Slashdot Mirror

Regarding the unfolding mess, here's what info I've gathered:

• Microsoft v. Motorola (2010, USA)
• Motorola
• Phone patent litigation
• Apple

And if someone wants to get an article started on this new lawsuit, go ahead:
Motorola_v._Apple_(2010,_USA)

Regarding the unfolding mess, here's what info I've gathered:

• Microsoft v. Motorola (2010, USA)
• Motorola
• Phone patent litigation
• Apple

And if someone wants to get an article started on this new lawsuit, go ahead:
Motorola_v._Apple_(2010,_USA)

Regarding the unfolding mess, here's what info I've gathered:

• Microsoft v. Motorola (2010, USA)
• Motorola
• Phone patent litigation
• Apple

And if someone wants to get an article started on this new lawsuit, go ahead:
Motorola_v._Apple_(2010,_USA)

Regarding the unfolding mess, here's what info I've gathered:

• Microsoft v. Motorola (2010, USA)
• Motorola
• Phone patent litigation
• Apple

And if someone wants to get an article started on this new lawsuit, go ahead:
Motorola_v._Apple_(2010,_USA)

Regarding the unfolding mess, here's what info I've gathered:

• Microsoft v. Motorola (2010, USA)
• Motorola
• Phone patent litigation
• Apple

And if someone wants to get an article started on this new lawsuit, go ahead:
Motorola_v._Apple_(2010,_USA)

For software patents, the key thing to check is if ISPs will have liability for not removing stuff that a patent holder claims violates his patents. If that's still there, then we'll get DMCA take-down notices for software patents. More on the problem here:

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

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

For software patents, the key thing to check is if ISPs will have liability for not removing stuff that a patent holder claims violates his patents. If that's still there, then we'll get DMCA take-down notices for software patents. More on the problem here:

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

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

> Smaller countries know when they are being taken to the cleaners.

Yeh, but the only institutions that complain are ones with no power.

The European Parliament, the European Privacy Commission, and the Mexican Senate aren't in charge of the ACTA negotiations for their countries. They can stomp off and their citizens can feel proud that the elected officials are looking after their interests, but ACTA goes ahead. Funny, huh?

I didn't understand how society let TRIPS go ahead in 1994. I guessed it was snuck in while citizens weren't looking at the global level, and it would thus never happen again. Now my generation is letting it happen, and we're watching it unfold, and it's unfolding...

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

Here's the problems caused for software patents:

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

I've seen people claiming that ACTA will require countries to allow software patenting, but that's not correct at all. On the contrary, the latest leaked draft (25 August) explicitly says that there will be no substantive requirements on scope:

ARTICLE 1.3: RELATION TO STANDARDS CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY AND SCOPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

1. This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights contained in a Party's law.

2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under the laws and regulations of that Party.

• Let's avoid the term "Intellectual property"
• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview

Here's the problems caused for software patents:

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

I've seen people claiming that ACTA will require countries to allow software patenting, but that's not correct at all. On the contrary, the latest leaked draft (25 August) explicitly says that there will be no substantive requirements on scope:

ARTICLE 1.3: RELATION TO STANDARDS CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY AND SCOPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

1. This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights contained in a Party's law.

2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under the laws and regulations of that Party.

• Let's avoid the term "Intellectual property"
• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview

Here's the problems caused for software patents:

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

I've seen people claiming that ACTA will require countries to allow software patenting, but that's not correct at all. On the contrary, the latest leaked draft (25 August) explicitly says that there will be no substantive requirements on scope:

ARTICLE 1.3: RELATION TO STANDARDS CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY AND SCOPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

1. This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights contained in a Party's law.

2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under the laws and regulations of that Party.

• Let's avoid the term "Intellectual property"
• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview

I've been making a list of the better articles and the most important lawsuits:

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

Thanks! I've updated the wiki.

I've also started a page about Motorola:

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

Phone patent litigation has become a core revenue stream for the big patent holders, and complaining to he ITC has become standard - it's free (or cheap) and the government does all the work. The media also does loads of free work by writing articles about how X's product imports might be blocked, even though that's never happened...

• Phone patent litigation
• United States International Trade Commission

Phone patent litigation has become a core revenue stream for the big patent holders, and complaining to he ITC has become standard - it's free (or cheap) and the government does all the work. The media also does loads of free work by writing articles about how X's product imports might be blocked, even though that's never happened...

• Phone patent litigation
• United States International Trade Commission

The End Software Patents campaign also submitted a brief, a little more specific:

http://news.swpat.org/2010/09/esp-to-uspto/

Depends. The patent holder can lose either by the judge invalidating the patent, or by the judge saying that the accused's usage doesn't violate the patent. The latter obviously leaves the patent intact.

If the judge invalidates the patent, the patent holder can still go back to the USPTO and ask to change the wording and for a new patent with a different/narrower scope to be granted. (I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is a Reissued patent.)

For example (although it's not the same situation), the Bilski patent owners, having had their patent rejected by the USPTO, the BPAI, the CAFC, and the Supreme Court, are still persuing their patent! These things don't die :-/

The problem is, in pharma or the car industry, patent threats get met by a legal team and a well-financed company, so patent holders don't launch as many spurious lawsuits. In software, where you don't need a legal team and a six digit bank balance, many developers get shafted because they can't use the court system. Patents shouldn't exist in domains where individuals and non-commercial entities can be mass producers.

• Patent trolls
• Software patents harm SMEs
• Costs are astronomically disproportionate for SMEs and individuals
• Free software projects harmed by software patents
• USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept

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

The problem is, in pharma or the car industry, patent threats get met by a legal team and a well-financed company, so patent holders don't launch as many spurious lawsuits. In software, where you don't need a legal team and a six digit bank balance, many developers get shafted because they can't use the court system. Patents shouldn't exist in domains where individuals and non-commercial entities can be mass producers.

• Patent trolls
• Software patents harm SMEs
• Costs are astronomically disproportionate for SMEs and individuals
• Free software projects harmed by software patents
• USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept

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

The problem is, in pharma or the car industry, patent threats get met by a legal team and a well-financed company, so patent holders don't launch as many spurious lawsuits. In software, where you don't need a legal team and a six digit bank balance, many developers get shafted because they can't use the court system. Patents shouldn't exist in domains where individuals and non-commercial entities can be mass producers.

• Patent trolls
• Software patents harm SMEs
• Costs are astronomically disproportionate for SMEs and individuals
• Free software projects harmed by software patents
• USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept

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

The problem is, in pharma or the car industry, patent threats get met by a legal team and a well-financed company, so patent holders don't launch as many spurious lawsuits. In software, where you don't need a legal team and a six digit bank balance, many developers get shafted because they can't use the court system. Patents shouldn't exist in domains where individuals and non-commercial entities can be mass producers.

• Patent trolls
• Software patents harm SMEs
• Costs are astronomically disproportionate for SMEs and individuals
• Free software projects harmed by software patents
• USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept

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

The problem is, in pharma or the car industry, patent threats get met by a legal team and a well-financed company, so patent holders don't launch as many spurious lawsuits. In software, where you don't need a legal team and a six digit bank balance, many developers get shafted because they can't use the court system. Patents shouldn't exist in domains where individuals and non-commercial entities can be mass producers.

• Patent trolls
• Software patents harm SMEs
• Costs are astronomically disproportionate for SMEs and individuals
• Free software projects harmed by software patents
• USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept

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

I suggest that everyone view this talk regarding patents and open source software. It focuses on how open source developers can maneuver around patents, but also provides a lot of information regarding how patents can be better understood. After viewing this presentation, I've realized how moronic a lot of posts on Slashdot regarding patents truly are.

After watching the video and examining the patent it seems rather trivial to dance around it. It's a completely stupid thing to patent, but it isn't going to impede anyone who develops something similar.

They're under-resourced, but increasing their resources won't solve the social and economic problem caused by the patents they grant on software. A lot of big patent holders are saying that the solution is to increase review standards, but how would that happen? How do you put clear limits on whether something described is sufficiently innovative, or sufficiently useful?

The only simple way to reduce the workload of the patent office is to cut certain fields right out of consideration. Start with software. Making the USPTO more efficient isn't our goal, but it's a happy coincidence that there's a solution to our problem that just so happens to solve a major USPTO problem.

And it's not just the USPTO. The European Patent Office has the same problems.

• United States Patent and Trademark Office
• USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept - important!
• Raising examination standards won't fix much
• Software is too abstract, patent quality is bad

They're under-resourced, but increasing their resources won't solve the social and economic problem caused by the patents they grant on software. A lot of big patent holders are saying that the solution is to increase review standards, but how would that happen? How do you put clear limits on whether something described is sufficiently innovative, or sufficiently useful?

The only simple way to reduce the workload of the patent office is to cut certain fields right out of consideration. Start with software. Making the USPTO more efficient isn't our goal, but it's a happy coincidence that there's a solution to our problem that just so happens to solve a major USPTO problem.

And it's not just the USPTO. The European Patent Office has the same problems.

• United States Patent and Trademark Office
• USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept - important!
• Raising examination standards won't fix much
• Software is too abstract, patent quality is bad

They're under-resourced, but increasing their resources won't solve the social and economic problem caused by the patents they grant on software. A lot of big patent holders are saying that the solution is to increase review standards, but how would that happen? How do you put clear limits on whether something described is sufficiently innovative, or sufficiently useful?

The only simple way to reduce the workload of the patent office is to cut certain fields right out of consideration. Start with software. Making the USPTO more efficient isn't our goal, but it's a happy coincidence that there's a solution to our problem that just so happens to solve a major USPTO problem.

And it's not just the USPTO. The European Patent Office has the same problems.

• United States Patent and Trademark Office
• USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept - important!
• Raising examination standards won't fix much
• Software is too abstract, patent quality is bad

They're under-resourced, but increasing their resources won't solve the social and economic problem caused by the patents they grant on software. A lot of big patent holders are saying that the solution is to increase review standards, but how would that happen? How do you put clear limits on whether something described is sufficiently innovative, or sufficiently useful?

The only simple way to reduce the workload of the patent office is to cut certain fields right out of consideration. Start with software. Making the USPTO more efficient isn't our goal, but it's a happy coincidence that there's a solution to our problem that just so happens to solve a major USPTO problem.

And it's not just the USPTO. The European Patent Office has the same problems.

• United States Patent and Trademark Office
• USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept - important!
• Raising examination standards won't fix much
• Software is too abstract, patent quality is bad

Here's all the background:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/NetApp_v._Sun_et._al._re_ZFS_(2010,_USA)

(Anyone know on problems for Btrfs? I hear others raising the question, but I haven't found anything to indicate that there's a real risk.)

ACTA has many bad parts, such as entrenching DRM and the deadly effects of pharmaceutical patents, but it also has terrible effects for software patents:

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

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

ACTA has many bad parts, such as entrenching DRM and the deadly effects of pharmaceutical patents, but it also has terrible effects for software patents:

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

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

> Too caught up in their own experiences to see how they could team up with like-minded people around them

Are there active movements against the whole patent system or against certain other parts of the patent system? If so, it'd be great if you could mention them here:

• en.swpat.org/wiki page about axing the whole patent system

The en.swpat.org wiki has a generalist / pluralist focus. Regardless of what I think about abolishing the whole system, I do agree it's a way to achieve the aim of the anti-swpat movement. If you've good links/papers/arguments for abolishing the whole system, they'd be very welcome.

The main problem caused by MPEG-LA is that people can't distribute video software. GNU/Linux distros have to worry about distributing software that supports H.264, and developers have to worry about adding support to their apps. Documenting this situation is my hobby horse but this "free" licence" is so limited, I can't find much to write about it. It won't make H.264 safe for standards like HTML5 either.

They promise not to sue non-commercial distributors of video (no ads allowed on the webpage). That means I'm safe to publish videos of me singing karaoke, but no one was going to sue me for that anyway. The only real case I can think of is public service television, which could put their shows online now without worry, but they'd have to be very careful about not having anything that could be called an ad on their webpage. Is that really the extent of this "free" licence that such a fuss is being made about?

• MPEG video formats
• VP8 and WebM
• Audio-video patents

The main problem caused by MPEG-LA is that people can't distribute video software. GNU/Linux distros have to worry about distributing software that supports H.264, and developers have to worry about adding support to their apps. Documenting this situation is my hobby horse but this "free" licence" is so limited, I can't find much to write about it. It won't make H.264 safe for standards like HTML5 either.

They promise not to sue non-commercial distributors of video (no ads allowed on the webpage). That means I'm safe to publish videos of me singing karaoke, but no one was going to sue me for that anyway. The only real case I can think of is public service television, which could put their shows online now without worry, but they'd have to be very careful about not having anything that could be called an ad on their webpage. Is that really the extent of this "free" licence that such a fuss is being made about?

• MPEG video formats
• VP8 and WebM
• Audio-video patents

The main problem caused by MPEG-LA is that people can't distribute video software. GNU/Linux distros have to worry about distributing software that supports H.264, and developers have to worry about adding support to their apps. Documenting this situation is my hobby horse but this "free" licence" is so limited, I can't find much to write about it. It won't make H.264 safe for standards like HTML5 either.

They promise not to sue non-commercial distributors of video (no ads allowed on the webpage). That means I'm safe to publish videos of me singing karaoke, but no one was going to sue me for that anyway. The only real case I can think of is public service television, which could put their shows online now without worry, but they'd have to be very careful about not having anything that could be called an ad on their webpage. Is that really the extent of this "free" licence that such a fuss is being made about?

• MPEG video formats
• VP8 and WebM
• Audio-video patents

Well... maybe this could be the result that Bilski should have been and SCOTUS will hold that software is not patentable subject matter.

(fingers crossed)

> business is done differently here.

Yeh, that's a funny thing. In Europe, we spent seven years building a movement and fighting software patents. In India, they were proposed, and fought over for three weeks, and discussed in the media for maybe one week, and the government retracted the software patents proposal.

The issue isn't over, but things are certainly done different over there. I discussed it with some locals there and they told me that foreign interference doesn't go down well. Not at all. Red Hat sent a letter to the Indian government saying that software patents are dumb. (Well done Red Hat! You were our only supporter!) Locals told me that Red Hat took a chance with that letter. Other companies that try too hard to pressure the government get kicked out.

The software patent battle there is still in progress there, but foreigners should be wary of their preconceptions of how lobbying is done.

• India
• EU software patents directive
• A talk I gave about ESP and lobbying

> business is done differently here.

Yeh, that's a funny thing. In Europe, we spent seven years building a movement and fighting software patents. In India, they were proposed, and fought over for three weeks, and discussed in the media for maybe one week, and the government retracted the software patents proposal.

The issue isn't over, but things are certainly done different over there. I discussed it with some locals there and they told me that foreign interference doesn't go down well. Not at all. Red Hat sent a letter to the Indian government saying that software patents are dumb. (Well done Red Hat! You were our only supporter!) Locals told me that Red Hat took a chance with that letter. Other companies that try too hard to pressure the government get kicked out.

The software patent battle there is still in progress there, but foreigners should be wary of their preconceptions of how lobbying is done.

• India
• EU software patents directive
• A talk I gave about ESP and lobbying

Below are the en.swpat.org analyses. Two of the biggest things in Java's favour are that they have distributed OpenJDK under GPLv2, with the implied patent grant that gives, and Oracle is a member of OIN and there are thus a bunch of GCC and Classpath packages they've promised not to use their patents against.

• Comparison of Java and C-sharp
• Java and patents
• GPLv2 and patents
• Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)

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

Below are the en.swpat.org analyses. Two of the biggest things in Java's favour are that they have distributed OpenJDK under GPLv2, with the implied patent grant that gives, and Oracle is a member of OIN and there are thus a bunch of GCC and Classpath packages they've promised not to use their patents against.

• Comparison of Java and C-sharp
• Java and patents
• GPLv2 and patents
• Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)

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

Below are the en.swpat.org analyses. Two of the biggest things in Java's favour are that they have distributed OpenJDK under GPLv2, with the implied patent grant that gives, and Oracle is a member of OIN and there are thus a bunch of GCC and Classpath packages they've promised not to use their patents against.

• Comparison of Java and C-sharp
• Java and patents
• GPLv2 and patents
• Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)

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

Below are the en.swpat.org analyses. Two of the biggest things in Java's favour are that they have distributed OpenJDK under GPLv2, with the implied patent grant that gives, and Oracle is a member of OIN and there are thus a bunch of GCC and Classpath packages they've promised not to use their patents against.

• Comparison of Java and C-sharp
• Java and patents
• GPLv2 and patents
• Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)

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

I usually ignore stories about hardware patents, but this one highlights a problem that exists in software patents: interoperability is essential.

Microsoft can develop a wonky filesystem (FAT), and use their market power to force it on everyone. When they finally realise that 8-letter filenames is a broken idea, they add a fix, patent the fix, and sue people who use the fix.

That fix isn't patentable because it's valuable, it's simply valuable because it's patented. It's an arbitrary idea, not necessarily better than any other solution (of avoiding the problem in the first place!), but it becomes a must-have because it's the idea Microsoft chose to implement.

Same with Word. Microsoft patents a few features in their file format and they're essential. You develop your own file format and patent some features, and they just get avoided by Micrsoft and nobody cares about your patents. How good your patents are, or how they compare to Microsoft's patents, is of no consequence.

And so it is with Lexmark. They make cartridges in a certain way. Might be good, might be wonky. You can patent a better idea, but it's useless because you're not looking for "best", you're looking for "compatible".

• Raising examination standards won't fix much
• Harm to standards and compatibility
• Blocks competing software, reducing choice
• Barriers to market entry
• Examples of use for sabotage

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help with developing these arguments is very welcome.

I usually ignore stories about hardware patents, but this one highlights a problem that exists in software patents: interoperability is essential.

Microsoft can develop a wonky filesystem (FAT), and use their market power to force it on everyone. When they finally realise that 8-letter filenames is a broken idea, they add a fix, patent the fix, and sue people who use the fix.

That fix isn't patentable because it's valuable, it's simply valuable because it's patented. It's an arbitrary idea, not necessarily better than any other solution (of avoiding the problem in the first place!), but it becomes a must-have because it's the idea Microsoft chose to implement.

Same with Word. Microsoft patents a few features in their file format and they're essential. You develop your own file format and patent some features, and they just get avoided by Micrsoft and nobody cares about your patents. How good your patents are, or how they compare to Microsoft's patents, is of no consequence.

And so it is with Lexmark. They make cartridges in a certain way. Might be good, might be wonky. You can patent a better idea, but it's useless because you're not looking for "best", you're looking for "compatible".

• Raising examination standards won't fix much
• Harm to standards and compatibility
• Blocks competing software, reducing choice
• Barriers to market entry
• Examples of use for sabotage

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help with developing these arguments is very welcome.

I usually ignore stories about hardware patents, but this one highlights a problem that exists in software patents: interoperability is essential.

Microsoft can develop a wonky filesystem (FAT), and use their market power to force it on everyone. When they finally realise that 8-letter filenames is a broken idea, they add a fix, patent the fix, and sue people who use the fix.

That fix isn't patentable because it's valuable, it's simply valuable because it's patented. It's an arbitrary idea, not necessarily better than any other solution (of avoiding the problem in the first place!), but it becomes a must-have because it's the idea Microsoft chose to implement.

Same with Word. Microsoft patents a few features in their file format and they're essential. You develop your own file format and patent some features, and they just get avoided by Micrsoft and nobody cares about your patents. How good your patents are, or how they compare to Microsoft's patents, is of no consequence.

And so it is with Lexmark. They make cartridges in a certain way. Might be good, might be wonky. You can patent a better idea, but it's useless because you're not looking for "best", you're looking for "compatible".

• Raising examination standards won't fix much
• Harm to standards and compatibility
• Blocks competing software, reducing choice
• Barriers to market entry
• Examples of use for sabotage

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help with developing these arguments is very welcome.

I usually ignore stories about hardware patents, but this one highlights a problem that exists in software patents: interoperability is essential.

Microsoft can develop a wonky filesystem (FAT), and use their market power to force it on everyone. When they finally realise that 8-letter filenames is a broken idea, they add a fix, patent the fix, and sue people who use the fix.

That fix isn't patentable because it's valuable, it's simply valuable because it's patented. It's an arbitrary idea, not necessarily better than any other solution (of avoiding the problem in the first place!), but it becomes a must-have because it's the idea Microsoft chose to implement.

Same with Word. Microsoft patents a few features in their file format and they're essential. You develop your own file format and patent some features, and they just get avoided by Micrsoft and nobody cares about your patents. How good your patents are, or how they compare to Microsoft's patents, is of no consequence.

And so it is with Lexmark. They make cartridges in a certain way. Might be good, might be wonky. You can patent a better idea, but it's useless because you're not looking for "best", you're looking for "compatible".

• Raising examination standards won't fix much
• Harm to standards and compatibility
• Blocks competing software, reducing choice
• Barriers to market entry
• Examples of use for sabotage

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help with developing these arguments is very welcome.

I usually ignore stories about hardware patents, but this one highlights a problem that exists in software patents: interoperability is essential.

Microsoft can develop a wonky filesystem (FAT), and use their market power to force it on everyone. When they finally realise that 8-letter filenames is a broken idea, they add a fix, patent the fix, and sue people who use the fix.

That fix isn't patentable because it's valuable, it's simply valuable because it's patented. It's an arbitrary idea, not necessarily better than any other solution (of avoiding the problem in the first place!), but it becomes a must-have because it's the idea Microsoft chose to implement.

Same with Word. Microsoft patents a few features in their file format and they're essential. You develop your own file format and patent some features, and they just get avoided by Micrsoft and nobody cares about your patents. How good your patents are, or how they compare to Microsoft's patents, is of no consequence.

And so it is with Lexmark. They make cartridges in a certain way. Might be good, might be wonky. You can patent a better idea, but it's useless because you're not looking for "best", you're looking for "compatible".

• Raising examination standards won't fix much
• Harm to standards and compatibility
• Blocks competing software, reducing choice
• Barriers to market entry
• Examples of use for sabotage

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help with developing these arguments is very welcome.

FlorianMueller wrote:

> I oppose software patents and particularly the use of patents against free and open source software.
> In Google's case, we are however talking about a company that is very much pro-patent as far its own
> patents (especially the search engine patents) are concerned and just despises everyone else's when used
> against it. Now Google effectively calls on the community, but Google doesn't support the community in
> the fight against software patents.

I know I'm a Google employee and therefore should be suspect in this (i.e. check my claims about Google, don't take them on trust), but the statement above is untrue. Google submitted an anti-software patent brief in the Bilski case. See here:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos_amicus_briefs

for details.

Jeremy.

> the goal of the other projects is to pass the tests and thus be considered a real VM.

Ok, if they were complete implementations, then they'd get patent coverage under the Java Language Specification. One major inconvenience though is that the code would have to be developed behind closed doors until it's 100% complete. Developing in the usual free software community style would count as distributing subsets.

Another protection that certain projects do have comes from being on OIN's list of covered software. Since Oracle is a licensee of OIN, they can't use their Java patents, or any other of their patents, against software on the protected list.

> the goal of the other projects is to pass the tests and thus be considered a real VM.

Ok, if they were complete implementations, then they'd get patent coverage under the Java Language Specification. One major inconvenience though is that the code would have to be developed behind closed doors until it's 100% complete. Developing in the usual free software community style would count as distributing subsets.

Another protection that certain projects do have comes from being on OIN's list of covered software. Since Oracle is a licensee of OIN, they can't use their Java patents, or any other of their patents, against software on the protected list.

Problem is, if they can do it to Google, they can do it to any distributor of a free software JVM.

To be safe, you have to either follow the Java Language Specification exactly (no subsets or supersets), or build your software on the OpenJDK software that Oracle distributes under GPLv2. Here's what info swpat.org has gathered so far about this case and its implications:

• Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)
• Java and patents
• Comparison of Java and C-sharp
• GPLv2 and patents
• Oracle