Slashdot Mirror
Domain: swpat.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to swpat.org.
Comments · 594
-
If they can do it to Google, they can do it to you
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:
-
If they can do it to Google, they can do it to you
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:
-
If they can do it to Google, they can do it to you
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:
-
If they can do it to Google, they can do it to you
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:
-
Why I'm not against the whole patent system
Abolish the whole patent system?
I've nothing against that suggestion. It would certainly achieve the aim of getting rid of our software patent problems. But, abolishing the whole system isn't my goal.
Software is different in that it's an activity in which individuals and communities participate, and even when it's done within a company it's often done with a direct financial motive (the software can be a side effect of getting the real work done).
This means that regulations on software development/distribution translate to social problems (what can people do to help themselves and each other?) as well as economic problems (will we produce enough of X at a sufficient quality and a reasonable price?).
Patents on the manufacturing of cars are only an industrial regulation (mass production of cars is exclusively done by medium- to large companies). So there are only the economic problems to consider.
For production of cars, I don't know if patents create or solve economic problems. For software, I've studied the issue and I know that the problems (social and economic) are atrocious. So if you want to get rid of the whole system, you'll get no resistance from me, but for how I use my own time and resources, I'll focus them on abolishing *software* patents.
-
Why I'm not against the whole patent system
Abolish the whole patent system?
I've nothing against that suggestion. It would certainly achieve the aim of getting rid of our software patent problems. But, abolishing the whole system isn't my goal.
Software is different in that it's an activity in which individuals and communities participate, and even when it's done within a company it's often done with a direct financial motive (the software can be a side effect of getting the real work done).
This means that regulations on software development/distribution translate to social problems (what can people do to help themselves and each other?) as well as economic problems (will we produce enough of X at a sufficient quality and a reasonable price?).
Patents on the manufacturing of cars are only an industrial regulation (mass production of cars is exclusively done by medium- to large companies). So there are only the economic problems to consider.
For production of cars, I don't know if patents create or solve economic problems. For software, I've studied the issue and I know that the problems (social and economic) are atrocious. So if you want to get rid of the whole system, you'll get no resistance from me, but for how I use my own time and resources, I'll focus them on abolishing *software* patents.
-
if your gonna make an arguement against ....
...software patents, then consider how you will do so.
-
raising quality bar won't work
Raising examination standards won't fix much. The series of MPEG video formats is covered by over 1,000 patents. If we raise standards massively, we can hope that it will only be covered by a few hundred patents.
Doesn't really solve much, huh?
-
raising quality bar won't work
Raising examination standards won't fix much. The series of MPEG video formats is covered by over 1,000 patents. If we raise standards massively, we can hope that it will only be covered by a few hundred patents.
Doesn't really solve much, huh?
-
Abolition is the only solution
Most patent stories on Slashdot are about silly patents, but raising standards will not solve our problem. Quality is just too hard to judge with something as abstract as software. A reduction of 50% wouldn't solve the fact that MPEG is covered by dozens of patents, and none of the people complaining about silly patents have proposed a way to raise the standards (not to reduce granting by 50%, and not even to reduce it by 1%). Now, we see that granting is still rising. We'll never get quality standards to catch up. The only way to win, and the only clean solution, is to simply cut software out of the list of things that can be patented.
-
Abolition is the only solution
Most patent stories on Slashdot are about silly patents, but raising standards will not solve our problem. Quality is just too hard to judge with something as abstract as software. A reduction of 50% wouldn't solve the fact that MPEG is covered by dozens of patents, and none of the people complaining about silly patents have proposed a way to raise the standards (not to reduce granting by 50%, and not even to reduce it by 1%). Now, we see that granting is still rising. We'll never get quality standards to catch up. The only way to win, and the only clean solution, is to simply cut software out of the list of things that can be patented.
-
Abolition is the only solution
Most patent stories on Slashdot are about silly patents, but raising standards will not solve our problem. Quality is just too hard to judge with something as abstract as software. A reduction of 50% wouldn't solve the fact that MPEG is covered by dozens of patents, and none of the people complaining about silly patents have proposed a way to raise the standards (not to reduce granting by 50%, and not even to reduce it by 1%). Now, we see that granting is still rising. We'll never get quality standards to catch up. The only way to win, and the only clean solution, is to simply cut software out of the list of things that can be patented.
-
Abolition is the only solution
Most patent stories on Slashdot are about silly patents, but raising standards will not solve our problem. Quality is just too hard to judge with something as abstract as software. A reduction of 50% wouldn't solve the fact that MPEG is covered by dozens of patents, and none of the people complaining about silly patents have proposed a way to raise the standards (not to reduce granting by 50%, and not even to reduce it by 1%). Now, we see that granting is still rising. We'll never get quality standards to catch up. The only way to win, and the only clean solution, is to simply cut software out of the list of things that can be patented.
-
Abolition is the only solution
Most patent stories on Slashdot are about silly patents, but raising standards will not solve our problem. Quality is just too hard to judge with something as abstract as software. A reduction of 50% wouldn't solve the fact that MPEG is covered by dozens of patents, and none of the people complaining about silly patents have proposed a way to raise the standards (not to reduce granting by 50%, and not even to reduce it by 1%). Now, we see that granting is still rising. We'll never get quality standards to catch up. The only way to win, and the only clean solution, is to simply cut software out of the list of things that can be patented.
-
About java and patents
With all the talk of Java's patent problems, I've done a summary and a comparison to C#. Java's pretty safe, if you stay in certain boundaries.
-
About java and patents
With all the talk of Java's patent problems, I've done a summary and a comparison to C#. Java's pretty safe, if you stay in certain boundaries.
-
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G
> They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software
Not so. And where there's doubt, they could just use the Classpath exception, just as Sun used for OpenJDK (distributed under GPLv2 plus the "Classpath exception").
-
status of java, and comparison to c#
I've done two other analyses of Oracle v. Google:
-
status of java, and comparison to c#
I've done two other analyses of Oracle v. Google:
-
status of java, and comparison to c#
I've done two other analyses of Oracle v. Google:
-
Oracle vs. Google exposes fake solutions like OIN
For years I've been criticizing all those fake solutions to the patent problem, such as "patent pledges" or the Open Invention Network (OIN). Both Google and Oracle are licensees of the OIN. The OIN patent agreement is meant to be a non-aggression pact between its members, with respect to "the Linux System".
Given that Android is a Linux distro (and a strategically very important one), it should be fully covered by the OIN as the self-proclaimed protective shield for the Linux ecosystem. Consequently, Oracle should be prohibited by the OIN cross-license agreement to sue its fellow OIN licensee Google. I'm not the only one to have raised that question. I saw Simon Phipps (OSI board member, former chief open source exec at Sun, now at ForgeRock) and Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Law Center (and formerly FSF) raise the same kind of question on Twitter/identica. Now TheRegister contacted the OIN and wanted a comment on Oracle vs. Google, and the OIN declined to comment.
By the way, Eben Moglen promoted the OIN big time at LinuxCon, just a few days before Oracle announced its lawsuit.
What's certainly not a fake solution (although difficult to achieve) is the proposal to abolish software patents. The EndSoftPatents.org campaign runs the software patent wiki and has a pretty informative Wiki page on Oracle vs. Google.
-
Got more links about GSM patents?
If you've any other links, I'd like to add them here:
-
What Oracle v. Google tells us
With Oracle attacking Google over Java patents...
One lesson to be drawn, as suggested by Miguel de Icaza,[4] is that people should move to Mono and C# because Microsoft's patent terms are better than Sun's.
On the other hand, one could draw the lesson that it's foolish to use languages / platforms controlled by companies that use patents aggressively.
Another point is that if Google had used IcedTea (the GPL'd version of Java), they never would have been at risk from Sun/Oracle's patents.
-
Please, *you*, sue the patent office!
> maybe it's time to show that each of these patents wasn't new
Ever heard of 1-click?? The review took five years (!) and the end result was that it was upheld and just narrowed. I wonder how much is costs to hire a lawyer for five years... please tell me in 2015 when you've done what you suggest
-
Please, *you*, sue the patent office!
> maybe it's time to show that each of these patents wasn't new
Ever heard of 1-click?? The review took five years (!) and the end result was that it was upheld and just narrowed. I wonder how much is costs to hire a lawyer for five years... please tell me in 2015 when you've done what you suggest
-
Please, *you*, sue the patent office!
> maybe it's time to show that each of these patents wasn't new
Ever heard of 1-click?? The review took five years (!) and the end result was that it was upheld and just narrowed. I wonder how much is costs to hire a lawyer for five years... please tell me in 2015 when you've done what you suggest
-
Please, *you*, sue the patent office!
> maybe it's time to show that each of these patents wasn't new
Ever heard of 1-click?? The review took five years (!) and the end result was that it was upheld and just narrowed. I wonder how much is costs to hire a lawyer for five years... please tell me in 2015 when you've done what you suggest
-
Here's the lawsuit as a PDF
> The text of their lawsuit isn't available
Yes it is. I put it here:
Other info:
- Phone patent litigation (this case is about Android)
- Oracle
-
Here's the lawsuit as a PDF
> The text of their lawsuit isn't available
Yes it is. I put it here:
Other info:
- Phone patent litigation (this case is about Android)
- Oracle
-
Here's the lawsuit as a PDF
> The text of their lawsuit isn't available
Yes it is. I put it here:
Other info:
- Phone patent litigation (this case is about Android)
- Oracle
-
documenting it on http://en.swpat.org
There's more info on en.swpat.org at:
It's a publicly-editable wiki; feel free to help out.
- 6,125,447 - Protection Domains To Provide Security In A Computer System
- 6,192,476 - Controlling Access To A Resource
- 5,966,702 - Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files
- 7,426,720 - System And Method For Dynamic Preloading Of Classes Through Memory Space Cloning Of A Master Runtime System Process
-
RE38,104 - Method And Apparatus For Resolving Data References In Generate Code
- (A reissued patent; the original number was 5,367,685)
- 6,910,205 - Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions
- 6,061,520 - Method And System for Performing Static Initialization
-
documenting it on http://en.swpat.org
There's more info on en.swpat.org at:
It's a publicly-editable wiki; feel free to help out.
- 6,125,447 - Protection Domains To Provide Security In A Computer System
- 6,192,476 - Controlling Access To A Resource
- 5,966,702 - Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files
- 7,426,720 - System And Method For Dynamic Preloading Of Classes Through Memory Space Cloning Of A Master Runtime System Process
-
RE38,104 - Method And Apparatus For Resolving Data References In Generate Code
- (A reissued patent; the original number was 5,367,685)
- 6,910,205 - Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions
- 6,061,520 - Method And System for Performing Static Initialization
-
4th point shouldn't be barred (poor representation
There seems to have been misunderstanding, leading to the fourth point in the letter wrongly being struck out. The claim was that Microsoft was the only software developer to reply. This claim is based on my analysis of the 36 submissions:
The point was struck out because there was a submission by Anthony Berglas, but I don't see any such submission. There is a submission for a different consultation (the "Options Paper") by Anthony Berglas, so I guess someone confused the two consultations. I've emailed the letter's author, so hopefully this will get looked into before the letter is sent.
-
A great user experience awaits in 2030
Thanks Google, for the disclosure of this invention which society will be free to benefit from in 2030.
Some will say that the game is broken and Google is just obliged to play the game too, but in that case, they could make a promise not to use this patent aggressively. Since there's no such promise, all we can say is that they're stockpiling dangerous patents.
-
A great user experience awaits in 2030
Thanks Google, for the disclosure of this invention which society will be free to benefit from in 2030.
Some will say that the game is broken and Google is just obliged to play the game too, but in that case, they could make a promise not to use this patent aggressively. Since there's no such promise, all we can say is that they're stockpiling dangerous patents.
-
A great user experience awaits in 2030
Thanks Google, for the disclosure of this invention which society will be free to benefit from in 2030.
Some will say that the game is broken and Google is just obliged to play the game too, but in that case, they could make a promise not to use this patent aggressively. Since there's no such promise, all we can say is that they're stockpiling dangerous patents.
-
A great user experience awaits in 2030
Thanks Google, for the disclosure of this invention which society will be free to benefit from in 2030.
Some will say that the game is broken and Google is just obliged to play the game too, but in that case, they could make a promise not to use this patent aggressively. Since there's no such promise, all we can say is that they're stockpiling dangerous patents.
-
A great user experience awaits in 2030
Thanks Google, for the disclosure of this invention which society will be free to benefit from in 2030.
Some will say that the game is broken and Google is just obliged to play the game too, but in that case, they could make a promise not to use this patent aggressively. Since there's no such promise, all we can say is that they're stockpiling dangerous patents.
-
Anyone got patent info?
Anyone following this enough to know if attempts were made to resolve the patent issues?
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/OpenGL
Or did new issues surface? Any pointers would be appreciated, thanks.
-
The meat: do patents trump interoperability?
Finally, we get to the interesting part of TurboHercules v. IBM:
There's an antitrust dispute, with TurboHercules saying that IBM is abusing a dominant market position. That's normal. The cool part in this case is that IBM has mentioned that they have a pile of software patents.
That means that if the European institutions (commission and court of justice) decide that IBM has to allow interoperability, they should also have to decide if IBM can subsequently use their mentioned software patents to block that required interoperability.
It sounds like a no-brainer. Of course they should be allowed to use patents to negate court-imposed requirements. But it's not a no-brainer: It didn't work in the US, and it didn't work previously in the EU.
-
The meat: do patents trump interoperability?
Finally, we get to the interesting part of TurboHercules v. IBM:
There's an antitrust dispute, with TurboHercules saying that IBM is abusing a dominant market position. That's normal. The cool part in this case is that IBM has mentioned that they have a pile of software patents.
That means that if the European institutions (commission and court of justice) decide that IBM has to allow interoperability, they should also have to decide if IBM can subsequently use their mentioned software patents to block that required interoperability.
It sounds like a no-brainer. Of course they should be allowed to use patents to negate court-imposed requirements. But it's not a no-brainer: It didn't work in the US, and it didn't work previously in the EU.
-
The meat: do patents trump interoperability?
Finally, we get to the interesting part of TurboHercules v. IBM:
There's an antitrust dispute, with TurboHercules saying that IBM is abusing a dominant market position. That's normal. The cool part in this case is that IBM has mentioned that they have a pile of software patents.
That means that if the European institutions (commission and court of justice) decide that IBM has to allow interoperability, they should also have to decide if IBM can subsequently use their mentioned software patents to block that required interoperability.
It sounds like a no-brainer. Of course they should be allowed to use patents to negate court-imposed requirements. But it's not a no-brainer: It didn't work in the US, and it didn't work previously in the EU.
-
The meat: do patents trump interoperability?
Finally, we get to the interesting part of TurboHercules v. IBM:
There's an antitrust dispute, with TurboHercules saying that IBM is abusing a dominant market position. That's normal. The cool part in this case is that IBM has mentioned that they have a pile of software patents.
That means that if the European institutions (commission and court of justice) decide that IBM has to allow interoperability, they should also have to decide if IBM can subsequently use their mentioned software patents to block that required interoperability.
It sounds like a no-brainer. Of course they should be allowed to use patents to negate court-imposed requirements. But it's not a no-brainer: It didn't work in the US, and it didn't work previously in the EU.
-
documenting it on http://en.swpat.org
I'm working on documenting it here:
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/InNova_v._36_companies_(2010,_USA)
Help welcome.
-
We need WebM
Abolishing software patents will take years. Most of the short-term goals are a waste of time, or a distraction by companies that don't really want to end the problem, but WebM is a project that would have a big impact, and has a good chance of succeeding. Great to hear that Xiph continues to support it!
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem caused by software patents. They're how monopolies get too powerful, and they're how companies with people-friendly terms get locked out of commercial software development. (Commerce isn't the only valid form of software development, but it's important for the sustainability of a project.)
-
We need WebM
Abolishing software patents will take years. Most of the short-term goals are a waste of time, or a distraction by companies that don't really want to end the problem, but WebM is a project that would have a big impact, and has a good chance of succeeding. Great to hear that Xiph continues to support it!
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem caused by software patents. They're how monopolies get too powerful, and they're how companies with people-friendly terms get locked out of commercial software development. (Commerce isn't the only valid form of software development, but it's important for the sustainability of a project.)
-
We need WebM
Abolishing software patents will take years. Most of the short-term goals are a waste of time, or a distraction by companies that don't really want to end the problem, but WebM is a project that would have a big impact, and has a good chance of succeeding. Great to hear that Xiph continues to support it!
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem caused by software patents. They're how monopolies get too powerful, and they're how companies with people-friendly terms get locked out of commercial software development. (Commerce isn't the only valid form of software development, but it's important for the sustainability of a project.)
-
We need WebM
Abolishing software patents will take years. Most of the short-term goals are a waste of time, or a distraction by companies that don't really want to end the problem, but WebM is a project that would have a big impact, and has a good chance of succeeding. Great to hear that Xiph continues to support it!
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem caused by software patents. They're how monopolies get too powerful, and they're how companies with people-friendly terms get locked out of commercial software development. (Commerce isn't the only valid form of software development, but it's important for the sustainability of a project.)
-
We need WebM
Abolishing software patents will take years. Most of the short-term goals are a waste of time, or a distraction by companies that don't really want to end the problem, but WebM is a project that would have a big impact, and has a good chance of succeeding. Great to hear that Xiph continues to support it!
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem caused by software patents. They're how monopolies get too powerful, and they're how companies with people-friendly terms get locked out of commercial software development. (Commerce isn't the only valid form of software development, but it's important for the sustainability of a project.)
-
This is the biggest patent problem
File formats and compatibility are the biggest problem created by software patnets.
Patent trolls and silly patents get most media attention, but that's because they cause problems for mega corporations. Those same mega corporations are the ones using patents to impede free software and new companies. So there's lots of money being invested in redirecting public dissatisfaction away from the compatibility issue toward the trolls and silly patents issues.