SFLC Argues On Same Side As Microsoft 59
MCRocker writes in with news that, while a few weeks old, didn't get a lot of traction before the holidays. The Software Freedom Law Center is one of the staunchest defenders of FOSS out there. The SFLC is arguing on the same side as Microsoft in a patent case before the Supreme Court. The case, "Microsoft vs. AT&T," turns on whether U.S. patents should apply to software that is copied and distributed overseas. Groklaw has more nitty-gritty details. In the Linux-Watch article, the SFLC's legal director, Daniel Ravicher, is quoted: "I expect many people will be surprised that the Software Freedom Law Center has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Microsoft. In this specific case, Microsoft and SFLC are both supporting the position that U.S. software patents have no right to cover activity outside of the United States, especially in places that have specifically rejected software patents."
Amazing. (Score:5, Insightful)
*cheers*
Case is so important, Microsoft is irrelevant. (Score:4, Insightful)
Although Linux supporters sometimes see the software-patent issue as one part of the landscape affecting their favorite OS, I suspect to people working at the SFLC, the whole Linux/Windows conflict is just one very front (and at least at the moment, one on which there's not a whole lot of movement) in a much larger war.
Re:Case is so important, Microsoft is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
If US patents apply to activities of US corporations outside the US then this will mean that US companies are not able to compete as effectively in other markets. If it is possible for non-US software companies to undercut US-based ones in places like the EU and south-east Asia then this will have a serious effect on the US software industry. Anyone starting a software company will be likely to seriously consider starting it outside the US, even if they are from there. This will give a lot of weight to those campaigning to get software patents abolished in the USA, since they will be able to point to clear evidence that their existence is harming the economy. If this succeeds, then it will remove the 'aligning our IP laws with the US' argument that keeps being waved around by software patent proponents in the EU.
If the case goes the other way, then it means that those of us outside the USA will be able to get software products that are either better or cheaper (because they will either include code not found in the US versions, or because they will not include patent royalties) than those available in the USA. This can, again, be used as evidence of software patents harming the US economy.
Microsoft is not irrelevant this time (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't even ascribe to that narrow restriction. Any patent or IP system should be national or managed by a trade union like the EU, not shoved down the throats of foreign citizens and businesses by one country. The current approach allows patent holders to literally leverage the military and economic pressures of the United States for their own personal gain.
Having the OSS symbol of evil (Microsoft) standing alongside the pro-OSS representatives on this issue highlights the broken nature of the current US patent system in double-height, double-width, bold, italic, flashing, underlined text.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Case is so important, Microsoft is irrelevant. (Score:5, Informative)
Still, the SFLC takes a very different position compared to Microsoft, although technically on the same side. Microsoft argues that U.S. patents have no right to cover activity outside of the United States, especially in places that have specifically rejected software patents.
The SFLC argues that software patent are not valid at all under U.S. laws (specifically 35 U.S.C. 101) and prior Supreme Court decisions (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly decided otherwise (In re Alappat, disregarding the Supreme Court's precedent as unclear); the Amicus Brief challenges this practice. (Go ahead and read the Brief, it's pretty readable even by non-lawyer standards.)
So although Microsoft and the SFLC are on the same side, I'm quite sure Microsoft would have preferred stating its case without this brief.
Re: (Score:1)
Software patents only benefit companies who don't actually produce a lot of software and would prefer to just go around suing.
Microsoft and patents (Score:2)
Software patents only benefit companies who don't actually produce a lot of software and would prefer to just go around suing. Microsoft would be better off without them.
If software patents harm Microsoft then why does MS patent software?
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Mutually Assured Destruction.
If you want to go into the software business, you need to have some patents yourself, just in case somebody else decides to go after you. If Microsoft didn't have a patent portfolio, IBM would roll over them like a big blue Panzer division. It's basically impossible to develop non-trivial application software without violating somebody's patents, somewhere; hence every major software company has its own patent a
I am not surprised (Score:2)
I blame Hollywood (or, more correctly, popular literature in general) for bringing up kids to believe in a world where people (and corporations) are "good" or "bad", rather than a world where people have interests that are
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I can remember hoping that IBM would finally get their long deserved punishment and go bankrupt. Now, they're a key ally defending freedom of choice. It just goes to
On the contrary, my dear (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Bingo!
It is just Microsoft's position which is surprising. What? Microsoft defending the rights of countries that do NOT support patents? I for one am surprised!
Don't be. Microsoft's position hasn't changed either. Follow the money.
KFG
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think Microsoft's position has "changed" really, either. But the irony here is pretty sweet: the Evil Empire(tm) is for a short time allied with the Freedom Fighters(r).
And I'll go ahead and be that guy and pull out a quote:
the author (Score:1)
Re:the author (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not exactly sure why he should have any.
Let us assume, however, for the sake of argument, that he has some. Perhaps they are to ideas rather than to groups or "movements." I understand that to people not used to supporting ideas this can be confusing.
See the very subject of the article.
KFG
Re:the author (Score:5, Insightful)
I have read articles wherein he crucifies Linux and another where he praises it.
Possibly because there are some situations where Linux deserves praise and others where it deserves scathing criticism ?
This is the most important piece of the brief. (Score:3, Informative)
They argue in the brief that software as a whole is not patentable and the patenting of software conflicts with earlier supreme court rulings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In my opinion, it works similarly to written works in any spoken language. It should fall under copyright with the same access to fair use and other protections that written works have. I don't know where a good cut off would be for fair use, I would expect a whole class/library/etc. would be outside of fair use, but would a function/method be? The problem is that the people writing these laws know little or nothing about it and the loudest voice lobbying for it are those who stan
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose you could still write a song using the black piano keys.
Meanwhile, I'm rushing to the copyright office to file on the following code snippet:
int main( int argc, char *argv[] ) {
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect a whole class/library/etc. would be outside of fair use, but would a function/method be?
A function or method shouldn't patented just as all software shouldn't be. Basically they are algorithms which should have no patent protection. Only implimentations, how it works, should get protection. But only if it is truly new and unique.
FalconWell, colour me confused (Score:1)
I just can't see any interpretation of any law that says that US patent law should apply to products that are produced nowhere within US jurisdiction. Or any other US law for that matter. Yet AT&T seem to be saying that this is the case.
Re:Well, colour me confused (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, the software is apparently developed in the US and shipped overseas.
Yes, it's a disgusting overreach of US patent law into foreign jurisdictions. And yes, software patents are evil, and hopefully unlawful. Go Eben and Dan!
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it's a disgusting overreach of US patent law into foreign jurisdictions.
But unless I misunderstand it, it oddly seems to only inconvenience US companies and companies with a substantial US prescence. Strange that the US government (or any other for that matter) would pass a law like that. I'd have expected to see an exception to patent enforcement for manufacture for export.
Re: (Score:1)
Although the very issue of the patentab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, my uninformed guess is that it would be perverse for software to not be a component under 271(f) while being fully patentable under 101. The law so far has ruled diametrically opposite. The Eolas case, the one Supreme Court ruling (sortof) in favour of software patents, allowed for a computer running software to be part of a
Finally (Score:1)
Heh, I guess we wouldn't be hearing about interesting patent applications from places like Google or Microsoft anymore, but that's really nothing compared to what it could mean for the open source community and for the industry in general.
Indepence works both ways (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ehem, no.
The Boston Tea party was about taxes sneaked in as tariffs. Independance came a few years (and stupid british laws) later
Ugh? (Score:1)
Slashdoters... confused?
Posts... few?
Reality... alternate?
Earlier Poster got it right (Score:4, Informative)
Nevertheless, there is such a thing as "National Sovereignty"; which basically means that a nation's laws stop at that nation's borders. If Person A does something which is legal in Nation X but not in Nation Y, and does it in Nation X, then Nation Y has no redress against Person A. The consumption of alcohol and extra-marital sex are both illegal in Saudi Arabia; however, any Saudi resident who drinks several litres of Guinness while visiting Ireland is not committing any crime for which they can be punished under Saudi law. That's because the Republic of Ireland is a sovereign nation. Only Irish Law applies to acts performed in the Republic of Ireland, whether or not they be done by Irish citizens. If the Arab in question then visited certain parts of the Continent, he might even be permitted to engage in lawful (subject to payment of the appropriate taxes) sex with a prostitute, and possibly even (again legally) to consume certain other substances less harmful than alcohol. Again, local (not Saudi) law would be applicable.
So it seems to me that if a US-owned company were to create software in some non-US territory which might violate US patents if it were imported into the USA but (by dint of the scope of patentability) would not violate any patents in the territory where it were created, the laws of the territory where the software were created would be applicable. And for the USA to seek to prevent a perfectly legal act within the borders of another sovereign nation could be construed as an Act of War.
More to the point... (Score:1)
Indeed.
Though the article implies the angle where SFLC deserves attention for siding with MSFT, the real story is how MSFT is even considering the same side as SFLC. (especially since this exchange [slashdot.org].)
So, in thinking about where this all leads, don't think about what SFLC will do next. Rather, think what the next move of MSFT will be.
So far...
Hmm... seems that this only draws attention to "software patents" in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Microsoft's anti-patent position a Suprise? (Score:2)
Aside from the possibility that Gates just thinks (or thought at any rate) software patents are a bad idea, this is not a suprising position. Microsoft has deep pockets and distributes enough software to fill the Mediterranean Basin. It's a good bet that they would be willing to sacrifice their own patent pool for in or
Microsoft and software patents (Score:2)
Microsoft has deep pockets and distributes enough software to fill the Mediterranean Basin. It's a good bet that they would be willing to sacrifice their own patent pool for in order to be free of the constant threat of successful multi-million dollar (or more) lawsuits from some clown who has managed to patent binary arithmetic or the use ampersands in code.
Microsoft doesn't get software patents to protect themself, the only reason to get patents to use it to make money. If the idea is to protect yours
Re: (Score:1)
For shame, SFLC! (Score:2)
Anything else is a betrayal of justice!
Good idea, but unlikely to work (Score:2, Informative)
"If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more."
See more of his philosophy at http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story _id=8413080 [economist.com]
So, while it would be nice to see
No funny posts? (Score:1)
SuperFriends Literacy Coalition? (Score:2)