbeat.

Not only that, you may be sued by other parties or even held in contempt of court for bringing a "frivolous lawsuit".

The idiot suing the OSS people because it's devaluing his work is in this situation now - his case is being ignored because he has no legal standing.

Re:Some FUD spreading perhaps?

[Russ Nelson]

On the face of it, you're right. You can sue anybody for anything, however if you're going to waste your filing fee in that manner, why not do something useful with your money instead, like burn it? At least that way you'd be kept warm for a few moments.

Re:Some FUD spreading perhaps?

[chris_7d0h]

At a talk RMS held in Germany a year ago or so, he mentioned that a *friend* of his had gone through the Linux source in an attempt to find possible patent infringements. RMS mentioned his friend found thousands, so regardless of Perens being a d*ck or not, there might be some substance to the claim.

Re:Some FUD spreading perhaps?

[Russ Nelson]

Did Perens ever have principles?

This is like getting nukes...

[A beautiful mind]

...advocated by enviromentalists and peace activists to defend their position. Perens is right, that the means are wrong although i do not agree with his numbers.

Open source advocates should lobby for no software patents, because by using the "enemy's" weapon it validates it. Do not give credibility to patents, lobby against them.

Proof by contradiction

[RedLaggedTeut]

Using the "enemy's weapon" does not always invalidate a defense. After all no-one is hurt by the use of the enemies weapons in the GPL, maybe with the exceptions of those whose power of abuse is limited by the existance of the GPL.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This is like getting nukes...

[TheRaven64]

If I may, I will abuse your analogy a little.

If you are a country, and a potentially hostile country gets nukes, then it makes sense for you to have them too - it means that attacking you with nukes is a bad idea. Of course, another good choice is to enter an organisation such as Nato or the Warsaw Pact, where nuclear-capable nations agree to launch nuclear retaliation against anyone who starts a nuke-fight with any of them. Now, imagine that there is another player in this game, one who lives in an orbital habitat. They can easily drop nukes on anyone, but you'd have to hit them with a perfect shot to make them even notice - fall-out isn't much of an issue in space. Oh, and their habitat is movable, so the chances of hitting them are approximately nil.

To explain this analogy:

Nukes are obviously patents. Linus has tried to collect some nukes of his own. This is not really necessary, since if Microsoft (a potentially hostile nation) decided to enforce patents against Linux then people like Sun and IBM would complain - and IBM is to patents what the USA is to nukes, someone you really don't want to mess with.

The final part of this analogy is small IP-only firms. Companies that buy up a patent purely for the purpose of litigation. They don't make anything, so a defensive patent chest is useless against them. There is no real defence against them other than reform of current IP laws.

Re:This is like getting nukes...

[dmaxwell]

I've wondered if business method patents couldn't be used against some of these IP-only firms. Since there are thousands of trite business method patents to go along with all of the trite software patents, surely some of these could be stretched to apply to any business. Even a so-called business like a IP troll firm should be vulnerable to some of these.

Re:This is like getting nukes...

[beakerMeep]

You have a nice sounding analogy there but i think you made the wrong correlation. This would be more akin to stealing the enemy's weapon stock pile or designs and destroying them. rendering them powerless. also, there is no reason to assume that by taking patents you are condoning them. Condoning them would require holding them over someone to prevent them from doing their work, or, gettng paid for it. However, I believe the idea here is just to protect those who WANT to give their work away for free.

Don't need a moral victory

[Mr. Underbridge]

Open source advocates should lobby for no software patents, because by using the "enemy's" weapon it validates it. Do not give credibility to patents, lobby against them.

Idealists don't win wars. MS is taking a war to linux, and as a linux user, I'd like Linux to stick around as a strong, viable OS. I don't really give a shit about the software patent movement - I think it has little chance in the US - and I don't really see a reason to weaken Linux's position and legal strength to satisfy idealists of a separate movement. No thanks.

In other words, a moral victory is neither.

Re:This is like getting nukes...

[Master of Transhuman]

OSDL and the other OSS organizations intend to lobby to change patent law. And they intend to actively reverse patents that threaten OSS.

So what's your point?

Eben Moglen laid out a program at LinuxWorld this past week. Perens has laid into ONE aspect of the program - the Patent Commons Project - and ignored the rest - presumably just to start a flame war.

I agree that ALL so-called "intellectual property" should have absolutely NO legal protection. But in the real world, this isn't going to happen. So OSS needs to try to defend itself any way it can.

If I produced a "killer" app - one that could put Microsoft out of business - I'd patent the algorithm and copyright the expressions of that algorithm. I'd make it all closed source until Microsoft was out of business. THEN I'd open source it. Why OSS it early and let Microsoft grab it and use their "legal" and monopoly-built financial clout to defeat it?

In martial arts, you do what is necessary to win - no matter how "dirty" the technigue. The only art I can think of that suggests doing less than that for a spiritual purpose is aikido. And even they don't suggest you give up a technigue to hamper yourself from winning.

I've often said that Lawrence Lessig is fighting with both hands tied behind his back because he supports the notion of intellectual property. And I still believe that. And I believe that supporting patents and copyright while advocating OSS is the same error.

But I don't believe that OSS should IGNORE patents while they're being actively used against it.

Who's writing these headlines?

[tsm_sf]

Obviously should have read "Perens poo-poos penguin patent pool".

goatse patent portfolio

[bad-badtz-maru]

I think it should be "pooh-poohs"...

"Lloyd's taking on open source IP risk"

[Quirk]

The Reg has a pertinent piece on the venerable insurance company Lloyd's [theregister.co.uk] being close offering..."independent insurance protection worldwide against potential IP litigation involving Linux and open source software".

If Patent War does break loose ...

[alucinor]

If there is a patent war, this will assure the dominance of China, India, Brazil, and Eastern Europe in both open source and software innovation in general.

A cynical part of me almost wants to see the West shoot itself in the foot with patents, but then I remind myself, "Oh wait, I live in the West."

Re:If Patent War does break loose ...

[imsabbel]

Maybe you are a bit late, but didnt you notice that "eastern europe" has become "the NEW europe" and is whoring itself to the usa like no tomorrow?

Re:If Patent War does break loose ...

[cdn-programmer]

whoring my ass. If you didn't notice - Putin has decided to keep the oil reserves Russia has secret.

There is an energy war happening right now. While hopefully energy issues will not be linked to patent and OSS issues - the idea that Eastern Europe wants to hitch its wagon the the faltering USA economy and legal mess is very unlikely. Quite the opposite.

The US can do whatever it wants to and the rest of the world will put its feet up - grab a beer and vie for the popcorn stand.

What the article is about

[Roland Walter Dutton]

Oh Ghod, here we go again. Since the submitter hasn't given a remotely useful summary of what Bruce Perens' actual problem with the patent pool is, I will explain it here for those of you who won't RTFA.

THE ARGUMENT ---

There are two main types of possible patent agression: 1) from patent trolls and 2) from big companies with lots of software as well as lots of software patents. Let's see how our new patent pool does against each of them.

Case 1:

PATENT TROLL: Your software violates my patent on the letter 'g'. Pay me $40,000,000 to go away.

LINUS: Your software violates several thousand patents in *our* patent arsenal.

PATENT TROLL: I don't own any software; all I have is this portfolio of groundbreaking, original patents. Pony up.

Now *nobody's* patent pool is useful in case 1 (unless it just happens to contain prior art on the troll's patent). Patent pools are generally for use in case 2.

Case 2:

MICROSOFT: Your software violates 42,000 of our finest patents. Go to jail.

LINUS: Your software violates several thousand patents in *our* patent arsenal.

MICROSOFT: Oh, that's too bad. Would those be the patents loaned to you by other major software companies? The same major software companies who have given us an unlimited, perpetual license to use all their software patents in exchange for a similar license from us? Yes? Gosh, now I'm scared.

So if the Linux patent pool is no use in case 1, and no use in case 2, it's no use at all, correct?

THE POINT ---

Now I don't really know how correct Bruce Perens' position is, although on the face of it it does seem highly reasonable. What I do know is that whether you think Bruce Perens suX0r, or whether he founds too many nonprofits, or whether or not he could defeat the fscking Green Lantern, is *completely* *irrelevant* to the actual question, which is really pretty damned important. So: can we talk about the *actual* *issue* now, and not whether we like Bruce Perens?

Re:What the article is about

[back_pages]

I'm not familiar with Linus' proposal (or existing tool?) but thank you for the explanation of Perens' position. I am extremely familiar with both programming and the patent system.

Your summary seems extremely plausible. Having an arsenal of patent leverage could easily be useless leverage in the scenarios you describe.

I think that first and foremost is fulfilling the need in the software world for a patent liability analysis/consulting industry. The patent system is widely misunderstood by the average Joe working in software.

Slashdot, the Fox News of the Patent System, is proof positive of this observation.

While reform, via legislation or case law, is an ideal solution (using both definitions of "ideal") a more immediate and likely solution, in my opinion, is including patent liability in your software project. Market analysis, marketing, tax experts, and human resources are existing overhead in software development companies. I'm just making the observation that assessing your patent liability in a professional manner, by experts, with some form of insurance, seems to be the next logical step.

Of course, when the patent system is "adequately" reformed, that will be unnecessary. But which seems like the best solution for tomorrow or 2006? Continue blindly, hope you don't get sued, and wait for reform; or pay an expert to determine whether you're on thin ice regarding patent infringement?

A first step toward making this an industry-wide practice could be a service like Groklaw that helps to inform and educate those average Joes. I'm not sure that devoting resources to develop a Mutually Assured Destruction patent arsenal will possess any real expectation of success.

Re:What the article is about

[surprise_audit]

I think that first and foremost is fulfilling the need in the software world for a patent liability analysis/consulting industry.

No, that's just pandering to the lawyers. What's really needed is to convince the government that it should reform the patent system. It shouldn't be possible for anyone to be granted patents for some of the crap that the USPTO recently granted, and it should be easier for patents to be challenged and revoked.

Unfortunately, that would require a degree of maturity that big business simply doesn't have. As with everything else, the revamped system would be abused by those with deep pockets, to the detriment of those without. A company with a large cash reserve can simply ignore patents because they can afford to drag things out in court until the patent owner runs out of money. Look at the recent EU vs Microsoft case - OK, that wasn't about patents, but the same principle applies - Microsoft was told to pay big fines that amounted to little more than pocket change compared to their $40bn cash reserve.

Perhaps the easiest patent reform would be to disallow corporate ownership of patents. Let the actual inventor own the patents and provide a method to expedite settlement of patent infringement cases.

Re:What the article is about

[back_pages]

Perhaps the easiest patent reform would be to disallow corporate ownership of patents.

Yeah, maybe. That suggestion is just a shade less radical than dismantling the entire system. You go ahead and promote that idea, I'll continue to suggest identifying your patent liability before you're sued, and we'll see who comes out ahead.

Slashdot IS the Fox News of the patent system. All the ranting and raving about how stupid the system is will get nothing done. Nobody who gets sued out of business will be in a position to lobby for reform. Why not solve tomorrow's problem? The popular alternative amounts to holding your breath until you turn blue and get what you want.

Best of luck with that.

Re:What the article is about

[BillyBlaze]

See, the big problem with that is that we really don't want to turn the IT industry into the medical industry, where some huge fraction of your wages has to go to malpractice or patent infringement insurance, and where innovation is difficult because of the legal risks involved.

Re:What the article is about

[back_pages]

See, the big problem with that is that we really don't want to turn the IT industry into the medical industry, where some huge fraction of your wages has to go to malpractice or patent infringement insurance, and where innovation is difficult because of the legal risks involved.

And if this were 1995 before Diamond v. Diehr, I'd say you are very insightful.

But since this is 2005, my response is that you're roughly 10 years behind the hard facts of the industry. If you refuse to compete in the reality of 2005 then you're just going to be extremely bitter after being sued into bankruptcy.

But... at least you'll still have your ideals?

Re:What the article is about

[bperkins]

He's right that it would be far better to somehow magically remove software patents. Nobody is arguing with that. Unfortunatly, Perens is advocating a course of action that has been underway for ten years or more and has gotten exactly nowhere.

The reality is that the U.S. will not get rid of software patents. Even if we are able to prevent more software patents from being issued, there are still the existing patents which need to be dealt with(*).

As usual, Linus has created contovesy by suggesting we trade ideological purity for practical matters. While it's not exactly consistant to rail against patents and hold them yourself, it's a plan that at least hasn't been tried yet. Peren's plan will not work. Linus' probably won't. Which one sounds better?

(*)Imagine:

Dear Senator Smith:

I am a shareholder of Foobar Software. You voted for legislation that eliminated all software patents, reducing the assets of my company by $999 billion. Can you explain why I should vote for you in November?

One way to consider ending the threat.

[jbn-o]

A corporate-funded legislator might back voting up on a bill which would discontinue issuing any new software patents and preclude any term extensions on extant software patents. In other words, the aim of the bill would be to let the current software patents expire. The mega-corporations investments in these patents would not be adversely affected and then we could get on with the job of competing without this particular problem. This approach would not pay off for 20 years, but that's considerably better than the current situation where computer users in many countries have to live with this threat for the forseeable future.

I'm sure the patent holders looking to preclude competition (as opposed to those looking to defend themselves and remain competitive) would cry foul based on their "inability to justify innovation" (or somesuch language), but this theoretical bill might help expose such claims.

I think you have inaccurately described a position in this article as "ideological purity". Lobbying legislators is a reasonable course of action to achieve political ends. FFII didn't get as far as they did without lobbying. Although the Register article doesn't get into all of the details of what Perens said, the OSDL patent pool is quite compatible with lobbying.

Re:What the article is about

[Roland Walter Dutton]

As usual, Linus has created contovesy by suggesting we trade ideological purity for practical matters. While it's not exactly consistant to rail against patents and hold them yourself, it's a plan that at least hasn't been tried yet.

Not so fast. Eben Moglen (basically the FSF's head legal guy) is one of the people extolling the patent pool in the original press release [prnewswire.com]. And the whole idea of using software patents against software patents is classic FSF tactics, like the GPL "judo throw" of using "copyleft" against copyright.

(Speaking of which, the FSF have been quietly mentioning that the new version of the GPL will contain anti-software-patent language. Will it be something straighforward, like "any patents you take out based on derivative works must be freely licenced for free software use"? Or something impressively vicious, like "ever attempt to enforce a patent against any free software and this license instantly expires"? Very probably the former, but the latter would be so much fun... :) )

The FSF certainly hasn't given up on campaigning and lobbying against software patents either. This makes perfect sense, after all: the two approaches reinforce each other. The less software patents are worth to the big companies, the less inclined they will be to lobby hard for them.

Re:What the article is about

[Bruce Perens]

the FSF have been quietly mentioning that the new version of the GPL will contain anti-software-patent language.

The present GPL has it. The only increase in anti-software-patent language I can think of would be the addition of a mutual-defense clause.

Bruce

Re:What the article is about

[Bruce Perens]

I'd be happy with a trade of ideological purity for practical matters if the trade showed some prospect of working. So far, this doesn't. OSDL's controlling members (the big ones with board seats) for the most part are cross-licensed with MS. They are also some of the world's biggest software patent holders, and a solution to the problem isn't in their interest.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:What the article is about

[lma]

Case 1 is always a problem, and no one expects a patent pool to solve it. The argument here reads a bit like this to me: "Your solution to problem A doesn't solve problem B, therefore your solution is bad." Huh?

Case 2 is solvable by a patent pool. The argument made here that a patent pool is ineffective depends on the fallacy that patents in that pool have already been licensed to a potential aggressor through some other means. Again, I think that everyone recognizes that to be effective, the pool must contain original IP not already licesned to a potential aggressor. The discussion we should have is how to encourage and enable the growth of that part of the pool.

Larry

Re:What the article is about

[Roland Walter Dutton]

Case 1 is always a problem, and no one expects a patent pool to solve it. The argument here reads a bit like this to me: "Your solution to problem A doesn't solve problem B, therefore your solution is bad." Huh?

No, no. I was just laying out what the patent threats are and what a strong patent pool does and doesn't do. As you say, no-one expects a patent pool to be much use against threat 1. I wasn't attempting to score a point here; the humour wasn't directed at anyone (except perhaps the /. ad hominem flamers).

(And I did clearly state that my outer connective was 'the patent pool is no use at all if it is no use in either case'.)

Case 2 is solvable by a patent pool.

No-one is disputing that Case 2 is solvable by an effective patent pool.

The argument made here that a patent pool is ineffective depends on the fallacy that patents in that pool have already been licensed to a potential aggressor through some other means.

Why is this false? As far as I know, this is true of the patents that are currently in the pool. It may be the case that future patents will enter the pool of which this is not true, but until then the pool is not effective in case 2.

Again, I think that everyone recognizes that to be effective, the pool must contain original IP not already licesned to a potential aggressor.

I don't think the prior cross-licensing problem is immediately obvious to everyone - it certainly wasn't immediately obvious to me - and it wasn't mentioned in, for example, the initial press release [prnewswire.com], so I think it's perfectly reasonable for Bruce Perens to raise it.

The discussion we should have is how to encourage and enable the growth of that part of the pool.

Amen.

I think that Perens' specific point about the patents currently in the pool is likely correct; certainly it deserves to be discussed on its own merits. The misleading summary given by the poster, and Taco's largely irrelevant snark in the subheading, led me to fear that we'd get another round in the pointless /. anti-Perens/ESR/RMS/whoever flamewars instead, which is why I wrote the original post.

I also think that Perens is right that lobbying against patents is important and should continue. Again, I don't think many of us would disagree about that either.

If Perens is also making a broader claim that the patent pool effort is useless, and that only political action matters, then I think he's clearly wrong in that. The current state of the patent pool doesn't justify a dismissive "it'll never work" attitude, but it does justify a skeptical "show me the money" attitude.

Re:What the article is about

[Bruce Perens]

Larry,

A pool operated by OSDL may simply be ineffective because OSDL's controlling members, the big ones who have board positions, for the most part already have cross-licenses with Microsoft.

There is also the fact that OSDL's controlling members are some of the world's largest software patent holders, and a real solution to the problem simply isn't in their interest. When we fight against the embedding of software patents in standards, we are generally fighting IBM. This has been true at W3C, OASIS, and elsewhere.

Thus, I doubt the effectiveness, and indeed I am afraid that I even doubt the sincerity of the patent pool.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:What the article is about

[Bruce Perens]

While I was an employee of HP, Microsoft disclosed to HP their plan to take down various Open Source software using a software patent attack. This became public knowledge some years after I left HP, the memo is on Newsforge and it was reported on CNET and elsewhere. Microsoft was diverted by the anti-trust and a desire to wait for their patent legislation to be passed in Europe. Had Microsoft brought suit, it could have worked against the legislation. But now that legislation has fallen anyway. They are free to move if they want to.

But you are right that they are not the only possible agressor. It's also possible they could use a proxy. Many people believe that SCO is their proxy today.

Bruce

2 1/2 other reasons why the pool matters already

[Roland Walter Dutton]

Small reason: even if the patent pool doesn't give legal protection against MS, the sight of other major software companies licensing their patents to FOSS may have political/PR value. (Or it could actually be counterproductive, eg. in the context of the European Parliament. :( )

First bigger reason: it's far from impossible that some big companies with many software patents will hit serious financial trouble in the next few years. (I won't name any names because I'm nice. :) ) For that or other reasons, it's quite possible that one or more of the companies that have donated patents will decide to go out and collect as much as they can in licensing/lawsuits, either from FOSS or generally. In which case we might be very grateful that they granted us immunity to their patents back when they still liked us - *provided*, of course, that the licenses they are giving can't be revoked later. (Question: is that the case?)

Second bigger reason: It's all very well hearing large companies promise to use their patents to protect the Linux kernel and other big, mainstream FOSS projects. But that might not give much protection to smaller and/or younger projects without powerful sugar daddies. Presumably if the OSDL has control of the patents, it will be willing to use them to protect all FOSS development. (Question: will it? I should certainly hope so...)

If you think I'm wrong

[Bruce Perens]

Folks,

My office phone number is 510-526-1165 and it rings in my home too. I leave it off the hook when my family is asleep, so you don't run the risk of bothering us. If you feel I'm doing the wrong thing, call me and discuss it. I may convince you otherwise.

Bruce

Re:If you think I'm wrong

[strider44]

I get your argument Bruce however I don't think I agree with you that the purpose of the patent protection is to use it in defense of the "evil" companies. The main advantage in my opinion is for the programmers who see a patent that they infringed on. If it's owned by IBM, widely seen as a friend of open source, then even so you wouldn't really be sure you're not pissing them off by using it. IBM might want some patents be free to use by open source developers but they might also want to keep some for their own purposes. However if it's in the Patent Commons then you know you're off the hook.

that is why you're great

[selfdiscipline]

There seems to be a fair amount of character assassination attempts on slashdot, and you seem to be one of the victims.
    I hope that slashdotters will read your post here and realize your commitment to rational debate and perhaps take you more seriously.

Re:What the article is about

[Bruce Perens]

I'd add to your analysis that OSDL's controlling members - the folks who pay the most and get board seats - have agreements with MS.

Regarding Rob's snotty remark about the non-profits I've created, most are successful, so I don't see his point:

• No-Code International - helped eliminate Morse code tests for ham radio licensing in 25 nations so far, got the ITU treaty fixed.
• Software in the Public Interest - managing Debian's assets and those of a number of other projects. Recently awarded $6000/year grant and makes $20K to $40K in contributions per year.
• Linux Standard Base - created a lot of useful work. Could be better accepted by application vendors, maybe the DCCA (blame Ian Murdock for that one and the previous LCC) will help.
• Sincere Choice and Global Technology Policy Institute - after I started these, real universities offered to back me, so they became less relevant. But donations were put to good use in the patents and standards fight.
• UserLinux - not yet. I've not given up.

I can't believe anyone would consider this a bad record. Even having 1/4 of ones ideas pan out is better than most folks could ever ask for.

Bruce

Re:Perens isn't a lawyer, so he is simply wrong

[RickHunter]

if patents are assigned to OSDL, they are not bound by any licensing agreements donators may have made to others.

I seriously doubt that's true. That would place a large number of these companies - which have "non-agression treaty" contracts with others - in violation of contracts they've already signed. Thus, these companies would not donate any patents to the pool.

More likely, all that most of the patent licenses say is "you won't sue us if we violate these patents".

Re:Perens isn't a lawyer, so he is simply wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce incorrectly assumes that the only patents in the pool will be from IBM, etc. He is mistaken. He assumes the lawyers who set this up are stupid. They decidedly are not.

People who are not in the legal field need to realize that they are not qualified to give "opinions that matter" on legal issues, and for sure not off the top of their head like Bruce did. He should issue a clarification statement, in my opinion, or go down in history as clueless or a headline-seeker. It's unseemly what he did. Besides, anyone who understands patent law and has the facts on this project will know he's wrong; but the damage he has done is done. Shame.

Re:Perens isn't a lawyer, so he is simply wrong

[Bruce Perens]

I understand that Eben Moglen and others were involved, and Eben is no dunce. I also understand that at this time, the pool is a gesture, not something effective, and indeed may hurt efforts to actually solve the problem.

If you think this pool can work against Microsoft and their proxies, show us how. Show us how it will avoid the obligations of the controlling board members of OSDL. Show us how it avoids the agreements of the contributors. And show us how solving the problem is even in the interest of OSDL's board members, who are some of the largest software patent holders in the world.

Bruce

Re:Perens isn't a lawyer, so he is simply wrong

[Roland Walter Dutton]

I'm all in favour of an effective open source/free software patent pool, precisely because I abhor software patents. Not only does it promise to protect free/open source software from threat 2, but because it would indirectly help to end threat 1. * The problem is whether the current Linux patent pool is actually going to be effective. IANAL either, but I'd be very surprised if the big software companies' cross-licensing agreements could be circumvented just by handing patents to a third party, because that would be seem to be much too easy to game. For example, Microsoft would be able to hand a bushel of patents to Concerned Citizens Against Hewlett-Packard.

* I assume that software patents have three attractions for big companies: attacking/bullying other big companies, attacking/bullying free/open source efforts, and attacking/bullying small proprietary software firms. Attacking other large firms is too dangerous because of the fact that other large companies can retaliate in kind. If attacking open source is also too dangerous because of an effective FOSS "patent nuke", then that only leaves the small proprietary shops. And presumably if they ride them too hard they'll just drive more of the small commercial development from proprietary to open-source as well. Against that, they will still face the expensive nuisance of patent trolls and the risk of one of the big patent-holders doing something crazy. In that situation, they may feel a lot less keen to defend software patentability. If the big lobbying money behind software patents goes, the patents will probably go, and the pure-play trolls will be out of business too.

Re:What the article is about

[Roland Walter Dutton]

I think that part of the solution is also for free software to get entrenched in powerful companies and non-profits too. For example, I don't think the big stockbroking firms would take it lying down if they were told that they couldn't run Linux on their traders' terminals anymore. I'm pretty sure that considerations like this are a large part of why Microsoft hasn't launched a new patent offensive already.

The big shortcoming of the "get entrenched" approach is that while it's likely to buy good protection for big, successful free software projects that big institutions use a lot - Apache, GCC, the Linux kernel, and the like - it may not do much for the thousands of smaller projects that don't have any sugar daddy. It's great to hear big companies promising to protect Linux - will they protect you if you decide to write a new OS kernel that might be the new Linux someday, or a little tool that will be valuable to seventy grateful users? We are in danger of reaching a situation where development continues on the big projects but individuals and small groups are too scared to work on small ones.

Nothing (is) illegal

[millette]

"unethical you bet... but if it was 'illegal' then bill gates would be in jail, and he's not."

Gates never did anything illegal, right... [mugshots.org]. Nor did Microsoft [usdoj.gov] for that matter. Thank you for putting my mind at ease.

News for Nerds...

[Whafro]

That doesn't mean that it's okay to forget how to assign possession to words. Please, editors and posters, realize that his name is Torvalds, and when he owns a pen, it's "Linus Torvalds' pen."

Word choice, grammar, and punctuation matter. If you're one of those people saying "I'm a nerd, I don't have to know how to write" then please, spare the rest of us, and don't submit stories to major "news" sites.

Editors who don't catch these things are simply pathetic, and it's inexcusable.

That is, unless we're talking about someone else named Torvald, in which case I move to strike my previous comments.

Re:News for Nerds...

[The Axe]

Actually, I believe it would be "Linus Torvalds's pen."

You put an apostrophe followed by an s to indicate ownership for singular nouns, even if the noun already ends with an s. With plural nouns, you omit the s after the apostrophe.

Singular example: The class's discussion lasted an hour.

Re:News for Nerds...

[Whafro]

There's contention as to this rule, and while you're not completely wrong, many would say that you're not completely right, either.

Most people go with what sounds right vs. what sounds awkward:

"The Jones's House" (said "The Joneses House")
"In Jesus' Name" (said "In Jesus Name")

In this case, I'd posit that Torvalds falls into the latter case, and therefore would be Torvalds'

OT: Re: possession

[MerlinYoda]

Rules for showing possession aren't that complicated people. :-)

You only have to ask 2 questions:
1) Is this a this word singular or plural?
2) Does this word already end in 's'?

1) Singular
2) No
Result: add " 's " to the end of the word
Example: My dog's squeek toy is gross. (pronounced like "dogs")

1) Singular
2) Yes
Result: add " 's " to the end of the word
Example: Mr. Jones's pen is leaking. (pronounced like "Joneses", sort of a redundant 's' sound)

1) Plural
2) No
Result: add " 's " to the end of the word
Example: The alumni's party bus was missing. (pronounced like "alumneyes")
Note: This is naturally somewhat rare since we don't tend to have many words in English that are not pluralized by adding 's'.

1) Plural
2) Yes
Result: add " ' " to the end of the word
Example: The Jones' House is a mile down the road. (pronounced like "Jones", no redundant 's' sound)

As you can see, you're safe most (roughly 75%) of the time with adding " 's ", just don't forget the exception because it is important. It shows that the word is possessive *and* plural as adding " 's " would signify it as being singular (i.e. The Jones's pen is owned by "The Jones" ... as was pointed out in the previous post).

This post is dedicated to grammar instructors and grammar police everywhere :-).

Re:OT: Re: possession

[zsau]

Your rule for Singular/ending-in-s is wrong. Or rather, it's right in many circumstances, but it's an overgeneralisation that doesn't hold for all contexts in all Englishes.

In particular: Biblical names ending in -s often simply take an apostrophe (e.g. Jesus' suffering). Also, for many people/in many dialects, if the -s at the end sounds like it's a plural marker (typically in names like Jones, Torvalds, but not in class), you simply add the apostrophe. To such people, Jonezuz or Torvaldzuz sound weird (to say the least). You don't have to be an old, conservative prescriptivist to speak like that; I'm merely twenty-one, but it's by far the most common pronunciation in my speech and my experience.

Also, in the case of pronouns, you almost never use an apostrophe (instead going straight to the -s), with the exception of one's and a handful of neologisms like that's which probably aren't likely to find themselves into any writing which a grammar Nazi is likely to criticise (when you should write whose).

Re:News for Nerds...

[soma_0806]

I consider this pretty pointless and anal in general, but if you're going to be critical, you must also be correct.

While it is true that the possessive in the title is incorrect, according to MLA formatting as well as Strunk's Elements of Style, which is pretty much the authority on such matters, your suggestion is acceptable, but more correct is to add an apostrophe s. ex. Torvalds's. It's actually rule number one in Strunk's Elementary Rules of Usage.

Aside from all that clap-trap, I notice gramatical errors in numerous "professional" publications that don't have the additional challenges of slashdot all the time. (For example, speed is kind of important here, so maybe things don't get checked over by three or seven different editors). I know it matters. Of course it matters, but you sound pretty snarky in your reply, so it may bode well to ask yourself just how much it should matter.

Also, I am an engineer, not an English major, so my reply may indeed be replete with errors. I love it just the way it is, just like slashdot.

A solid plan?

[GenKreton]

Perens seems to fail at laying out a solid plan or alternative to the open source patent portfolio Torvalds and others are trying to accrue. While criticism is good, without proposed solutions it is only negative.

With that said nobody claimed this open-source patent portfolio they are developing would be the be-all end-all solution to patent problems but it is a step in the right direction. Sometimes you need many lines of defense. Lobbying our political leaders costs more money than most FLOSS supporters have save a select few companies (like IBM who still love to horde patents).

This patent portfolio is needed in the meantime and not meant to be a comprehensive defensive line anyways. So why such negativity without a solid alternative?

A few points

[HiThere]

1) The patent system is unjust, broken, and appearently intentionally so.
2) Software patents are a bad idea
3) Patents are expensive to get and expensive to assert...but not as expensive as having to defend against
4) Even if a patent you hold in your pool can't be used to counterattack, it still can't be used against you.
5) Things start small. The current roster of patents donated may have all of the faults that Perens cites, but that doesn't mean that the ones that follow will.
6) You got a better idea? Go to it. I'm not stopping you.

Perens is right that this isn't a cure all. It's not the defense we want. This doesn't mean it's totally worthless.

Re:A few points

[prof_tc]

I agree that it's not what we want, but it is a stopgap. While the patent system is screwed up, its all we have to work with until we get people to see the truth.

Until they do, we have to defend ourselves with the weapons we have.

Perens being a downer again

[NekoXP]

He can make anything sound like the end of the world, can't he?

The patent pool is a START. Having "big names" contribute to it strengthens the
pool's credibility. In a couple years the pool may be very very useful and
contain patents from the RIGHT people.

Even Microsoft relies on Open Source sometimes. There is no reason why they
wouldn't or couldn't contribute; for instance they may have a bunch of patents
they might want to let people use in order to increase interoperability with
Windows (as this is, ironically, the first step in migrating to Windows from
Old Unix) or perhaps to increase licensing revenue for other things (i.e. maybe
they would let people use the iPod Interface Patent from a couple stories back,
and reap more money from the associated WMA licensing on commercial devices with
"open source" firmware?)

Neko

Right for the wrong reasons

[karlandtanya]

Patents as used today are tools of intimidation.

All a patent (or a library of them) buys you is pretext to go to court. I think the term is "standing".

After you get onto the battlefield, you still need to actually defeat your opponent. In civil court in the US, this is accomplished with money and popular appeal.

While it's possible for the free software movement to appeal to the public as David to [whoever]'s Goliath, technical people don't do a good job of selling ourselves. Maybe it's our natural distaste for sophistry and our intellectual arrogance. My point in this paragraph is to dismiss the court of public opinion. Even if David wins here, Goliath has to give a crap about their image in that particular instance. And Goliath will be back.

Which leads to the real issue. Money. David's got a couple dozen patents and a few grand (hell, give him a couple hundred grand). Goliath has hundreds of times the resources in both arenas. So David wins a battle or two. Goliath wins by sheer attrition.

The solution here is for David to bind his interests to the interests of a powerful party. Convince business and government that:

--The continued existance free (as in beer) software,

--drastic changes (back to reasonable limits) to the patent process,

--and the development and business models promoted by the GPL, LGPL, BSD-license, (pick your favorite)

benefit them in a direct, immediate, and measurable manner, and you have a battle you can win.

Co-opt the resources of your opponent. Better still, convince your opponent that you are his friend and he needs you in order to achieve his goals.

Folks, we (the OSS community, developers, testers, users) need to realize we're doing a terrible job of selling ourselves. Take a lesson from our favorite whipping-boy. Get governments, schools, businesses dependent on open source software. Dependent on the fact that it is free and open-source software, not just on a particular app. Hell, convince Microsoft that linux is not competition, but a resource they can benefit from only as long as it's free. Why not?

Obfuscation

[foonf]

It sounds like Perens is attacking this proposal for not doing something which it never claimed to do. If Microsoft or some other anti-OSS software company wants to use their patent portfolio against open source projects, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it except perhaps get the patent invalidated, if there is a case for doing so. What it sounds like this was intended to do, and seemingly does do, is present patented technologies that open source projects unambiguously CAN use without fear of retribution.

So what does Perens want? The only way to securely eliminate the threat of Microsoft, etc. using patents agressively against open source would be to eliminate patents altogether, at least on software and anything related to software. That might be a reasonable position that deserves consideration, but if that is what he is advocating he should say so openly so that it can be reasonably debated, rather than making insinuations like this.

No

[Roland Walter Dutton]

If Microsoft or some other anti-OSS software company wants to use their patent portfolio against open source projects, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it except perhaps get the patent invalidated, if there is a case for doing so. What it sounds like this was intended to do, and seemingly does do, is present patented technologies that open source projects unambiguously CAN use without fear of retribution.

No. What you do to protect yourself against software patent lawsuits from a software company is threaten them with a bunch of patent lawsuits of your own. This is how the large software companies protect themselves from each other right now, and it's clear that at least one of the purposes of the new patent pool is to give free/open source software a patent arsenal of its own. A list of patents you are allowed to use is vastly less useful, basically because if you're being sued for infringing a patent it doesn't matter how many other patents you're using with permission.

Even the initial press release [prnewswire.com], written as it is in consensual happy-speak, adds that

The library will also aggregate other legal solutions, such as indemnification programs offered by vendors of open source software.

Then, if you look at this CNET article [com.com], you see Eben Moglen, one of the people quoted in the press release, say

We will see how successful this is when we begin to negotiate cross-licenses that would otherwise inhibit innovation

In other words, the purpose of the exercise is to get free software immunity from software companies' patents in exchange for giving the software companies immunity from our patents.

Proper attribution, please

[Dachannien]

Unless "ficken" is "Gavin Clarke in San Francisco", a writer for The Register, "ficken" didn't write it at all. He just copied and pasted it verbatim from the article without providing attribution.

Article submitters need to give proper attribution when they quote another article, and /.'s editors really need to make sure that the articles they approve provide that attribution when the submission does nothing more than quote another article verbatim. You editors do read the linked pages before you approve the articles, right?

Just ASK

[UnrefinedLayman]

The guy posts here on slashdot all the time; instead of infighting so much, why doesn't someone just ask him to clarify the details of an article written in a newspaper [theregister.co.uk] that's barely above being a tabloid?

Anyone that reads too deeply into "news" snippets like these which happen to always be adversarial and use creative verbs like "slams" and "rails against" needs to have his head examined. The Register is the UK tech equivalent of E! [eonline.com] television.

Getting a pool of FOSS patents is great!

[oneandoneis2]

Who will Linus use them to sue first?

problem here is that some think...

[3seas]

software is honestly patentable,

Its NOT, I've commented on this enough recently, just look at my previous posts...

In short, those who support software patents inherently support fraud and public deception.

And I don't give a shit who does. They are wrong.

Re:Get a Life Open Source

[Russ Nelson]

These people need to "get a life." Open source is a good idea, but it isn't the Answer To Everything, nor are those who disagree necessarily evil.

I think you're confusing the Open Source movement with the Free Software movement. Free Software is about morality. Open Source is about better software. We both want more freedom, but for different reasons.

Re:Get a Life Open Source

[rk]

Don't build your life around hating the "wrong people" so much you reject their donations to a patent pool.

A careful reading of what Perens said will reveal what he meant by "wrong people". The people who would put such patents in a pool are already friendly to open source, and are thus least likely to start trouble for open source products.

I see his point. Putting patents in a pool like this is a noble gesture, and it's certainly useful that these patented techniques will be allowed in open source software, but it doesn't buy open source much in the way of legal protection.

Re:Get a Life Open Source

[Master of Transhuman]

I'm not interested in distinguishing whether Bill Gates or George Bush is "the Great Satan".

An asshole is an asshole, it's that simple.

There are fanatics in everything - including Windows and Linux and OSS and interior design and poodles.

So what?

There are also idiots who like to post pompous bullshit on /. Especially when they miss the point of the discussion, as your last line does.

Perens was stating that the "wrong people" are people contributing patents to OSS who already support OSS. He would prefer Microsoft to do this. He knows Microsoft won't. His conclusion that the Patent Commons Project is worthless does not follow from his premise, but his premise is correct - and completely irrelevant to your post.

Don't build your life around trying to convince everybody to love everybody else. Ain't gonna happen.

Re:When fighting a war

[Jane_Dozey]

IIRC the FSF already has a bunch of lawyers. The main problem with patenting things is money. You have to cough up the cash everytime you wish to patent something and people generally don't have this pool of money to work with. Unfortunatly, while a patent pool would be a start it's an expensive start.

Re:I'll take so what ? for 500....

[Master of Transhuman]

Exactly.

And Perens has no ideas of his own to bring to the table, so he should fuck off.

I personally doubt that just having a patent commons is going to be all that helpful once Microsoft starts suing OSS people (as they undoubtedly will once they see they have no choice left if they want to survive as a company), but it can't hurt to have one to back up the other efforts Eben Moglen outlined at LinuxWorld.

At the least, it could be used to help keep out the riff-raff - the lame smaller companies who jump on the "sue OSS" bandwagon. Eben specifically stated this project was intended to prevent SCO from happening again. And SCO certainly qualifies as a "lame smaller company."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Patenting patenting...

[tao]

Too much prior art...