Slashdot Mirror

There have been previous threats about Theora, but nothing happened. This could be FUD bluff too.

MPEG LA has over 1,000 patents which it says are needed for an implementation of MPEG H.264.

Most current efforts around software patents talk about quality and bad patents, but none of those efforts will make a dent on a thicket of 1,000 patents. It's unlikely they're all obvious or that prior art exists for them.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/WebM_and_VP8
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents

There was a time when the problem was killer patents - RSA, public key encryption, gif - but today the problem is always thickets. Raising quality won't solve the problem, we need to clearly exclude software from patentability.

There have been previous threats about Theora, but nothing happened. This could be FUD bluff too.

MPEG LA has over 1,000 patents which it says are needed for an implementation of MPEG H.264.

Most current efforts around software patents talk about quality and bad patents, but none of those efforts will make a dent on a thicket of 1,000 patents. It's unlikely they're all obvious or that prior art exists for them.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/WebM_and_VP8
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents

There was a time when the problem was killer patents - RSA, public key encryption, gif - but today the problem is always thickets. Raising quality won't solve the problem, we need to clearly exclude software from patentability.

There have been previous threats about Theora, but nothing happened. This could be FUD bluff too.

MPEG LA has over 1,000 patents which it says are needed for an implementation of MPEG H.264.

Most current efforts around software patents talk about quality and bad patents, but none of those efforts will make a dent on a thicket of 1,000 patents. It's unlikely they're all obvious or that prior art exists for them.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/WebM_and_VP8
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents

There was a time when the problem was killer patents - RSA, public key encryption, gif - but today the problem is always thickets. Raising quality won't solve the problem, we need to clearly exclude software from patentability.

Filing costs are the problem, it's the costs of defence.

If you write something in your spare time and you get threatened with a patent suit, would you pay a lawyer US$10k for an initial opinion? If the lawyer said you had a 60% chance of winning, would you have the time and money to start the lawsuit?

If the patent holder asked you for US$5 for every unit which you distribute, for a product you were giving away for free, would you start charging your users so you could pay the patent holder?

Applying these questions to producers of pharma and cars is different. Only large companies produce those things (on a commercially significant scale), so all concerned parties have the time and cash resources for these issues to be considered. For software, most producers can't deal with these costs. The list of costs is quite long:

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Costs

Not that I know of, but if they were patentable, there would be film owners and trolls patenting plots and enforcing them.

If that's not happening, it's not for lack of interest from trolls. It must be that plot patents aren't being granted (or granted but not upheld).

If anyone has more info, it would be great to gather it here:

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Storyline_and_fashion_patents

Large companies, who can afford to defend themselves in court, will benefit from this. Same is true for Microsoft's case against i4i where they want to make it easier to invalidate patents in court.

For small and medium-sized companies, and for individuals, this won't help.

In software, people need the freedom to use the commonly used video formats, and the freedom to make a website to sell stuff. For a small company, the court case would cost more than the profits they'd be trying to protect.

Patents simply don't work for software. They *might* work for things where all mass production is done by large companies (e.g. pharma, cars), but for things which ordinary people do, such as writing books and writing software, patents don't work and must be abolished. Reform is not enough.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_software_is_different
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents

Large companies, who can afford to defend themselves in court, will benefit from this. Same is true for Microsoft's case against i4i where they want to make it easier to invalidate patents in court.

For small and medium-sized companies, and for individuals, this won't help.

In software, people need the freedom to use the commonly used video formats, and the freedom to make a website to sell stuff. For a small company, the court case would cost more than the profits they'd be trying to protect.

Patents simply don't work for software. They *might* work for things where all mass production is done by large companies (e.g. pharma, cars), but for things which ordinary people do, such as writing books and writing software, patents don't work and must be abolished. Reform is not enough.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_software_is_different
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents

A company that has successfully created video codecs for years without being sued for patent infringement (On2 that is) vs. a developer who vocally ignores patent problems and uses terms like "unlikely" to describe what in actual patents comes down to precise details?

You can argue that it is a step backwards for "openness", or, you can argue that Google is digging their feet in to ensure that their own 'truly open' video format will become the standard. Both POV's have validity.

No, they do not have equal validity.

H.264 is not open in the Open Source definition of the term. It is only "open" in the old-school, commercial-players-only, non-GPL-compatible "RAND open" sense, which excludes implementation in any copyleft license because patent indemnity cannot legally be passed on to users.

These two concepts are not identical and it is a false equivalence to suggest that they are. This is not a debate of opinions; it revolves around well understood matters of copyright and patent law.

If you do not understand the interaction of copyrights, patents, and FLOSS software, please educate yourself.

He isnt being informative. He is being dishonest.

No I don't believe he is.

The exception reads "If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."

There may be discussion as to how effective patent retaliation clauses are, but they're a common feature of many open source licences, such as the Apache licence, and inkeeping with the Free Software philosophy. The intent is to preserve the patent idemnity for all users of the software, not deny it.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Google
* Amicus brief filed for the Bilski against business method patents.
* Offensive patent suits filed during Google's existence: 0
* Patent suits filed against Google: many

For any company with deep pockets, not patenting your own stuff is not possible anymore. You'll get sued just for using what you developed yourself.

I'd like to second the first reply with a link to Andrew Tridgell's talk on patent defence for free software developers. It's a must-read for anyone who bothers to look at the patents when they read these articles: http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents/

Patent consortium? Not a big enough idea, I think. The root of the problem is that software is still patentable in the US. If not for that, Novell could not have sold out. And SCO would not have had even a veneer of credibility, and might not have tried suing anyone. Get rid of software patents.

I would like to go even further, and eliminate the government enforced monopoly protections for all patents. Don't create barriers and artificial scarcities for the sake of the starving inventors, reward them in some other way. But I can't see anything as revolutionary as that happening, certainly not anytime soon, no matter how much sense it makes. Or how terrible the current system is.

But how to achieve the more modest goal, the elimination of patents on software, and business methods? I have read there are a few crucial court cases from the 1970's where it all started. Would getting those reversed or struck down do the job? Is the Bilski case enough?

More important than yet-another-silly-patent, this year there will be opportunities to fix this mess somewhat. In the USA, the Supreme Court is to hear the i4i v. Microsoft case, and in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal will decide if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

Background info:

• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal
• I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)
• IBM
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents

More important than yet-another-silly-patent, this year there will be opportunities to fix this mess somewhat. In the USA, the Supreme Court is to hear the i4i v. Microsoft case, and in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal will decide if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

Background info:

• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal
• I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)
• IBM
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents

More important than yet-another-silly-patent, this year there will be opportunities to fix this mess somewhat. In the USA, the Supreme Court is to hear the i4i v. Microsoft case, and in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal will decide if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

Background info:

• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal
• I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)
• IBM
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents

More important than yet-another-silly-patent, this year there will be opportunities to fix this mess somewhat. In the USA, the Supreme Court is to hear the i4i v. Microsoft case, and in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal will decide if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

Background info:

• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal
• I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)
• IBM
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents

More important than yet-another-silly-patent, this year there will be opportunities to fix this mess somewhat. In the USA, the Supreme Court is to hear the i4i v. Microsoft case, and in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal will decide if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

Background info:

• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal
• I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)
• IBM
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents

More important than yet-another-silly-patent, this year there will be opportunities to fix this mess somewhat. In the USA, the Supreme Court is to hear the i4i v. Microsoft case, and in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal will decide if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

Background info:

• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal
• I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)
• IBM
• Patent trolls
• Silly patents

Google is generally against software patents:
    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Google
That site lists no known offensive patent litigation, and a quote of over 50 patent lawsuits against Google.

In this particular case, it is really quite simple:
  - If the patent is granted, it means the USPTO thinks it is patentable.
  - If Google did not patent it, someone else would, and they'd be suing Google right now.
  - Successfully defending a patent suit is more expensive than getting a patent, and losing a patent suit can cost massive amounts.

Education, despite looking like a big institution, is affected just as hard as small companies and individuals.

• Education and software patents - review of a paper by European Schoolnet
• Harms to educationHarms to education
• Blackboard inc.
• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal - Canada will soon decide if methods such as Amazon's one-click are patentable

Education, despite looking like a big institution, is affected just as hard as small companies and individuals.

• Education and software patents - review of a paper by European Schoolnet
• Harms to educationHarms to education
• Blackboard inc.
• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal - Canada will soon decide if methods such as Amazon's one-click are patentable

Education, despite looking like a big institution, is affected just as hard as small companies and individuals.

• Education and software patents - review of a paper by European Schoolnet
• Harms to educationHarms to education
• Blackboard inc.
• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal - Canada will soon decide if methods such as Amazon's one-click are patentable

Education, despite looking like a big institution, is affected just as hard as small companies and individuals.

• Education and software patents - review of a paper by European Schoolnet
• Harms to educationHarms to education
• Blackboard inc.
• Workspace for Canada 1-click appeal - Canada will soon decide if methods such as Amazon's one-click are patentable

The Federal Court of Appeal (just below the Supreme Court) will be deciding if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Canadian_patent_courts_and_appeals
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Workspace_for_Canada_1-click_appeal
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Canada

It would be very useful if someone could pass on any hints about groups in Canada who might/should be interested in working on this.

The Federal Court of Appeal (just below the Supreme Court) will be deciding if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Canadian_patent_courts_and_appeals
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Workspace_for_Canada_1-click_appeal
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Canada

It would be very useful if someone could pass on any hints about groups in Canada who might/should be interested in working on this.

The Federal Court of Appeal (just below the Supreme Court) will be deciding if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Canadian_patent_courts_and_appeals
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Workspace_for_Canada_1-click_appeal
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Canada

It would be very useful if someone could pass on any hints about groups in Canada who might/should be interested in working on this.

Below are links to background info, but keep in mind that trolls create a tax, but they're not the big problem. They're generally not the patent holders that break standards or exclude free software projects. They're just after money, so they are parasites to the rich. The MPEG-LA patents, for example, are much more harmful (they blocked HTML5 from including a standard video format) and are held by "real" software companies.

• Patent trolls
• Intellectual Ventures
• More than trolls - they're not actually the big problem
• MPEG LA

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

Below are links to background info, but keep in mind that trolls create a tax, but they're not the big problem. They're generally not the patent holders that break standards or exclude free software projects. They're just after money, so they are parasites to the rich. The MPEG-LA patents, for example, are much more harmful (they blocked HTML5 from including a standard video format) and are held by "real" software companies.

• Patent trolls
• Intellectual Ventures
• More than trolls - they're not actually the big problem
• MPEG LA

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

Below are links to background info, but keep in mind that trolls create a tax, but they're not the big problem. They're generally not the patent holders that break standards or exclude free software projects. They're just after money, so they are parasites to the rich. The MPEG-LA patents, for example, are much more harmful (they blocked HTML5 from including a standard video format) and are held by "real" software companies.

• Patent trolls
• Intellectual Ventures
• More than trolls - they're not actually the big problem
• MPEG LA

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

Below are links to background info, but keep in mind that trolls create a tax, but they're not the big problem. They're generally not the patent holders that break standards or exclude free software projects. They're just after money, so they are parasites to the rich. The MPEG-LA patents, for example, are much more harmful (they blocked HTML5 from including a standard video format) and are held by "real" software companies.

• Patent trolls
• Intellectual Ventures
• More than trolls - they're not actually the big problem
• MPEG LA

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

My own fear about all these court cases is that when the dust settles we'll have half a dozen companies who've paid dearly for nothing (other than the right to distribute their software) and this companies won't take too kindly to new developers.

We'll be left with a cartel. If you want to write software for phones, you better pay the expensive cross-licences or get into the protection of someone who has.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Cost_barrier_to_market_entry
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation

My own fear about all these court cases is that when the dust settles we'll have half a dozen companies who've paid dearly for nothing (other than the right to distribute their software) and this companies won't take too kindly to new developers.

We'll be left with a cartel. If you want to write software for phones, you better pay the expensive cross-licences or get into the protection of someone who has.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Cost_barrier_to_market_entry
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation

Here's where I'll be reviewing the cables for swpat stuff:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Cablegate_info_on_software_patents

Is all IP-related stuff really in the cables tagged "KIPR"? Or is that just a generality? Can cables have multiple tags or is the tag only for the "main" topic of the cable? (I mean, if a cable talks mostly about some other topic but mentions patents, will it have only the other topic's tag or will it also have the KIPR tag?)

Besides the people behind this case, the case itself is quite interesting too.

The European Commission (or Court of Justice) will have to decide if IBM has harmed TurboHercules through anti-competitive behaviour. IBM has also asserted patents. This means that if the European institutions find that IBM is doing wrong, then they will also have to decide if IBM can use its patents to continue the wrong. I.e. what trumps? Competition law or patents?

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM_and_TurboHercules,_2010

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Competition_law_defence

If competition law trumps, then this opens a new path for breaking down the problems that software patents are doing to standards and interop.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility

Besides the people behind this case, the case itself is quite interesting too.

The European Commission (or Court of Justice) will have to decide if IBM has harmed TurboHercules through anti-competitive behaviour. IBM has also asserted patents. This means that if the European institutions find that IBM is doing wrong, then they will also have to decide if IBM can use its patents to continue the wrong. I.e. what trumps? Competition law or patents?

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM_and_TurboHercules,_2010

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Competition_law_defence

If competition law trumps, then this opens a new path for breaking down the problems that software patents are doing to standards and interop.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility

Besides the people behind this case, the case itself is quite interesting too.

The European Commission (or Court of Justice) will have to decide if IBM has harmed TurboHercules through anti-competitive behaviour. IBM has also asserted patents. This means that if the European institutions find that IBM is doing wrong, then they will also have to decide if IBM can use its patents to continue the wrong. I.e. what trumps? Competition law or patents?

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM_and_TurboHercules,_2010

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Competition_law_defence

If competition law trumps, then this opens a new path for breaking down the problems that software patents are doing to standards and interop.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility

Patents should only be enforceable if official versions are available to product developers in a language of the developer's country.

Machine translations will not be considered official, so product developers will have to avoid infringing the original (official) patent which is in some other language. If machine translations are truly there for information purposes only, then that's harmless, but in all proposals so far, machine translations have been proposed because foreign language patents will become enforceable in the target country.

If you infringe a patent, you've broken the law. If the patent was in some foreign language, you are now being held responsible by your country for doing breaking a law which was written in a foreign language. That situation is completely unacceptable.

The state of machine translation:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Machine_translation_of_patents

This goes for all types of patents, but the problem is particularly acute for software patents because software is often developed by individuals and organisations with little funding, so expecting developers (mass producers) of software to hire translators is more absurd than having the same expectation of mass producers of pharmaceuticals or cars (which are always medium-to-large companies).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_software_is_different

Patents should only be enforceable if official versions are available to product developers in a language of the developer's country.

Machine translations will not be considered official, so product developers will have to avoid infringing the original (official) patent which is in some other language. If machine translations are truly there for information purposes only, then that's harmless, but in all proposals so far, machine translations have been proposed because foreign language patents will become enforceable in the target country.

If you infringe a patent, you've broken the law. If the patent was in some foreign language, you are now being held responsible by your country for doing breaking a law which was written in a foreign language. That situation is completely unacceptable.

The state of machine translation:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Machine_translation_of_patents

This goes for all types of patents, but the problem is particularly acute for software patents because software is often developed by individuals and organisations with little funding, so expecting developers (mass producers) of software to hire translators is more absurd than having the same expectation of mass producers of pharmaceuticals or cars (which are always medium-to-large companies).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_software_is_different

Anybody know why it seems like we've responded with a much greater response this time round? Because these guys are suicide bombers? People worry more? Or did we respond at about the same level last time round?

I think we responded like it idiots because it was an exceptionally climatic event that everyone witnessed and the madness of crowds set in. We've had deadly terrorist attacks on airplanes for decades prior to 9/11. But they were rarely caught on film - at worst we only saw the aftermath in the form of rubble on the ground or debris on the water.

There was also a study (2004?) which showed that getting patents makes you more likely to be the target of patent litigation, and there's a guy in FFII who published a computer science paper only to find that someone else patented an extension of his work a few years later.

The links and descriptions are at the below link, but it's down briefly for maintenance:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Publishing_information_is_made_dangerous

In a domain where all the practitioners are big companies (pharma, car manufacturing), this isn't a big problem because all the practitioners have the resources (time, manpower, cash) to contest this sort of abuse. In software where many practitioners are unpaid individuals, hobbyists, and employees whose pay is for something other than directly writing software, the checks and balances don't work.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Publishing_information_is_made_dangerous

Background info:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_overview

On the software patent problems (or patents "in the Digital Environment"), it seems most or maybe all have been fixed (provided the the signatory uses the Section II option of excluding patents from that section) but a thorough reading is still needed:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA_and_software_patents

Background info:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_overview

On the software patent problems (or patents "in the Digital Environment"), it seems most or maybe all have been fixed (provided the the signatory uses the Section II option of excluding patents from that section) but a thorough reading is still needed:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA_and_software_patents

I'll add one: Don't support IEEE (that is, don't be a member, and boycott their conferences). IEEE supports software patents.

Or better yet, be a member and apply pressure from within to change their stance away from software patents.

1. Move away from America
2. Develop whilst simultaneously not caring about software patents.
3. Sales and profit.
4. Get sued in America
5. Don't turn up
6. Don't go to America (or South Korea) ever again.

I'll add one: Don't support IEEE (that is, don't be a member, and boycott their conferences). IEEE supports software patents.

Novell's 8-K filing says that Microsoft's "CNPT" bought 882 patents.

* What important patents did Novell have?
* What happens now to Novell's contribution to OIN?

Novell contributed some big patent sets to OIN, like the Commerce One e-commerce patents. What's their status now? Did Novell "give/transfer" them to OIN, or did OIN just have a transferable assurance of access to these patents via Novell?

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/CPTN_Holdings_LLC
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Novell
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network

Novell's 8-K filing says that Microsoft's "CNPT" bought 882 patents.

* What important patents did Novell have?
* What happens now to Novell's contribution to OIN?

Novell contributed some big patent sets to OIN, like the Commerce One e-commerce patents. What's their status now? Did Novell "give/transfer" them to OIN, or did OIN just have a transferable assurance of access to these patents via Novell?

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/CPTN_Holdings_LLC
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Novell
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network

Novell's 8-K filing says that Microsoft's "CNPT" bought 882 patents.

* What important patents did Novell have?
* What happens now to Novell's contribution to OIN?

Novell contributed some big patent sets to OIN, like the Commerce One e-commerce patents. What's their status now? Did Novell "give/transfer" them to OIN, or did OIN just have a transferable assurance of access to these patents via Novell?

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/CPTN_Holdings_LLC
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Novell
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network

What patents did Novell have that are worth US$450 and a first-paragraph mention in a buy-out press release?

Novell was a major contributor of patents to the OIN patent pool.

(Mono probably isn't the main worry - it was Microsoft's patents that were posing a threat there, not Novell's.