Slashdot Mirror
Real Time Linux, Now Patented
This week's Linux Weekly News is reporting that
Victor Yodaiken, the developer of RT-Linux (Real Time linux) has been granted
a patent
on method used by RT-linux. He intends that
Linux users be granted
a no royalty license, users of closed OS' may have to. It's unclear whether
Hurd or *BSD would be granted a royalty-free license. While this could be
heralded as the beginning of a new
defensive patent trust
for free software, it also jars somewhat with the
hacker ethic. What do you think? Is
Victor's idea one which is technically original, and which would not have
been published had the author not had the protection afforded by a patent?
Was RT-Linux's status as prior art not sufficient to keep RT-Linux free from
other patent claims?
I am not patent expert but wouldn't it be possible to discharge the patent into public domain ?
Well, I'm not sure about the following examples in terms of being real-time, but I understand that several OSes of the past/present are able to run other OSes as processes. Not completely identical, but rather similar, isn't it? For example, Apple's A/UX could run a version of MacOS as a process; I think the Minix homepage says something to the effect that Bochs+Minix can be run as a process under Solaris; and some non-real time microkernel OSes do the same thing, like MkLinux. I seem to recall reading that VMS could run BSD, or something that mimicked BSD also as a process. Just some thoughts.
So if you don't give away everything you have, that's "thwarting" others? I guess that's what those commie BSD'ers think.
except a good patent costs about 10,000 to get, so unlike GPLing software, there is a large investment involved.
I suspect Victor plans to recoup his investment at the very least, even if he is 100% altruistic.
He helped me out on the RTlinux mailing list with a problem I had, and he was very nice and very intelligent. I'm not 100% happy about this, but he's certainly a good person.
If the patent is licensed to all who use the GPL'ed software, per the copy and use terms of the GPL, then I see no conflict at all.
I went to the school he teaches at, and he is a brilliant man. I thought you might like to know that.
There should be a basic spelling requirement to file a patent!
From preamble of GPL:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The particalar patent is not licensed for
everyone's free use, only everyone's who is it
under GPL free use. This sounds different than
what that part of GPL suggested.
I think software patents are bad hmm-kay. I think
we shouldn't use the ways of dark-side to prevent
free software. There is no path back from the
dark-side and if you give a hand to the dark-
side it might seduce you.
I think this concept is a good thing. The US via the USPO has taken the position of emperor of the coliseum. Nothing will change until the Christians make life difficult for the lions. Patents licensed for use under GPL'ed code could very well upset the lions. Even to the point the emperor has to do something like removing software patents from the game.
If, say M$ infringed on the patent, does Victor have the $1M to fight the case through in court, given that there's no solid reasion why he should win? What if many companies infringe??
Using the written letter of the law to make your point is one thing, but you need the financial clout to back it up.
While Yodaiken's intentions might be noble (though the Linux world is pretty much losing its nobility after all of these IPOs), the patent is yet another reminder that most software patent applicants refuse to seek out quality patents, which the PTO is happy to oblige them by refusing to do a quality examination. This patent is of low quality. In this case, attached below is the bibliographic information, abstract and claim for the Yodaiken patent, with a December 1996 priority date. All it claims as a real time operating system with non-preemptive non-real time applications. Pathetic in a variety of ways, but lets start first with the patent reflecting the usual contempt of the patent system to the prior art. In 1979, the IEEE threw its first annual Symposium on Real Time Systems, which has been held every year since then, probably totalling over 700 conference papers prior to Yodaiken's application, 700 papers dealing solely with the subject of real time operating systems. What's the probability that none of the 700 papers didn't disclose the idea of a real time operating system with on-preemptive applications? Pretty damn low. Combine that with thousands of other papers on real time systems over the last thirty years, and hundreds of patents, and a) this patent wasn't honestly sought, and b) this patent wasn't seriously examined. (NOTE: the list of IBM patents against Informix - one is wrong. I am getting the complaint to get the correct list.) Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service www.bustpatents.com
jiggy jiggy jiggy smalls is da illest
While Yodaiken's intentions might be noble (though the Linux world is pretty much losing its nobility after all of these IPOs), the patent is yet another reminder that most software patent applicants refuse to seek out quality patents, which the PTO is happy to oblige them by refusing to do a quality examination. This patent is of low quality. In this case, attached below is the bibliographic information, abstract and claim for the Yodaiken patent, with a December 1996 priority date. All it claims as a real time operating system with non-preemptive non-real time applications. Pathetic in a variety of ways, but lets start first with the patent reflecting the usual contempt of the patent system to the prior art. In 1979, the IEEE threw its first annual Symposium on Real Time Systems, which has been held every year since then, probably totalling over 700 conference papers prior to Yodaiken's application, 700 papers dealing solely with the subject of real time operating systems. What's the probability that none of the 700 papers didn't disclose the idea of a real time operating system with non-preemptive applications? Pretty damn low. Combine that with thousands of other papers on real time systems over the last thirty years, and hundreds of patents, and a) this patent wasn't honestly sought, and b) this patent wasn't seriously examined. (NOTE: the list of IBM patents against Informix - one is wrong. I am getting the complaint to get the correct list.) Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service www.bustpatents.com
Next question? Is the patent valid? I dunno.
Which university was that and is there still a copy of your thesis somewhere such as your copy or the university library copy?
So, this individual now gets to decide what is an acceptable "free" OS for which his patented idea can be applied for free? So he can use the patent to thwart the development of BSD and Hurd RT environments?
Interesting, and not really what Free Software would seem to be aiming for. Maybe it's what GNUish people want, however.
This is a good idea in theory. And as far as I know, the company I worked for did fine without having to resort to frivolous lawsuits.
However, it was also a very successful company that had plenty of income from legitimate sources (ya know, like selling to customers). I always wondered what would happen if things started to go poorly for the company. Would they start getting more desparate and sue their competition?
It's easy to be ethical when you're ahead of the game.
I guess that's always my underlying worry about the idea of defensive patents taken out by any well-meaning individual or organization. It might seem like a fine idea at first, but if one of them starts racking up gambling debts in Vegas, how tempting is it going to be to start enforcing those patents and extorting huge fees?
What we need is some sort of legal process where you can apply for a patent, and then say, "I leave this to the public now and forever." Perhaps the U.S. Department of Patents could refund some of the patent fee if this were the case.
Well, enough of my rambling. Time to do some work...
IMHO this is just a small step to undoing everything that open source is about. What if everyone who makes some new change/improvement to open source code then tries to patent it? Eventually there would not be any code that was actually "open" unless some greedy programmer granted you the favor of using their personal edition. Now if I could just get the rights on this sig...
Couldn't some kind of policy be made that could allow for someone to patent code, but the only limitations with the patent is that someone else could not turn around and patent it and start charging other companies/developers for it use? It would almost be like making a GPL'd Patent.
Just a thought.
It is with much confusion and worry that I have read in the press (primarily slashdot.org) about your patent on real-time Linux.
If you relyon slashdot.org for information, you are doomed to be confused.
I am doomed to be enlightened!
There is much concern in the Open Source community, which I share, as to your exact motivations and desires regarding this patent. I must say up front that I view software patents as an evil and pernicious concept. But, given their present legal standing, I can understand the desire to obtain them as a defensive measure. I must also say that I have read your code and writings and admire you professionally.
So I ask you, as a professional who is poised to release software based on real-time extensions to Linux for a commercial product: what are your exact intentions? Do you intend to license your patent under a GPL-like license?
Yes. But with some restrictions that others may not like.
What claims do you, in your patent, lay upon the RTAI implementation of real-time processing in Linux?
AS I understand from the authors, RTAI is a reimplementation of RTLinux using the same ideas and apparently much of the same code. In this case as long as it is GPL'd, with true open acess to source, and is clearly labled as using the patent license and as either meeting or not meeting the RTLinux specification, it meets my requirements for a free license.
I encourage you, from the bottom of my heart, to establish, and to make publicly known, the fact that you intend to incumber your patent with licensing restrictions equivalent to the GPL. Indications in the media are that you have such intentions; but I feel the need both personally and professionally to obtain clarification from you. If you choose not to license your patented "invention" under such terms, I have no choice but to temporarily abandon my development efforts based on real-time Linux extensions, and to contribute whatever I can to the legal struggle to prove your patent invalid, based on the preponderance of prior art, and your work's dependance on GPL licensed software, as well as the intrinsic violation of that license. From all the documentation I have seen for RT-Linux, is has sounded like this work was GPL'ed.
RTLinux has been and continues to be released under the GPL. Users of RTLinux will not have to pay royalties and will be able to modify the code. My restrictions are (A) to require clear labeling and (B) do not provide free license to non-GPL version. That is, if you wish to implement RTLinux under BSD, you will need a license because BSD license permits one to modify and close source. The license terms are under legal review right now, but informally they are
1. If you use RTLinux and comply with the GPL you pay no fee.
2. If you modify RTLinux and continue to comply with the GPL and to use Linux as the base OS you have the obligation to
- 1. Prominently label that you are using the license, and whether or not you follow the RTLinux API and performance specs.
- 2. Make your source code available on a widely known web site such as the Linux international site without any barriers such as registrations requirements or fees.
If you comply with these terms you have no fee. Otherwise you need to negotiate a license. Probalby we will toss in licenses for HURD as well.(Gee, how generous)
Sincerely,
Peter Cavender
cavender@sover.net
Visit: http://www.rtai.org which is a similar architecture to RTLinux (and thus could be covered by the same patent IF it could be shown to be valid) However, rtai includes many features which are not currently included in RTLinux, or are only now being added in due to competition from RTAI. RTAI is a true open source development. i.e. If I write a bit that is a good service or feature, then it is likely to be incorporated by the maintainers of RTAI. If I write something that is a good thing for RTLinux, then it either will not be incorporated, or, if the community grumblings are correct, the idea will be snitched and it will be wrapped in under the VJY copyright without any attribution back to me. To the best of my knowledge, RTLinux has accepted no code from anyone who was not a direct employee of VJY Associates / FSMLabs. In this manner, he can keep the code clean and free of all copyright issues. But clearly this is not an open source development in the spirit of open source. Check out the RTLinux code. Michael Barabanov's name is all over it, but the patent only mentions ONE inventor. What about Michael and all those other students from NMT who helped develop RTLinux. Isn't NMT pissed that their work and resources are not even given attribution of any kind?? I have only one request: Give credit where credit is due. There is a trend in this patent: 1. Pathetic reference to prior art 2. Yodaiken is the only listed patent inventor 3. No mention or attribution is given to NMT
Anyone can appear brilliant when they are constantly ripping off other peoples ideas and claiming them as their own
and
When they constantly belittle every other idea
and
When they then go and steal that idea and lay claim to it as theirs.
The state of his IQ is irrelevant.
YES IT CAN!
... have fun ...
This has been announced on the real-time linux mailing list late last month (not the mailing list on rtlinux.org but the one on realtimelinux.org. The difference is subtle but it ain't the same).
Go get a development version from www.rtai.org and call upon rt_make_hard_real_time()
Its an invalid patent, and if he tries to get any money out of anyone with it hes just as evil as the rest.
The earliest paper dont explicitly mention the possibility of real-time L4 tasks in parallel with L4-Linux although its obvious and implicitly stated since L4 is real-time... but even the following was still published in time to beat the filing data http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/pubs/sosp97/
This sounds like what we need (if not this then something very much like it).
> OpenBSD is going to be including the real-time code from http://www.rtmx.com/ under the BSD license.
rtmx is a soft real-time OS, not a hard real-time OS like rtlinux...
I don't know, overall, he's a pretty nice guy. WHen I was at New Mexico Tech, he was the only member of the CS department that didn't try and screw me over when pre-registration time came.
Boycott Linux! It's just like Microsoft all over again.
Or have brought out a product using it.
And the only way to attest a patent is to get yourself sued and pay a lot of lawyers large sums of money. Nice huh?
I'm all for a good troll... but when you start making light of the holocaust, well, that's going a bit too far.
Actually, there are better, non-patented, prior-art, ways of doing real-time. RTLinux creates as many problems as it solves.
Plus, having a portfolio of broad patents in and of itself helps to prevent lawsuits, sort of like Mutually Assured Destruction helps to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. Suppose some evil empire tries to sue Linux out of existence. The best response would be to immediately countersue, supeona the evil empire's source code, and go through it with a fine-toothed code to find any algorithms that may potential infringe on our own patent portfolio... giving us a lot more leverage than merely claiming the algorithms we use are obvious or people have been using them for years.
This is a very goood point.
Screw the hacker's ethic. I just want money.
Victor SHOULD grant a legal license to any and all free unices for some nominal fee, say $1. He's then still free to charge commercial OSes $1 million for the same license, and in court, he can claim that he IS scrupulously defending his patent by going after any "unlicensed" use.
a) Be carrying a doberman of your own, or
b) Be wearing filet mignon underwear.
The choice is yours. Yes, sometimes you have to lower yourself to other's level just to defend yourself from them. Welcome to the real world.
remember the 'great idea' to have name resolving via one centralized authority, a 'great improvement' to the internet, and now look what we have got? power corrupts, i guess 99.9% of people dont believe this, they think that there are people who are too good to be corrupted, my answer: there are people who are not corrupt, they are those who do not seek power. i have seen it happen over and over again. i have seen it on countless dozens of irc channels where people said 'we just need to make our own channel to solve this' then they set up an exactly identical channel with the same problems, only they are in charge and pushing people around, instead of someone else. i have read about it in the soviet union, in china, ghana, tanzania, kenya, zaire(democratic republic of the congo), south africa, the united states, and god knows how many other countries. i have seen it in Network Solutions, i have seen it in any author or musician who couldn't handle the fame, and now i will see it in this patent thing.. before we had big companies suing us for thinking, now we will have maybe at first a small group, but they will band together to form 'linux patents' or something and basically decide whatever they want to about who gets to use it. look at it already, BSD people who have given so much to linux and cross-borrowed, they cant use it! what the fuck is that all about! and what about a person who wants to make a brand new OS? how would linux be made if someone patented virtual memory? or virtual filesystems? or the /proc filesystem?
He does have dollar signs in his eyes! Check out the company he started (www.fsmlabs.com) with his students. This is what scares me the most with this patent stuff. By the way ... the guys developing RTAI are way cooler .... and there are no dollar signs there (www.rtai.org) ;)
Not all software is suited to GPL, that doesnt mean GPL is bad. GPL gets a lot of free programs made by people who dont mind developing for free but do mind others making a profit of it. You would loose a lot of those moving to more liberal licenses, so lets just keep both models :)
I do expect the commercial open source vendors to move on to more lucrative open source licenses in the future though.
As far as I can see, thats what hes doing. Licensing his patent so that it can be used in any GPLed project is not that different from licensing code so that it can be used in any GPLed project. Licensing code so that it can be used in any GPLed project=putting code under GPL.
Hmm. Didn't VMS do this way before linux was created?
There is a real time OS - RMX and its version (that's funny) RMX for Windows. In reality Windows runs under RMX and you can switch the consoles with Print Screen key.
Whatever the original intent of patents thats how they work out.
Thats clearly how this guy intends to use them, he already specifically mentions he wants to force other RT Linux components to be compatible to his standard and kill most of their commercial value in protection of his own. And all they have in common is an idea (wich in some cases were thought up in parallel with him, ie L4-Linux... they did not get this idea from his paper, read the history behind it they clearly worked themselves to that point fully independently).
I think it's a very bad idea when the free software community starts using the same tactics as companies like Microsoft and IBM to strong-arm people into thinking our way. It might seem like a good idea to patent something to stop the big bad corporations from using it, but how does that make us different from them?
As proponents of free software, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard... if we start enforcing our freedom by taking it away from others, we will have just as much blood on our hands as the corporations do on theirs.
We are worse than the oppressors if we do to them what they have done to us, regardless of the outcome -- Because we know that it is wrong in the first place.
This is the first argument I've seen that halfway convinces me this is a bad idea.
just because i say 'the holocaust ha ha ha' does not mean im saying 'the holocaust ha ha ha', havent you ever heard of sarcasm or making a joke? you are worse than hitler.
I dont care if he will do right by our clique, I think engineers making commercial systems for a living deserve to be done right too. And if they arrive at this idea independently (likely given L4-Linux other micro-kernel unice's and that IBM thing mentioned before) I dont think they deserve to pay for a patent license on this.
Software patents are wrong whoever files them IMO. (and digital hardware is just a solidified form of software...)
And to make sure his doberman stays vicious he will of course have to attack all the evil commercial engineers wich happen to arrive at the same solution he did, right or wrong be damned... as long as he gives us free licenses he can sick his dogs on whoever else he deems fit.
jazilla must be jesus nazi illa, comfortably combining the two most powerful forces of the 20th century: fascism and hip-hop. perhaps you should run for president.
I like it a lot.
I don't see what Yodaiken has invented that didn't exist before. He simply reused old ideas which, by the way, have already been patented by the companies who have implemented the technology. Check out Imagination, Radisys and VenturCom. All three companies have a version or another of a modified WindowsNT that enables a user to run tasks in real-time. Sounds familiar? Well it is. Moreover Radisys and Imagination have patents on their stuff. I'm sure the lawyers over there will like this one once they read it on slashdot.
.... Did you know these guys can make user-processes become hard real-time with a single call? Try to beat that ...
And by the way, his excuse about this doesn't apply to "other os"s is legal BS. His patents clearly states "general purpose operating systems". How clear can it be. I'm no legal expert, but I beleive that this won't hold water when it arrives in front of a judge.
I suspect that this has to do with the competing real-time system on linux, RTAI. Which is far better than RTLinux and doesn't suffer of having a benevolent dictator as a leader
Trying not to embroil in the software patents in and of themselves debate... Given the current situation...This is a very good thing. Victor's work (and the other folks...) on RT-Linux is a genuine accomplishment that is little understood by the Linux community. RT-Linux blows Win-CE, PalmOS, and other RTos's away. I have it...I'm developing with it...I love it...
morally lots of people "own" that idea, check L4-Linux's history goes along right besides his and even predates it slightly.
Although the patent wasn't actually PD'd until ten months after it was granted, IIRC I read somewhere that that was the intention all along.
At least you can just DIY a piece of software closed of to you by licensing. Patents leave you no such option.
There is a single obvious problem in running a general purpose OS under a RT kernel and that is the fact that if you leave the drivers as they are the interrupt handlers will prevent you from being able to guarantuee hard RT respone. The obvious solution is to wrap the interrupts, as he says anyone else doing an RT component has to get a license from him and stay compatible.... thats as much as saying that his solution is the only and obvious one. Nevermind that L4-Linux came to the same conclusion right beside him. (of wich he must have known long before he got the patent) And that IBM apperently did it before them both.
The biggest slap in the face must be the support from Linus/Linux international though. That just blows my mind.
The idea here was discussed many times at DECUS symposia in the early 1980s, existed in session notes which were publications. Ralph Stamerjohn's "rsx on rsx" proposal was one such case. The version of MSX which ran on top of RSX (decus #11-sp-6, published early 1980s with sources and docs) was another. These are far from the only cases of prior art. Evidently neither the patent office nor the patent seeker bothered to check. The intellectual dishonesty (to use polite language) of this offends me.
Hitler would divide his forces and charge into Russia like the fucking idiot he was.
Sure, no royalty for now. But if the dude gets dollar signs in his eyes, look out!
Why shouldn't he get rich too????
Defensive publication was the right thing to do. Software patents are wrong no matter who holds them. And how do we know that this patent will not wind up in the wrong hands one day
Just imagine trolls from the competing company that cringes at having to face superior technology.
You know about people who make money in the political circus that flood our elected with press releases, propaganda, money, and help with votes? Imagine the workers at the patent office. I'd bet they would love such a system! When you have a $100 billion dollar company wanting strategic technology patents to be awarded, you can be damn sure of them to be granted.
Well then, the answer is simple. Forget about RTLinux and start using RTAI (www.rtai.org). It doesn't do this disable crap (and therefore, isn't covered by this patent) and works perfectly. Did I mention that you can run user-side processes in hard-real time using RTAI ... Yes baby!
L4-Linux was obviously developed in parallel of RT-Linux with the same goals and the same approach. Now given the iffy provisional patent application (who invented that crock?) and the absence of explicit mention of real-time applications running in parallel in the earlier papers he might be able to keep his patent standing against it. But being in the right legally does not excuse him from doing something morally reprehensible and point to his lawyer...
What if the people who did design L4-Linux want to leverage their knowledge commercially, will he force them then to pay him? For something they invented themselves...
Linus' patent? We're talking about Victor Yodaiken's patent. Read before rushing to post.
Someone jarring with the 'hacker ethic'! well let's just string him up by the scrotum for not pigeonholing himself into your narrow stereotype.
Prior art exists that invalidates this patent. For example, VenturCom (www.venturcom.com) and other companies implemented real-time operating systems embedded in the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) of Windows NT, where NT is run as a low-priority non-realtime task of the real-time OS. VenturCom's product, RTX NT, was release prior to the patent filing date. See: http://www.venturcom.com/products/vci_products/rtx /rtx_nt_overview.html
Snort. Like RT-Mach didn't do almost the same thing.
(Snort. Like you'd want to do realtime this way -- you could do something crude, but it's really a tricky problem; solving it properly involves comprehensive OS changes, not just what's effectively a scheduler hack.)
I used to hesitate between RTLinux and RTAI when choosing a real-time platform with Linux. Now, my thoughts are clear. I'll be using RTAI. It's wonderfull and doesn't come with any Patents or the likes (in case you want to reply that the patent covers RTAI, you better read the patent carefully. RTAI doesn't disable any interrupts). Why use RTLinux when you can use RTAI?
Check it out : ************ WWW.RTAI.ORG **********
I did ~ 10 years ago (1990-1991). Same approach as they have. (obviously not linux). How can I file a previous art or whatever it is called against this to invalidate this patent????
I did this ~ 10 years ago (1990-1991). Same approach as they have. (obviously not linux). How can I file a previous art or whatever it is called against this to invalidate this patent????
This patent (as I read it) covers an "invention" (and I use that term loosely, folks) that *is* obvious to a skilled practitioner. If the US patent office were not so corrupt and useless, this patent would have never been granted.
Any attempt to use patents to defend Free Software is dabbling in dark arts. Subvert, don't convert.
Anomalous Cowherd
It seems such a weird assumption given that he kept a vital piece of information about RT-Linux (its going to be covered by a patent soon) secret for all that time. I didnt do any development on/with RT-Linux, but if I had (:) I would feel more than slightly miffed.
Combined with his incredibly arrogant letter I dont see much reason to trust him, other than that Linus does... but without further knowledge I cant take Linus judgement as scripture.
Wake UP!!! All you need to do to stop bogus patents (or shoot one down) is demonstrate public disclosure of the technique prior to the filing date. Translation, if you can demonstrate that the idea was publically floating around proir to the filing, the patent will be tossed out. Patents are very different than Trademarks (like "linux"), they restrict the exploitation of a word/image, not a concept.
I just dont see him spending all that money just to be sure RT-Linux wont get suit. Sorry I dont swallow that.
Why did he keep it a secret huh?
I suggest you educate yourself on the difference between patents and trademarks before you embarrass yourself further.
real-time grits pouring has also been patented. but don't worry, i will not charge you royalties for pouring grits down your own pants. thank you.
Hey Lets face it. As long as software companies can run aroud and patent every obvious idea, open source will need to defend itself. The best way to do this is if we have a generic type patenting method whereby, free open source os's can use N patents held by the OSS community but closed source os's and such have to pay a royality Whats worse, is that someone right now could make continued improvement of OSS impossible by inforcing goofy lame patents. It would be better to get interesting ideas protected for public use than let some company decide who is rich enough to use them. I have an idea worth patenting, I would like to patent the idea of useing vauge patents and lame patent laws as a source of income. 8^)
As soon as we stop making exceptions, idiots like you are born.
The whole idea of a defensive patent is flawed from the start. While it may be an effective deterrent against patent lawsuits, it sets up the patent system as a legal battleground, which was not at all the original intent of the patent system.
The patent system exists to open up ideas which would otherwise be guarded as trade secrets. One poster referred to IBM's plethora of patents. It is true that Big Blue has done an amazing amount of excellent research. The patent system worked in that IBM was able to open up descriptions of their pioneering work without hurting their competitive advantage.
But does it not bother anyone that companies try to patent everything imaginable for defensive purposes? Essentially, what they are doing is short-circuiting the patent system. Assuming I hold strong defensive patents, I can now go look up patents for some technology you developed that I am interested in selling. I can go right out and make a competing product and not worry about getting sued because I have a book of patents I can swing over your head. Rather than protecting the hard work you put into your research, the patent system has allowed me to profit from it.
I am not saying the patent system needs to be abolished. I am not even saying software patents are evil. Some are quite legitimate. What I am saying (which I think most people agree with) is that the patent system needs a better system to research prior art and decide when a patent application is not of acceptable quality.
In the research community we use peer review to decide when something is worth publishing. Can some similar system be used for patents? Clearly there would have to be some sort of NDA agreement to sign if you are a reviewer, but perhaps that's not too onerous if you are compensated in some way.
--
Copyleft is an application of Copyright to subvert copyright itself.
Could this be an "Open"Patent...an application of the patent system intended to subvert the patent?
A Freetent! (opposite of pay-tent)
Not 'all open projects' - just Linux ones.
This guy is *worse* that companies that use patents to agressivly protect their ideas, at least they're stuck in their old ways and its what they're used to. This guy is a Linux user, so you'd expect him to grok the whole sharing code is good thing...
Its not even clear if the patent is enforceable ANYWAY, or if there is prior art.
What happens if he decides to sell the patent?
It's possible that he intends to use it this way. Depending on how he chooses to enforce this patent, it could really be used for good purposes. Much in the same way RMS has used a library being GPL'd in stead of LGPL'd to encourage application writers to GPL their works. It could potentially be even more powerful than RMS's method, because it would be applicable to all works that are covered by the patent, not just derivitave works of the code. Of course he could always just use it to make money as well, which is fine as long as GPL'd works can use it and does not infringe upon our freedoms granted by the GPL.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
I think the most obvious answer is that Hurd will be able to use it, but BSD will not. The reason for this is that since the Hurd is GPL'd there will be no license incompatibilities. In fact, I believe the GPL has certian requirements on the licensing of a patent, otherwise there would be a conflict. If you were not able to use it in another non-Linux, but GPL'd project, It would seem to me that this would violate the GPL. It is an unfortunate side effect that this could not be used in BSD projects. Hopefully the patent owner could make an exception, without losing the ability to enforce his patent.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
If Victor is against software patents, as most of the free software community seems to be, he should give royalty free licenses to anyone - including Microsoft. Otherwise this patent will make it harder for us to convince people that software patents are wrong. I hope this isn't just because Victor wants to make a few bucks for himself...
%japh = (
'name' => 'Niklas Nordebo', 'mail' => 'niklas@' . 'nordebo.com',
'work' => 'www.sonox.com', 'phone' => '+46-708-405095'
It is not inconceivable that someone less sympathetic to the Open Source/Free Software movement will buy a company holding such patents.
What is to prevent the new owner(s) from deciding to require royalties from, at least, all new users of their newly acquired technology, or futher restricting existing users. It has happened before.
Also, if the intent of the patent is to protect against patents (an anti-patent as the GPL is an anti-license), what is the point of punishing those who wish to make money (as in a living) from their work?
This would seem less unacceptable (I am opposed, in principal, to software patents) if any clauses regarding non-Linux compatible or proprietary use were dropped.
After all, the GPL explicitly protects the user of the work, not the creator. There is no such restriction in the GPL regarding commercialization of code, only proprietizaton of code.
It seems that patents speak more about ownership of ideas, and the ability to capitalize (through licensing) on such ownership. So, an anti-patent would prevent private ownership of an idea by making its owner, in effect, the entire community. The net effect prevents private ownership of that and similar ideas by others who would restrict the use of those ideas (as opposed to restricting the use of the product implementing the idea).
I don't see a need to try and prevent proprietary use of an idea with an anti-patent. That is already covered under Open Source licenses like the GPL.
The restrictions on use by non-Linux, or closed OS users also seems silly for pretty much the same reasons. Such patents would seem to discourage cross-platform software development. This seems a bit more anti-Microsoft than pro-Linux.
A copyright gives you the right to dispose of your own work as you will; it makes the creations of ideas behave like like physical property. This is good and fair.
A patent on the other hand is a lie, that says you own someone else's work as long as it falls within the range of your patent claims. It's a charade, a system of legally enforced rigged competition, and it's only function is to make a gift of the market to the patent holder, in order to beg him to invent more things.
By choosing to "fight on their terms" you make of yourself a liar and you invest your self-interest in maintaining your mutual charade; you use the law as your own hired gun to rig competition on your own behalf. Do that, and you lose the right and the leverage to call them on the lie itself.
This patent seems to me to be bad in just about every way conceivable.
1) Hasn't RT-Linux already been released under the GPL? How comforting to be reassured by Yodaiken that users of RT-Linux would not have to pay a royalty, uh, I thought that's part of what the GPL guaranteed. So is Yodaiken claiming that his patent trumps the GPL in the United States? Okay, so what exactly is RT-Linux's license? Sure there is the statement on
http://www.rtlinux.org/~rtlinux/
that the software is GPLed. And whatever an author chooses as a license is fine, but can we at least have a firm statement of what this license is, because as far as I can tell there is nothing in the GPL that permits discrimination against other GPL(able|ed) operating systems such as the Hurd.
The letter from Yodaiken posted at
http://lwn.net/2000/0210/a/vy-patent.html
states "Other base OS's are not covered." That means the Hurd is out right?
2) Whatever happened to choice? Let's be real here, this patent is not going to inconvenience any of the major commercial players. This patent simply eliminates any other free operating system that is not Linux from even implementing the technology described by the patent. This strikes at what made Linux possible in the first place: The ability to freely implement as long as the source code was not derived from other works. I contend the ability to rewrite from scratch is an essential part of free software. That's why the movement is so strong, there is a continual stream of reinvention and destruction so that when one project falters another is able to spring up to take its place.
3) RT-Linux's patent is yet another strike against the idea of secondary contributors to free software projects being treated as peers. One of the good things about the GPL is that at least the code one contributes can be re-used in other GPLed projects later in one's life. It seems to me that one of the good features of the previous community is that people could go from one project to another with transportable skills. Now I see a danger that projects will advertise themselves as GPLed projects to gain critical mass only to have one lead proponent patent a critical technology.
Only if there is some kind of check on the awesome power that such an organization would hold. We already have big organizations with lots of patents and no responsibility to free software, thank you.
I would only let a "defensive organization" hold my patents (if/when I have any) if I had some kind of ironclad promise of defense. I don't want to be in a situation where my big-daddy white knight organization decides that my patent problem is too small or too messy to defend...
Even the FSF, when asking for GNU contributors to sign over copyright, will give a return agreement pledging to only license the work under terms allowing free redistribution. I would expect nothing less from a group that wants me to sign over a patent.
--
--
#define private public
Something smells putrid, even... I didn't even mention that the GPL is of no use whatsoever against the claims of a third party with a patent. They never agreed to the GPL, they have the patent covering the GPL'd work, the GPL doesn't apply to them. The only benefit in the GPL in this case is that it encourages prior-use precedents through earlier code release.
A while ago I tried to put together a framework for explicit patent grants alongside GPL redistribution... and then I realized that that kind of agreement won't bind a third party.
This sort of legal crap is why software patents are a Bad Idea[TM].
--
--
#define private public
Yes, in the preamble... Unfortunately, in the license itself, it says:
Clause 7 only says that a patent license can't restrict the modification/distribution requirements of the GPL without violating the GPL. It doesn't forbid using a patent to restrict use of the program.I am not a lawyer, but as far as I do understand the law, a patent holder has the right to restrict your use of a GPL'd program that implements his/her patented process. GPL only protects you from copyright claims, and other attempts to deny you the copyright rights of modification, distribution, and copying; it doesn't protect you from a third party's claim against use.
--
--
#define private public
I have to admit this is a better way of using patents then using them to ensure monopolies. I think patents are good for protecting the rights of an inventor, but like anything they are abused to extreme by misguided business types. Sure many people hate patents, but they also can work in your favor for funding projects. For instance many companies are funding the human GNOME project in return for certain patents on creation of drugs to utilize certain areas of the DNA structure. This may sound bad but without it the GNOME project would not have made the remarkable progress it has made. I guess sometimes you must rob Peter to pay Paul.
This is a great point. Once his code is released, any future patents on the idea could be shot down via prior art, AND all the messiness with HURD/*BSD could have been avoided. Not to mention the point that IBM's been doing this for 20 years, as mentioned in another posting, so this patent in itself is probably flawed.
He stated in his email that he a) wanted to avoid paying royalties to someone else to use his idea and b) has had to pay extensive legal fees for getting the patent.
It seems like he's traded the POSSIBILITY of paying a huge legal bill for the FACT of a huge legal bill.
If someone tried to patent it later on and collect royalties, he might have to pay an attorney to shoot down the claim then (via prior art), OR a big company using RTLinux in a product would have sic'd their legal department on the fradulent claiment - saving Victor the hassle & expense. Either way - there's a good chance he'd never pay a cent.
I dont know the legal issues, the circumstances or what transpired with RT-Linux. except that I have a version that ISNT patented (1 year old).
I write software, and I write only for Linux/BSD.
and I can tell you this. I will never take the cowards way out and patent/copyright anything except under a "free for all to use GPL".
A code hacker that feels the need for greed is a coward and almost as bad as Our beloved Micropuke founder.
Code hackers fall from grace #1 : get greedy.
Code hackers fall from grace #2 : Patent something that is not ENTIRELY your own.
How about Linus changing his license to state : if your patented product is BASED on Linux you no longer have the right to use Linux.
that will destroy that patent in seconds.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There are 2 problems I have with this kind of strategy - it uses software patents, and it reinforces problems that a lot of the non-linux OS community have been having. There are too many programs e.g. OSS(don't get me started), that say "here, the Linux version is free, but you have to pay for any other version". Giving things away for free is all fine and good, but doing it selectively is very frustrating for those of use that use any OSes like xBSd.
Either make it open, or make it closed, don't be half-assed about it.
-lx
Knee-jerk reactions aside - you can have one for either side of the issue - a more considered analysis yields two insights.
Fighting fire with fire makes sense insofar as it furthers a *practical* objective : to highlight the obstacles that patent law as applied to software puts in the way of software innovation. Patents held by individuals, if effective in preventing large commercial concerns from capitalizing on "obvious" ideas, would have more economic impact than the reverse situation... The ideal outcome would be Company X (insert name of your favorite monopoly) actively seeking to knock down patents on the principle of the thing.
From a broader perspective though, some arguments against applying patent law to purely abstract 'inventions' go well beyond the practical, such as some ideas being so 'necessary' in the context of a given problem that allowing such ideas to be patented amounts to loading the dice in favor of corporations who can afford to patent everything in sight.
We should definitely be worried about undermining our own position in the patent debate by appearing to discard moral or philosophical objections to patenting software too easily in favor of a below the belt, practical attack against the patent system.
It's just like the "open source" world to close off other people's options in the name of "freedom". If I want to use a closed source OS, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to. Now the OSS world is doing the same thing the closed commercial world has done to them.
Commercial companies would patent things and then attack open projects using those patents (MP3). So now the "open" people/projects/companies will be punishing the closed companies by requiring payment for the patent--only if you make money!
Yes, this is his patent and he has the right to set the license rules. However, if he truly believed in an open world, he would never have patented it anyway. Since it already exists and is in use in RT-Linux, there would be plenty of prior art to get any similar patent (if it ever showed up) thrown out, right?
This is the same kind of close minded actions that silly people who sue Microsoft use. They go after those with money. There's no real higher-purpose at work here. Just good old fashioned GREED disguised as activism.
I say again: What a bunch of crap.
l8r
Sean
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Although this isn't quite the same approach, the classic Amiga OS achieves the same goal in a cleaner, simpler fashion. The Amiga had real-time priorities associated with each task (analogous to a process in Unix), and a lower-priority task could never preempt a higher-priority task. However, tasks with the same priority would preempt each other with standard round-robin preemptive multitasking. Most user tasks would run at the default priority, in the middle of the range.
It was a very elegant solution, integrated cleanly into the operating system instead of hacked around it. The downside, of course, is that you have to be very careful programming high-priority tasks, since they can starve lower-priority tasks completely with an endless loop...
To illustrate the value of this system, consider the amazing responsiveness the Amiga's GUI had, despite running on an 8 MHz 68000. This was partly due to the fact that the tasks handling the GUI functions ran (by default) at a higher real-time priority, thus weren't slowed by CPU-hungry user tasks. (Also, since the Amiga didn't have virtual memory, paging couldn't slow down the system either...)
Although this isn't the same approach, I'm not entirely convinced this patent is sufficiently novel to deserve a patent. If you give an engineer the task of retrofitting real-time support onto an existing OS with minimum impact, this seems like the obvious solution. (There might also be prior art in implementations of virtual machines...)
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I think it's complete bull that from the same crowd that constantly complains about how patents stiffle innovatation, someone steps out and patents something with less than completely free licensing terms.
Why should it matter if said patent is used in a commercial product or an opensource one?
With that attitude, it's kind of hard to argue against patents... "they can't patent stuff, but we can?"... or "we can violate their patents, but they'ed better not violate ours?"
Et cetra
Yes. But why the patent? Since RTLinux is GPL'd, any project that uses the code would already have to abide by that license.
Are you saying that if Corel decided to come out with a "Corel RTLinux OS" distribution they should have to pay for the kernel because the distribution contains closed source software (Wordperfect 8)? That seems a bit rediculous to me.
Let the GPL sort the issue out. The GPL has worked in the past and will continue to work in the future.
My big question is how (if RTLinux is under the GPL) someone can force someone else to pay for the software's use. The GPL states the GPL software must remain freely available.
I don't have a problem with someone making money off of GPL'd software. But this is NOT the way to do it.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
While it may be wise for open source developers to register patents (to keep others from registering them) it is totally wrong to wrap a patent around open source software and then use it to extort money from persons wishing to use the code. Don't kill a good thing
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
Judges don't grant patents.
Or there's another defensive use of the patents. Right now, the companies getting and holding patents on things are telling everyone that if they want to use the patents, they have to play by those companies' rules. If open-source people hold similar patents, they can do the same thing and tell those companies that if they want to use the patents, they have to play by open-source rules or pay hefty license fees. And the same court rulings and legal rules that benefit the big companies can be used by the little guys. You're right about the expenses, but then again there are competent lawyers willing to do some pro-bono work for open-source projects too.
Hmmm....
What great use for the Slash code.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Well, the GPL works in a method that can be described as "viral".. You could say that an "open" patent is a good thing simply because of the fact that once somebody patents something, no one else can.
:-)
Of course, here you have to trust intentions of the person making the patent... I'd say give them all to the FSF or RMS, but RMS wouldn't allow free usage, he'd say you had to give all your patents away in order to use the "open" patents.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I hope he intends it to be free to any free/Open Source version of Unix.
I can't think of any problems with the concept, but I'd really have to look at the wording before I would make up my mind on whether or not this is really a Good Thing.
Modifications to the Linux kernel are primarily in three places:
It's clear here that he is modifying Linux; therefore, these changes under the GPL should be returned to the community. Since the purpose of modifying Linux is to give access to other code, it follows that this other code is also under the GPL. Therefore it cannot be patented.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
You don't have to patent something to protect it from being patent. All you have to do is state it publically. Then it is prior art and cannot be patented.
I agree 100%. My comment about OpenSource was because I generally see that code as the most open to attack from those who currently HAVE large patent portfolios for several reasons:
1) They are usually not funded by large companies with large defensive patent portfolios
2) They generally (but far from always) tend to be more ambitious then a similar closed source project (provided, again, that they are not being funded by a corporation with either deep pockets, or big goals)
3) They are providing their source code which could theoritically be examined by the Patent holder for infringment that might not be readily noticable from a binary executable.
This wasn't ment as a 'Open Source or Death' comment, rather I felt that Open Source was the area that could benifit the most from something like a 'Free Patent Orginization'. Surely others who either have no patents, or else, are using them only for defensive purposes should be entitled to access, but the question of how to license it becomes important (I see lots of potential for abuse if we're not careful).
As for the content of the patent, running an OS as a process of another OS is nothing new, and making the host OS a real-time OS is, IMAO, an obvious extension of that concept.
I agree. It may not seem that 'novel' to us, but then, neither did Amazons 'one-click shopping'. Don't think of it as "If you can't beat them join them", rather think "If those are the current rules, I'll try my darndest to change them, but in the meantime, if they are going to exploit the rules and I don't, then one of us is going to have an advantage, and it won't be me." Maybe the granting of this 'obvious' patent will prompt some of the big companies to cry foul which may make enough people review the whole process (I doubt it but its nice to dream).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
If there was a better method of patent review, then a patent on this would most likely be shot down die to prior art (in this case RT Linux, for one), however, in the current climate at the USPTO the patent obviously would be granted (there are other examples of Prior Art before RT Linux from my understanding).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
This would definately be true, however I envision the following as equally likely:
1. FSP impliments feature X first.
2. EvilCorp, Inc. impliments feature X.
3. EvilCorp, Inc. is granted a Patent on feature X
(Dont tell me it couldn't happen, it very well could with the current poor reviewing)
4. EvilCorp, Inc. sues FSP for infringing their patent on feature X.
It is now up to FSP to prove they came first, it very well may be possable to prove in court, but the question is, how much money/time will it take?
Will they (EvilCorp, Inc.) be able to get a Judge to grant a temporary injunction against the FSP project to essentially _suspend_ all developement on it?
What effect would some enforced suspention of developement have on most projects over the period of time a legal battle usually involves? Will the project be able to maintain its momentum or will it 'shed' people?
If on the other hand FSP has already patented feature X then they no longer have to worry about patent infringment over it, as well as having something to barter with as you mentioned.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Urban legend has it that Microsoft tried to get IBM on patent enfringement. When their laywers met, IBM had a massive stack of patents that Microsoft had enfringed on, with a tab key patent on top...
- Mike
The OPL also allows people to submit patents under BSD-type "you can use it for anything" terms, but I doubt many patent owners will be interested in that Option.
However, the OPL *also* lets patent owners submit patents such that they can be used in products containing only similarly OPL-licensed or mostly-less-restrictively OPL-licensed OPL-licensable IP. (As you can see, I haven't figured out how to succinctly say this stuff yet.) So if the BSD-derived+proprietary code contains no other patents, and the patent were licensed under at least the currently-labeled OPL Option 1, then it could be used in at least some BSD-derived but proprietary code.
Unfortunately, we keep seeing more and more reasons to start defensive-patenting.
Against the "hacker's ethic"? Perhaps. But until patent law is fixed (or abolished), this may be the only option. Until the laws change, we will just have to use the existing laws to our advantage.
Was RT-Linux's status as prior art not sufficient to keep RT-Linux free from other patent claims?
Do we really need to ask this question? We've already seen numerous cases where prior-art is ignored. It seems to be getting to the point where one actually needs a patent to prove prior art.
That said, I think we need to see how this patent is used before judging this patent. The *BSD and Hurd question is a good start. Do we treat those who support the Opensource/Free-Software community get to use it freely (as in both speach and beer). Do those companies and organizations that hold software patents get to use it:
1) no strings attached?
2) for a small fee?
3) only if they "open" some of their software patents as well?
Patents are also prohibitively expensive compared to copyrights which are, in essence, free (as in beer).
If you belive in OSS there is little point in obtaining a patent. Patents are meant to protect ideas, inventions and IP; this puts them in direct opposition to the whole spirit of Open Source.
If you want to protect software Copyright/left it. Basically what I'm trying to say is
NO SOFTWARE PATENTS PERIOD.
He'd just lose the patent if it went to court and the judge found that his technique was already common.
Derrr, patent farms don't use patents. They just collect, breed, and show them.
The GPL only says (in essence) that if you distribute the program you must accompany it with the source code. A patent on the techniques employed in the source code doesn't prevent you from doing this, but it will (potentially) prevent you from being allowed to run the program legally, which is something completely different.
I read somewhere that some company added to the kernel to allow rt features and was planning to incorporate the changes into the kernel under gpl.
Could anyone confirm this? (Provide links =) )
OK. I read about 90% of the patent. I didn't look at the figures, however.
Where is the "invention"? Who *HASN'T* done this? This is the same RTOS design that was being taught in college when I was there nearly 20 years ago.
You subordinate a non-real-time OS (or its services) underneath a RTE. Duh.
Is the guy patenting the Linux implementation of this ancient paradigm? Is this really worth a patent?
No. I'm afraid that software patents, no matter how they are used, are B-A-D. It's like the chunk of evil in Time Bandits; there's just no proper way to handle it. You touch it, you die.
The main problem I have with them is that there is just no justification for the level of monopoly they grant. Software is mathematics at its base level; that is what Turing kept saying (computer algorithms are actually a subset of mathematics, which gives rise to the Turing Test because there are some mathematical problems computer algorithms can't solve, so far at least). As a result, anyone with half a brain and a small bit of perseverance can come up with these "inventions"; things that are obvious and logically deducible with some small amount of thought.
Then there is the issue of these hugely broad patents, like this one, which essentially lock out the entire base concept from an infinitum of possible implementations. It's like patenting transportation and then licensing every device (and these days, every method) developed to move people or things from one place to another.
Then there is the huge issue of prior art, which I think this patent (and soooooooo many others like it) treads upon heavily.
Ultimately, it is like the Amazon one-click bullsh*t patent. They knew that the patent system was broken. They knew that other people were abusing the hell out of it. Still, they went ahead and abused it themselves. There is no excuse for it. Period.
Now, if I continue work on my own OS kernel (which has RTOS structure in it), I will have to pay this person some ridiculous royalty if I want to sell it (or even use it, if he doesn't like the way I hold my mouth). No thanks. My work is independent and will stay unpatentable, even if by my own hand (by publishing the algorithms or the source or whatever).
Oh well. We all will go to Hell at some point in our lives. I was hoping Linux would be spared for a while yet at least.
C'est la vie.
Shawn Stamps
Omega Microsystems, Inc.
Nexus Internetworking Services
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
I doubt this is will be a problem. Anybody remember Unisys and GIF's?
GNU and Linux -- Oh no, Mr. Bill!
Female Prison Rape in NY
How about when software becomes a 1.0 someone in the group files for a patent, and all the other contributors show the development tree as proof of it preexisting before the patent application and that it wasn't original (i.e. patent applicant doesn't have sole right). That way, it's all in the records of the patent office that said software is public domain and can't be patented....
So now we have the fun situation where a good idea that was invented over 30 years ago has now become encumbered by a patent. Charming.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
I just want to support the previous poster. VM = Virtual Machine is prior art.
-- From Denmark
Where is your trebuchet? I think most people who know what I'm talking about agree that it's a fairly obvious concept, but that doesn't mean they all have one hanging around in their back yard. (Though, there is that one guy in Victoria...) Obviousness does not have to be proven by implementation.
Blah I can't get my sig to work, it won't fit.
Using patents to fight fire with fire isn't such a hot idea, either. Patent law is a game where the rich invariably come out on top. Big business wins two ways. It has the resources necessary to defend it's own patents, while infringing on a free software project's patents with impunity. Litigation is for big corporations with big legal budgets. It's unlikely that an open-source project would have the resources to properly defend its patents.
LOTS of prior art here.
In real-time/embedded systems terminology there is an architecture known as "Foreground/Background". Foreground tasks (often interrupt-driven) run within assigned time-slices. Whenever there is no Foreground task running, the Background task gets to use the time until another Foreground task's turn to run has arrived, in which case the Background task is again pre-empted. The Background task itself is never allowed to preempt one of the Foreground tasks.
What the patent describes is nothing new. The RT-linux real-time tasks are the "Foreground" tasks, and the "non real time OS" is just the Background task. I once worked on a legacy system from the 70s (aerospace application) which used this kind of archtecture, so this idea is old, old old.
A tricky twist in terminology does not make a radical new idea.
What saddens me more is that fact that most here seem to approve of the patent, just because it was someone with LinuxCred(tm) who obtained it.
Software patents, as currently abused, are a serious threat to progress in the field. Just because a patent holder promises to be nice to your friends doesnt make this particular patent any less silly, or any more just.
Or has Open Source gone "Four legs good/Two legs bad" already?
:Michael
but, now one of "ours" has a patent, people are already looking for a way to justify it. gee, maybe it is a good thing after all.
we can even muse about how patents are a natural part of open source philosophy as patents are of course intended to share inventions while protecting the interests of the inventor.
hmm. i don't know why my stomach is churning.
winter whiteness --
in the distance
a screech of patents.
talk to someone at EFF. Do NOT discuss your
version publicly until you have done the
consultation. if i recall, there are some funky
rules regarding disclosure of prior art.
<p>
...<b>nous</b>
GPL restricts closed source programs/companies from using GPL source code. Isn't this guy doing something similar? I favor GPL over the BSD license myself, but it seems to me that this is clearly an example that shows that GPL may not actually be as "free" as many people think, it's actually quite restrictive. But perhaps as RMS (and this guy now) realized, in a world full of licenses and copyrights and patents, you have to play by their rules. Fight fire with fire. Remember the United States had to win freedom by firearms, they had to give up their own cranky individualism temporarily in order to form an organization capable of defeating the british army. IMHO.
Find and share links to celebrity profiles on MySpace! http://www.myspacecelebrities.com
The ramifications for BSD licensed code, (what's intended anyway), is that a patent in Pool F could be incorporated into that code and (usually) used freely, up until the code was made into a proprietary product. At that point someone would have to negotiate a separate patent license, as the OPL would no longer apply.
I doubt that any BSD OS will accept these terms. The BSD license is preferred over the GPL for the BSD OS's because the developers want all others to be able to use the code without fear of stepping into some legal mess. Patents will probably be treated the same way. Besides, they may be able to ask IBM (or maybe Intel as it is a reference patent in Victor's patent) if they could use one of their patents. I wonder how many patents IBM already has on real-time OS's.
Open Source publication seems more than sufficient proof of prior art which should stop any hostile patent attempt. This is not good news. It is someone claiming the right to decide who gets true Open Source and who doesn't. It is WRONG.
If patenting Linux derivatives is wrong then it is wrong regardless of how cool the party in question may or may not be. It is not a personality issue.
It's HIS! He can license it where you have to be standing on your head to use it, OK? He can license it for a million dollars a copy, he can withhold it from the market completely, he can do what he wants with it because he invented it and patented it and it's HIS.
And here he's giving it away for free to Linux users, to which I, as one, say "thank you," with all the feeling with which I usually say "thank you" when someone gives something of value which he owns to me for free. As far as FreeBSD people I'll bet he's willing to license it to them for free; or if his lawyer has reservations due to the mysterious FreeBSD license (hey I don't even really know the legal ramifications of the GPL, and I've never even read the FreeBSD license), probably he'd license it to them for one dollar "and other good and valuable considerations," as we phrase it in the land survey trade.
As far as GNU is concerned I'm sure he, they (well, I speak of RMS of course but I wouldn't want to scant the countless other worthy GNU-licensers either) is, are quite thoroughly against this sort of thing; this despite their natural reluctance to offend someone who is clearly trying to contribute to users of GNU software. So your "Maybe it's what GNUish people want, however" is an unjustified slur, I think. You know quite well that he, they insist on thrusting their excellent software into our hands in such an aggressive manner that it precludes ever extorting a cent from us by force of license. That even more extraordinary generosity of theirs eclipses even Mr. Yodaikin's admirable beneficence. So as I say "thank you" to Mr. Yodaikin I'd also like to shout a double "thank you" to the true GNU crew for all they do, and so should you.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Wouldn't it be cool if he GPL'd his patent? Meaning that if anyone else decides to take advantage of his "patented" techniques, they would be forced to release all of the source code and also allow free distribution of their application.
:)
IANAL, so would something like this be possible?
If so, it would be VERY cool!
If you're not going to enforce your patent, then there's no benefit in patenting something. Just publish the idea, then no one can patent it. Save yourself the $10,000 required to get the patent.
You don't need to patent something to keep it from being patented. Simply publish it. He could have simply written an article for a real time magazine.
It costs $10,000 to get a patent. It really isn't very useful unless it's enforced, so why was it done? It can only be used as a revenue source or a club to make other people do what you want.
If the patent were really unique, I'd have no problem with it. However, it looks like any hard real-time OS that runs non real-time APPs is going to violate this patent. If this guy has any experience with real-time OSs, he knows this has been done in the industry for many years. Patenting something you know already exhists is simply immoral. I hope the costs of defending this bogus patent make him bankrupt.
OpenBSD is going to be including the real-time
code from http://www.rtmx.com/ under the BSD
license. You can't get any better then that!
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation ofpatent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patentissues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order,agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of thisLicense, they do not excuse you from the conditions of thisLicense.
The crucial point here is that the guy behind RTLinux would requireyou to note whether or not your real-time-os-under-linux is RTLinuxcompatible, and a whole slew of other things. However these areadditional requirements to the GPL, which are in general not allowed.Therefore, we would not be allowed to distribue RTLinux.
Or am I wrong? IANAL, are there any license-heads out there whowould care to comment? Anyone asked RMS or the FSF about this yet?
I've used variations of this on nearly all embedded systems I've done since. So I'm not sure this is patentable... not that I care enough to contest it. It's a good and workable idea which I'm sure has been rediscovered time and again by many people.
It's the only way I see to effectively eliminate the idiocy that is software patents.
Imagine that if Amazon.com sued to protect it's one-click shopping patent, they got hit with a lawsuit protecting the shttp: protocol, and another for "selling over the internet", and another for "method to accept credit cards over the internet", and so on.
Borrowing a phrase about the internet, "linux sees (bad) patents as damage, and routes around them". If this patent is no problem, nobody will care. If it is a problem, the linux community will find a free (open) way around it, rendering the question of the patent moot.
Demonstrant's Open Source Tools
Is there a "bad" patent that costs a different price? :-P
Demonstrant's Open Source Tools
You are able to get the source code, look at it, modify it, distribute, copy it, but not to actually use (execute) it, or any derivatives of it.
Something smells funny, here.
Demonstrant's Open Source Tools
2. Software patents are okay in theory IMHO, but they've become a joke lately because many of them are more patents of business processes (Priceline, Amazon's 1-click shopping) than they are of software algorithms.
Where does that leave us? Patents are weapons, and their evilness or goodness are determined by usage. If the effect of a patent is to force companies to open up their source, then I say they are good. If the effect is to stifle innovation, then they are bad.
I say we let this guy try his strategy, and see what happens. If it means more OSS on the market, then God bless him.
-cwk.
Seriously, I am afraid that some in the open source community have gone that route.
In fact, about a week ago, a fellow on a different mailing list who knew Stallman well recently wrote:
I was taught "GPL good, commercial software bad" by Stallman in person.
In short, he'd spoken with Stallman at length, face to face, and this is what he retained a few years after that conversation.
It's sad. I really wish we could go back to the days of true open source software -- such as BIND and Sendmail -- which was created for all to share. Including commercial programmers. The GPL and Linux zealotry seems to have spoiled that -- I hope not irreparably.
--Brett Glass
As soon as you start making exceptions, everyone wants to be the exception, not the rule.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Is the patented part of RTLinux part of a modified GPL:ed code(I assume so but I'm not that deep into RTLinux)? In that case the matter is quite clear: the patented part is also GPL:ed and he must make it available and anyone may use it as long as they release any modifications under GPL. (heard this before?) The fact that it is patented does not remove the GPL.
--
If noone rtfa, then what's the slashdot effect?
1. Why didnt he say it was patent pending from dec 1996 onward?
2. What are his intentions towards L4-Linux.
I can only think of a single answer to 1, and his IMO arrogant letter leaves little doubt as far as 2 is concerned.
If both answers are as I fear I dont see how this guy is any better than any of the other "I patented breathing, pay me and be gratefull" types. Also I really dont see why Linus/Linux international is helping him in that case... that for me was the biggest question mark, why are they helping him in excercising conditions to get questionable licenses on questionable patents. The free licenses for RT-Linux certainly aren't worth squandering your principles for.
Since the main goal of the defensive patent is to allow free software to use technology, and not to kill Microsoft and other "competitors", why not just register as many software patents as possible on usefull algorithms etc. and then just not enforce them *at all* I'm no lawyer but wouldn't that mean that someone else wouldn't be able to patent the same technology even if you lose your patent since you are not protecting it?
Is there any way to GPL ideas? Some sort of license according to which you can use my idea royalty-free, but if you improve it and don't "patent" it with the same GPL-like license, you have to pay me royalties. The problem with this patent is the same as with non-free software patents--it prevents competition (from non-free software, but I think e.g. Windows is good for Linux) instead of encouraging it. A GPL-like patent would force corporations to share their ideas instead of restricting their access to ours.
-- The Sheep --
From what I gather the point of a defensive patent is to hold off predatory organizations such as Amazon. The question is of course is was it really needed?
On one hand of the equation you could argue that in the event of a law suit you could prove previous art existed and prevail. On the other hand you can say that by obtaining the patent you have protected yourself from the lawsuit in the first place. Or at the very least positioned yourself on the high ground making the opposition work a very hard game uphill.
Smiting Microsoft...others have suggested that BSD and the ilk could be licensed however Microsoft could be shut out. Although against the general morality factor of the Open Source community I doubt anyone would shed a tear for Microsoft. But, stealing code isn't anything new for them. See Stac Electronics V. Microsoft. But how would you prove that closed source violated your patent? Microsoft isn't going to just turn over their source to you. And for every expert you say that they stole your code they'd have another say the opposite. And this time they won't get caught tampering with the video tape evidence.
In the end the patent system in the country combined with the legal system does little to protect the interests of a small entity or person. when it is pitted against a large foe. It may offer a small bit of protection from a large company trying to "innovate" you into oblivion, but when it comes down to the basics it fails us all. Our legal system is based on throwing money at lawyers to solve the problem. When it is a case of a large foe against the little guy the little guy loses. Why? Because the little guy barely has enough money to cover lawyer cost for half the first trial. Couple appeals later your out a big sum of cash and don't have the means to go further.
Back in 1992, I implemented a RTOS similar to RT-Linux but with Minix for my final year project. I mentioned in the conclusions that Linux would have been a better candidate... prior art exists for anyone willing..
In other news, Ford today announced that it had been granted a patent on giving away computers to workers. Ford chairman and chief idea maker, Gerald Ford, stated that "[Ford] will grant a royalty-free license to all makers of American automobiles." It was stated that makers of foreign automobiles might have to pay a royalty fee. It's still unclear whether makers of American bicycles will have to pay. Microsoft Chief Software Architect Bill Gates was quoted as saying "[this patent] is great. Now Microsoft has an excuse not to implement the same plan for its workers." What do you think? Will this give more incentive to companies to move to America? Will these patent laws give more companies incentives to come up with great ideas that no one else can use for 20 years?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
and it's called enforcement. Let's please wait to see how this patent is enforced before we jump to conclusions.
Patents are a tool and we can use it just as well as anyone else can. We just have to know how.
We will use the patent system just like the big corporations do and just like the small time inventor does. With the right kind of Open Patent license (or whatever it will be called), patents will be used to give the open source community key advantages so that we can thrive and can continue to innovate.
- James Martin Luther
r.b.
So, can we sue them for patent infringement, then? ;)
grnbrg
subject says it all
Since when has the GPL stipulated that "... you are required to meet the GPL by publishing your source code *on Linux International or Linux.org's web pages* to make it open". This sounds crap.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
MCSE Certified
Simson#
has completed the coursework
necessary to be recognized as
a Minesweeper Consultant and
In tetris there are only loosers
Watch out, I could be the guy who wrote LiLo and I might have decided to patent the way it works and only alow free use to Slackware users. Or look out, I might have come up with a way to solve a complex math problem in only 2 steps, where as the same problem used to to 26. Ive just patented it and only people who go to my school can use it.
Just because it has "linux" in it doesnt make it any less fscked up then the Apple "look and feel" BS....hey anyone check out themes.org? :)
This is retarded. Patents are supposed to be for non-obvious things!!!! I just came up with a great way to dial my phone, and type faster, i am going to patent it. I'm sure I can find a stupid judge to let me!
Cool, ok so you let us use your code royalty free. Dude.. you took Open Software and put a proprietary piece of code into the source tree and patented it. What's wrong with this picture? We should all challenge your patent. I'm going to look at the filing on the web. We should all send email and fight this application. If you want to patent code, WRITE YOUR OWN DAMN OS and stop USING OURS!!!!!!!!
The preamble to the GPL isn't the GPL. And so isn't part of the licensing terms. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but that particular pseudo-legalism doesn't help.
--
Normally I have to say I'm against most software patents (really any overly broad patent) but I know Dr. Yodaiken and if anybody can be trusted to do right by the community with this it's him. He's not only one of the coolest professors I've known he's one of the coolest people I've ever met. I wasn't his best friend or anything so I may very well be wrong but I have to think that he won't be somebody we need to flame over his patent portfolio.
As for the content of the patent, running an OS as a process of another OS is nothing new, and making the host OS a real-time OS is, IMAO, an obvious extension of that concept.
--
I don't disagree with the idea of free software developers acquiring software patents. But they should allow other free software developers to use these patents without royalties---regardless of the operating system platform.
That is to say, if someone creates free software under a GPL-like license which prohibits proprietization, then let them use the patented idea!
On the other hand, I don't see a problem with makers of proprietary software being made to pay royalties. After all, they don't like freely sharing their ideas with others, so why freely share with them?
I hope Yodaiken takes on a more enlightened attitude, and users the power inherent in his patent to do good. The main purpose should be to prevent a hostile organization from acquiring the patent, not to act as a hostile organization.
I have a feeling that Yodaiken will probably grant use of his idea to anyone developing GNU style free software. but they shouldn't have to ask, know what I mean?
On the other hand, I think it's great that the Open Source community has finally cottened on to the fact that the commercial sector has zero ethics and even less morality.
Does that mean the patent is "good"? "Bad"? Indifferent? Purple? IMHO, the only way to find that out is to talk about it, and that's something that a lot of people have either hedged around, ummed and aaahed, or ignored completely. Well, now that can't happen.
The actual conclusion, though, on whether RT-Linux should be patented or not is not the important part of the discussion. That's a side-show, as good as RT-Linux is. What's important is that we talk about how to keep software Open and Free, whilst preventing abuses -of- that Openness and Freeness, by people who neither understand nor care for anything but their bank balance.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The GPL does state that any patented code you use must be licensed free for everyone's use. So I'm afraid this does violate the GPL unless the author licenses the code for free to everyone.
No. You don't have to defend a patent in the same way that you have to defend a trademark.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I also dispute that the claims of this patent are non-obvious. I proposed a similar scheme when I worked at Telebit and we wanted to merge our router and modem code bases for a low-cost product. The modem had hard real-time requirements, so we were going to run the router operating system as a task under the modem's operating system. Neither I nor my coworkers thought this was a super-advanced non-obvious technique that should be patented.
As it turned out, I came up with an even better method for building the product, but we didn't end up using it because the price of modem chipsets had dropped enough to make it unnecessary.
Imagine the following scenario:
Now, had FSP patented X, they could have defended themselves agains EvilCorp.
I believe that we need to do this, but establish a holdings company to keep the patents and then make sure than any group which licenses it's product under X, Y and Z licenses can automatically have access to the patents... which neatly ties up the problem of other Free Software presently available and future ones yet to be created having access to such patents.
While the patent is probably bogus, your message is meaningless, because you include the description, and what matters for patent purposes are the claims.
Patents are a paradox in computers. And why? Because they try to cope an ancient "mechanical" view of enginnering with an quantum-artistic world of
computers. A long time ago it was easy to make a patent. Classic mechanics are, by nature, quite deterministic. And so every appliance of its laws is quite
straightforward. Besides Mechanics still lays in the capacity of humans to build instruments, mechanisms. Most of these things are palpable, some may require
a microscope or something similar to be "seen". However a careful examination can always determine how the "mechanism" was made. And this was the
fundament of the patent system. In one way or the other you can determine of one or other mechanism "copies" a patented one.
This does not happen anymore with computers. Yes, you still can determine something on them. But you most of the time can fall in two problems. Two
problems that make the classical patenting systems quite awkward in the Wonderful New World.
First most of the computer "mechanisms" are not palpable or either visible. Most of them are "abstractions" of the behaviour of quantum laws in a relatively
defined environment. Such environment can be a processor, a computer, a network or Internet. No matter the initial conceptions to create a functional structure for
a specifical purpose, such creation has a high potential to overcome the expectations of its creator. You cannot always predict on computers where your idea
may lead to. It is a problem that Intel had to deal with in the time when i286 came up. Protected mode was an "idea in the air" that was left on the 286 for a future.
Most aspects of its functionality was never expected to be used in the way that later people used it. When it was occasionaly leaked out to the public, it created
a different series of protected mode systems. Every of them depended on a inner nature of the processor. Some followed the "original idea" Intel had to create
protected mode. But others went so much to the bottom that they exploited every single feature of the processor in this mode. Exactly in one of these "strange
modes" one friend of mine used 286 for real-time control of system for observations of electro-magnetic ressonance.
Intel tried to stop this thing and turn the "tides" back to where they thought things should go. However we have to note that some of the functionality of modern
Intel processors carries somehow the remains of the ancient Flood...
The second problem comes from the first and it is what puts in cause the use of patenting system. For most of computer uses, you have to use an "abstraction".
Something that translates your ideas to the computer world. That is what for computer languages are used. But as every "abstraction" you loose some of the
determinism innerent to mechanics. In one way or the other, the computer languages determine also an "art of programming". And so it is natural that they
become abstract, that one "style" copies "another", that you may find two similar ideas in two different programs. More than this, as time goes, programs start to
cite "old sources", programs start to embed over each other. Sometimes plagiates start to happen. Good or bad. Conscious or occasional.
How one can determine what is correct or wrong in such world? Well somehow a programm is still a piece of text in most cases. So one may determine, u to
some extent, if anyone violates the copyrights of the original author. But can this be used for patents? Certainly not. You cannot determine the full extent of the
mechanism. Or if try to determine it then you cannot fully acknowledge its potential application. It would be the same as trying to jump over Heisenberg's Law.
You may try to find either the position or the velocity of the electron. But you can't know both at the same time.
1. Noone needs to fake a "general purpose" OS if you have a real-time OS. A real-time OS has all the features of a "general" one and more. This is exactly like running DOS apps in Windows 2000, you can, but WHY?
2. Didn't I learn about this method in college only for the general not linux specific case? To quote Tweety bird: "I did! I did!". Just becasue it's done with Linux doesn't make it new. Any company that has the interest will be able to challenge this patent, and get it tossed. But again, noone will care, becasue there is no need to do this.
3. The problem with the patent system is that they are granting completely bogus patents on things in textbooks. When someone invents something new, they deserve a patent. Invents new, not discovers old. Everything in computer science was done in the 70, get over it already.
4. This patent is no better then any other. Many people will not be able to use the method without paying the grantie lots of money. The only acceptable "defence" patent license is to place the method into the public domain. Anything else is no better then what every other patent holder does.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
I wonder if IBM knows about this. The VM operating system has been doing this EXACTLY for over 30 years.
VM consists of two parts -- CP (Control Program) is a virtual machine emulator that runs on the bare iron (or can run under another copy of VM).
Other general purpose operating systems, such as MVS or CMS, run as "virtual machines" under the real-time CP.
Among other things, CP intercepts the hardware interrupts, and emulates them to the guest operating system, EXACTLY as described in the patent.
CP also allows the guest operating systems to use the regular hardware instructions to enter a "virtual interrupt-disabled" state so that the guest operating systems can safely proceed as if interrupts were actually disabled, while the actual hardware leaves the interrupts enabled, to allow continual real-time interrupts/data collection.
Apparently the patent examiners had no awareness of this VERY long-standing prior art.
- John
BSD can be repackaged as close source. Linux cannot. If the patent usage licence resembles GPL there is no such problem. The question is that... Yes... Yet Another License...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
UNISYS, too, stated that some software could use the GIF patent free and later changed their mind. Promises and intents are just that; what matters for patent licensing is a contractual relationship between the licensor and the licensee, and merely posting one's intent on some site isn't sufficient. Also, the particular license chosen for RT-Linux looks like it imposes some serious burdens on other real time Linux developers. Besides a contractual relationship, the only other choice for patents is placing it in the public domain.
The only choice I see for ensuring that open source-related patents remain credible and open is to assign them to an organization whose charter irrevocably binds them to particular licensing conditions.
As for the specific patent, there is ample, specific prior art.
I'd recommend to the author to abandon this patent and work with the open source community on a better approach for the next patent.
Hey ya jagoff, why the hell can't I use your code with my BSD-flavor-of-choice?! Fear the Daemon, he's so much more righteous than Tux!
Perhaps I should have said "politely" rather than carefully.
I'll admit to not having followed LinuxRT from conception to present, so I don't know the origin of this code, but if he wrote it all on his own, then that code is his to license or patent however he chooses within the bounds of the law. If he wants to patent his invention and license it free of charge to GPL'ed code and tell people using the BSD license to pound sand - as much as I would disagree with him - that's his choice to make. The BSD people would probably come up with their own stuff, be more friendly in the licensing, and the world would probably follow.
D
2.) I think, if approached carefully, that Hurd/BSD users would probably have little difficulty getting "free use" clauses.
3.) While I understand that in some things, you have to "rush forward" to patent something, I think now is an excellent time to revisit an idea that was talked about once before, that being a "GPP" or General Public Patent... some structure that patent-holders can use as a boilerplate for releasing their patents to any and all "Free"/"Open" use.
I don't have moderator points right now, or I'd spend a good number of them on this thread. I think this discussion is exactly what needs to be held. So I guess I'll just post.
The point is brought up that a patent license could be used just like the GPL uses copyright. And that's true. And it may even be what to work for.
But there's two points to consider:
1) A patent is broader than copyright -- and getting broader (if one can patent things like
build-to-order manufacturing and collecting data in a cookie). Thus, a patent on a widget might extend to ALL widgets that provide similar services. This has been brought up, but it's worth considering, because the point has synergy with my second point.
2) AFAIK, there's no currently accepted open patent license. And, in fact, there's no completely accepted open source license, either. The GPL is close, but even that one isn't universally embraced. But that's OK, because if you want to use someone else's code for the Whizzy Widget, hey, you do it by the license they released. If you don't, you can go write your own Whizzy Widget No problem. Release it under any license you want. HOWEVER, if Whizzy Widgets are patented under a license you find unacceptable, you're out of luck. Write your own, and you face patent infringement.
I think it may be possible to write a license that would get around such problems. But until there's a widely accepted (and recognized as enlightened and effective) open patent scheme, there's gonna be some serious clashes, and probable abuses.
Weston
Tweet, tweet.
Yes, patents aren't free, unlike copyrights. (Nor are they automatic.)
/. and this message... What are you doing wrt patents? Is the FSF working on a GPL-type license for this?
But, the upfront costs are usually the low costs. The big $$ comes in when you defend the patent (or use it offensively.)
And, if you (author) used a product that had a GPL-ish licensed patent, it wouldn't force you to patent something, it'd just require that any patented procedure in that program was also licensed in the same way.
And yeah, the RT patent could be worth a few bucks. I haven't looked at it so I don't know how obvious it is. If it's a 'good' patent then he deserves a few bucks. And a company that wants to use RT Linux for a specific application could probably afford to shell out a few $$ for the privellage.
Where I'm not happy with this is that the GPL doesn't forbid patent encumberance, or bundling the GPLed code and patented algorithms (non distributable and non freely usuable because of the patent). IMHO if you use GPLed code, it should be mandatory that it leave your hands as unencumbered as when you got it.
(By which I mean, if RSA released the an RSA module which they GPLed, it would be patent encumbered, but if they created it from scratch, that would be fine. But if they took the existing network code or GPG code and made it dependant on patented algorithms, they should be in effect granting free use of that patent in any way, as might be derived from that code.) (ie, if someone took that theoretical GPG code and turned it into an encrypted file system, that should be allowed, the same as using any GPL code in your code, no matter the insignificance, turns your code GPL...)
Hey RMS, if you read
Patents are a defensive measure, which really, is what the GPL is. If we could trust everyone to look out for the best interests of the community, or to at least not hurt the community, the GPL would be pointless, people would keep code open simply for the benefits to everyone. We've seen though that this doesn't happen, something like the GPL is needed to keep people 'honest'.
We've seen companies use patents in incredibly hostile ways. Amazon's 1-click patent, that company with the patent on selling any digital information over a network, etc. And they immediately lashed out with these, seeking exorbitant licensing fees or to put competitors out of business.
We need a GPL-type license for patents, something where any company using the GPLed patent in any product has to similarly GPL all the code and patents in the product.
Then a company could patent something, to keep anyone else from using it against them, but by releasing it under the GPL, prevent any fears that they're trying to dominate the industry.
Note though that the article said that Linux users would be granted a royalty free license... nothing about home users, or free users, etc. If this is applied to any open source OS, then it's good in my opinion.
But I would like to see RMS and the FSF come up with a GPL-like license for use with patents.
If there was a standard GPL-type license, and it only forced other people to GPL their patents and code, then it would have the same effect as the GPL does on code, and couldn't be applied selectively. But commercial users who didn't like that provision could still negotiate other licenses. The best of both worlds.
But the GPL isn't a free license (as in BSD). The GPL has restrictions... A patent will be that free as long as the only restrictions are GPL-ish, as in derivative patents and copyrighted materials have to carry a similar license.
The GPL is free in that it makes no restrictions as to who can use the material, or for what. A company is just as free to sell GPLed code as an end user is to use it (provided they follow the free distro rules, etc.) As long as the patents are similar, such that any use in an open-source, open-patent project is allowed, then I fully support it.
I would like to see a standard license developed for this sort of thing. Maybe the FSF can develop one.
Side note: I see patents being used to protect your business against competitors, not against anyone using the idea. As such, eventually having all patents free (as in, companies decide that being able to use the GPLed patent portfolio is more useful than keeping their patents secret) would still serve to prevent a hostile company from stealing research, because it would have to open all of its patents to use the free ones, but it would serve to advance knowledge more rapidly, ala open source.
If 'we' (the OpenSource Community) are going to have to put up with nonsense patents (LZW compression and the Gif format come to mind) then I think this is something I'm all for. Until we don't have to deal with these problems, then I think we have to take a pro-active (shudder... i think I found that word from being around management too long) view and build up our own 'patent portfolio' that we can use defensively if need be.
:)
A better question might be "Who will control the patent?" In order to really have a defensive patent portfolio, don't we need one orginization/group who can barter with them on behalf of the collective whole? (whether they control the individual patents or not)
Now... if only a piece of software would come out of Unisys that we could Sue over
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
You don't need a patent in order to 'defend' against patent lawsuits. All you have to do is properly document (date,witness,etc) your invention and you have a very strong claim against anyone who tries to patent the same invention in the future.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that you're not one either, given your impression that having documented prior art is a "very strong claim". Unfortunately, that isn't the case, as a patent has a presumed to be valid, and you have to prove otheriwse. A competing, previously issued patent is a very strong claim. Documented prior art is not, at least it doesn't seem to be, from the outside of the legal profession looking in.
When (not if, but when) some 800 pound gorilla decides to extract some money from Open Source (distributors, corporate users, developers, etc...) based on a software patent, the best defense we may have is public sentiment. By showing the world how this closed-source company is extorting money, we might be able to put them in such a bad light that they choose to not continue the suit. Open Source currently enjoys much positive sentiment on the part of the general public (to the extent they have even heard of it).
If members of the Open Source community have patents that are being used against closed source companies, it will be hard not to look disingenuous when we argue that they shouldn't use their patents against us. It will be pointed out that we stand by our convictions only when it is convenient to us, and we will look worse than the 800 pound gorilla. Because the patent situation is one of the few Achilles' heels that Open Source really has, I think this is a potentially dangerous development.
Put me down as "against it."
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
Copyleft is an application of Copyright to subvert copyright itself.
Could this be an "Open"Patent...an application of the patent system intended to subvert the patent? Essentially patenting it with the express permission for anybody to use/modify/distribute it...as the Copyleft copyrights something with the express permission for anybody to use/modify/distribute it.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Make that a really, really freaking HUGE stick, I mean omigod that's a really huge stick. Where in the heck did they get that stick? It's more like a tree than a stick! (-1, offtopic)
However, I think this is A Good Thing. Not because I like patents on software, but, sorry folks, software patents exist. Be in the now. Until the wonderful day when we can strike down software patents, we must arm ourselves to fight on their terms. By patenting RTLinux, and forcing non-OSS (non-free software too, in deference to RMS) to pay for it, we gain a weapon we can use in the eventual fight to end software patents.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I just think that no matter who, no matter what, no matter how, no matter why, software patents are simply a Really Bad Thing for programmers.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
You don't need a patent in order to 'defend' against patent lawsuits. All you have to do is properly document (date,witness,etc) your invention and you have a very strong claim against anyone who tries to patent the same invention in the future. The fact that he took out a patent shows an intention to license it, or to obtain monopoly rights.
Funny: Intel did this with Windows 3.1 quite a few years ago. It provided a real-time operating system kernel which ran beneath Windows and treated Windows as a task. It demonstrated it at the Embedded Systems Conference for a few years running and licensed it to embedded systems vendors.
IBM's VM/CMS is also prior art and is even older.
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
The abstract:
A general purpose computer operating system is run using a real time operating system. A real time operating system is provided for running real time tasks. A general purpose operating system is provided as one of the real time tasks. The general purpose operating system is preempted as needed for the real time tasks and is prevented from blocking preemption of the non-real time tasks.
This looks a lot like a real-time Mach, or for that matter, a lot like QNX. Not that microkernel=realtime, but isn't that the basic idea behind a lot of RTOSs?
Don't Panic...
Gee, you think the GPL is viral. Patents infect people who don't even see the code.
On one hand, if a sufficiently large block of "Free Patents" were available then perhaps we could make the same kind of patent trades that the big companies do and get access to, say Unisys' patent on GIF, for example.
On the other hand, what corporation is going to deal with a bunch of lawless programmers who would copy "trade secrets" all over the world.
On the gripping hand, if they need the patent, they gotta come to us. Heh heh heh.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
This is so, so wrong- just _listen_ to how it sounds. "Probably, maybe, other people can use this GPLed software, if they ask _nicely_ and he's not having a bad day- he probably doesn't have any reason to forbid their access to the GPLed software so it shouldn't be much of a problem..." I feel _ill_ :P isn't this exactly what's supposed to never happen? I want to see this situation nipped in the bud, immediately. This is the license I use for my software and I gave no permission for it to be rewritten in this manner...
The ramifications for BSD licensed code, (what's intended anyway), is that a patent in Pool F could be incorporated into that code and (usually) used freely, up until the code was made into a proprietary product. At that point someone would have to negotiate a separate patent license, as the OPL would no longer apply.
I've talked with a Patent attorney about the license in general, and found to my relief that the things I want it to do are in fact doable. I haven't asked him to go over the license in detail yet, as I don't see much point in spending money on the legal debugging when the license itself hasn't fully settled down. Once it seems that the license probably does what most parties would want it to do, or at least their goals are incorporated into it in such a way that a lawyer rewrite the wording properly, I'll take it to the lawyers again and go through a few rounds of legal debugging/general debugging.
If anyone is interested in discussing the topic in depth, there's a mailing list on the site.
if the purpose of a patent is to encourage people to release details about their creation in exchange for protection from people stealign their idea, and thus advance technology in general, than whats the point of patenting somethign I can just go get the source for? (rtlinux is open source, I am imagining)
seems to me that the only real reason to do this is to defend against someone else patenting it, but it exists as open sourced prior art, so that probably wouldn't (or at least shouldnt) fly.
I don't get this at all.
If hackers all around the world started doing this, there would suddenly be no Open-Source anymore! I know I sound a bit like RMS, but you can't have "exceptions" in open source, and to have one "insider" doing it is a bad way to start.
In my opinion, all open source hackers, and people committed to developing open, free software (as in speech, not beer), should also commit themselves that, if they're developing something for the community, to completely release it under the GPL.
If we don't, developers will start like: "This software is free for end-users, home-users... etc, but not for commercial users." How exactly do you define a commercial user? Worse, how exactly do you enforce such a license? The simple, better-for-all way is simply to GPL it.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.