Red Hat Files for Software Patents

Marsala writes "Apparently Red Hat has filed two patent applications for stuff related to the TUX webserver. The patents are for Embedded Protocol Objects and Method and apparatus for atomic file look-up. One has to wonder (if their patents are granted) what their licensing terms will be.... free for open source, or a tool to try and screw other Linux distros?" As reported by Linux Weekly News.

Comments

money or principle?

[I Want GNU!]

You have to think about this...are they filing for the money or will they open it? If they believe in linux as a principle of their company they won't prevent anyone else from using it, but if they simply want to make shareholders happy they might charge for it.

Re:money or principle?

[damaru]

they are a company. what do u expect !!

Re:money or principle?

[BCoates]

If I understand how patents work, there is no reason to take out a patent on principle--the only thing a patent is good for is to stop people from using an invention, or make them pay you... If you aren't going to charge, you don't need the patent--I don't think there's a "patentleft" sort of scheme that uses patents to protect openness (a la copyleft)

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:money or principle?

[iamplasma]

Yes it is, unless I'm much mistaken all GPL software is copyrighted, just under the GPL. Otherwise if there is no copyright, anyone could take GPL software, and make it non-free. The copyright is what is needed to make the GPL enforceable. So while I can't be sure they will, it is conceivable that red hat will use this to GPL those techniques, giving free software a boost not available to non-free software.

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you keep your invention a secret, someone else can patent it. This doesn't stop you from being able to use it, but there can be a legal hassle in proving that you invented it first.

On the other hand, if you make it public, then it's prior art and no one can patent it (supposedly).

Re:money or principle?

[elandal]

Actually there's a very good other reason for patents: defense. Eg. if Microsoft were to charge RedHat for patent infringement (sp?), RH might be able to counter with their own patent portfolio, charging MS of infringing RH patents. That, of course, would lead to cross-licensing which is likely cheaper than going to court for patents that should never have been granted.

Re:money or principle?

[Alan Cox]

Very much so. The situation needs changing badly, but right now it forces people to play the stupid patent game either for good or for evil.

Expect a formal clarification from the Red Hat folks about this patent and usage (we didnt think it was news). Expect more patents too. In fact I've got two applications and I need to finish writing up - which I wouldn't be doing unless I was *convinced* this was the only way to do things in the short term, and that generic GPL use would be granted

Alan

Re:money or principle?

[King of the World]

Patents have nothing to do with free, open or closedness licencing. They are merely to do with a system whose intention is to prove who invented what first.

If you don't apply for a patent and you use 'your technology' then someone else could more easily take legal action upon you for using 'their technology'.

In this way having a patent means that you get to decide the rules under which the technology (kill me now for using that word) is used. A good patent owner will licence it under good rules, and a bad patent owner will licence under bad rules.

So it all comes down to how we think the owners of this patent will act upon uses of their 'technology'.

I certainly trust Redhat.

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the "patent business", where all of your patents end up being worthless and the lawyers make all the money!

Re:money or principle?

[BCoates]

The difference between patents and copyrights is important here. If you want to have a program just like another copyrighted program, you can write it yourself, and you don't have to worry about the other person's copyright--This is how lots of open source programs are made, as replacements for existing closed-source ones.

If software patents were commonplace, this couldn't be done--even if you reinvent something patented yourself, you still are in violation of the patent. Even if a few "free software patents" were held, the FS community would never be able to make another free software workalike version of a patented program.

Software patents don't benefit anyone but pattent lawyers, and Red Hat is not doing anyone any favors by trying to legitimize it.

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:money or principle?

[packeteer]

you are VERy correct... in fact if you even create somthing that is not a rip off BAM its copyrighted by you INSTANTLY... the only reason we need a patent office is to prove when people come up with ideas... its like a preemptive legal strike against would-be rip offs... so just because something is GPL does not mean you can rip it off... you can only use it as the GPL says but at least the GPL IS a license...

Re:money or principle?

[BCoates]

Uh, no, you don't have to get a patent to stop other people from patenting something. There is no such thing as a "defensive patent"--the fact that you invented and published it is all the defense you get, what you need the patent for is offensive, suing other people that use your invention. If you don't want to sue people, or milk money out of them, you can just publish your invention and not patent it.

The fact that RedHat holds a few patents will not stop them from being sued by someone else for patent violation.

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:money or principle?

[akharon]

Do you not find it ironic that with the problems you have had in the past with the US Patent Office, that you have two patent applications that you are writing up? This would seem to be like how Rosie O'Donnell is an anti-firearm advocate, yet she employs armed bodyguards.

Re:money or principle?

[edhall]

No, you don't have to patent. But if someone else patents it, it will cost you a bundle to have the patent voided. A patent is thus cheap insurance.

Frankly, I think getting a patent and promising royalty-free license (except to those who won't do the same to you) makes a stronger statement of principle than refusing to play the game. But it remains to be seen if RH will do this...

-Ed

Re:money or principle?

[King of the World]

The fact that RedHat holds a few patents will not stop them from being sued by someone else for patent violation.

Well obviously... anyone can sue anyone for anything - but a few patents under your belt makes your case stronger and clearer. It proves that your company went through a generally respected process (not respected by the public - but respected by the courts, definately)

There is no difference between offensive patents and defensive patents - they're just patents, and it depends on how are used.

If someone achieves a patent, but you have prior art, it's more difficult to prove that you were first because you didn't go via The System[TM]. Disproving a patent via prior art is significantly more difficult than disproving a patent via other patents.

Re:money or principle?

[AJWM]

the only thing a patent is good for is to stop people from using an invention, or make them pay you

Depends on whether or not you consider being allowed to use somebody else's patent a payment or not.

Most big companies with patent portfolios don't necessarily license them out for money, they'll trade licensing rights with some other company that holds patents they want to use. I.e, if companies A and B each hold patents on some critical component of product Y, they might well mutally license them to each other to allow both to produce the product. (Or, more realistically, A needs B's patent to produce Y, and B needs A's patent to produce Z).

Furthermore, getting the patent yourself is (these days) often the only way to easily prove "prior art" to defend yourself against some other bozo patenting your invention and charging you for it. What's known as a "defensive patent".

Re:money or principle?

[jellybear]

True, patents are "swords" not "shields". However, patents can be used "defensively" in the sense that the best defence is offence. That is to say, the threat of countersuit based on your patents can get the other party to back down.

Re:money or principle?

[Waffle Iron]

Patents have nothing to do with free, open or closedness licencing. They are merely to do with a system whose intention is to prove who invented what first.

You're missing the key feature of patents here. The one "proven" to invent first by virtue of a patent gets the privilege of setting arbitrary license terms for any use of the covered invention. Thus, a patent has everything to do with licensing, and it may be "closed" at the whim of the patent holder at any time.

If it was only about proving who invented first, a system like that used for acedemic publishing would fit the bill just fine. As a matter of fact, such a system would probably do more to "promote useful arts and sciences" for software than patents will. (Remember, promoting arts and sciences was the whole motivator for patents in the first place. Patents were *not* created just to institute a new form of "ownership" so that people can bask in additional property rights.)

Patents were originally intended to encourage people to not keep machines and manufacturing methods locked up as trade secrets, so everyone would benefit (initially from the shared knowledge, and using the invention directly after a few years). This does not match software development. Copyrights allow people to keep the actual implementation details secret for a century, so the patent disclosure doesn't do much good. Anything disclosed in the patent document can be trivially reverse engineered from the software product anyway, since all of the secrets are shipped with the product. The patent provides little if any additional knowledge to the general public. Therefore, due to the nature of software, a software patent provides essentially no value to the public in return for the monopoly granted to the patent holder.

Re:money or principle?

[BCoates]

Most big companies with patent portfolios don't necessarily license them out for money, they'll trade licensing rights with some other company that holds patents they want to use.

Not much use for open source, unless this other company RedHat's swapping patents with is willing to not just license it to RedHat, but to everybody else who gets a GPL copy...

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:money or principle?

[King of the World]

You're missing the key feature of patents here. The one "proven" to invent first by virtue of a patent gets the privilege of setting arbitrary license terms for any use of the covered invention.

You know, I could have sworn I said that - oh yes, I sez:

"having a patent means that you get to decide the rules under which the technology [...] is used"

Thus, a patent has everything to do with licensing, and it may be "closed" at the whim of the patent holder at any time

I didn't say otherwise. I did say that it had nothing to do with specific types of licencing ("Patents have nothing to do with free, open or closedness licencing.") as the original post said "the only thing a patent is good for is to stop people from using an invention".

Ok, bye now!

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

NBC News confirms: Rosie O'Donnell is a fat, hypocritical dyke.

Let's ignore the rhetoric and examine the facts:

• she is overweight
• she wants to ban all firearms, but has hired bodyguards that carry concealed guns (you know how rough that Greenwhich village is!)
• she gets more pussy than all of slashdot combined.

Re:money or principle?

[Meshach]

I agree. I can't see Red Hat being just out for a cash grab. It looks like they just want to be recognized for their creativity. This could be a way that open source creators could protect their products Caleb

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Software patents are legitimate, regardless of what RedHat does.

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't you just telling us about Microsoft's evil software patents the other day?

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Redhat shareholder AND Linux user, I sure hope they make a lot of patents and money. It really irks me to see Tiemman and Co screw us shareholders quarter after quarter through shady accounting and an ocean of self-granted options.

Btw, I've averaged down my RHAT shares to $14, but with Bob Young seeming to eliminate all his shares, and Tiemman selling almost 20% of his shares, there's no way it'll go to $14.

Sigh.

Re:money or principle?

[Dwonis]

Isn't there some mechanism where you can pay a one-time fee of ~$1000 to register a 'public-domain patent'? Wouldn't that solve the "what if someone else patents it?" scenario?

Re:money or principle?

[g4dget]

Patents have nothing to do with free, open or closedness licencing. They are merely to do with a system whose intention is to prove who invented what first.

No. First-to-invent has no relevance to patents at all: if you invent something first but don't disclose it, it's irrelevant that you invented it first. Second, in order to establish that you invented something for the purpose of defending against other patents, a disclosure is sufficient.

Patents are about establishing a limited monopoly on technology. You are right that that can be used for good or for bad. But the responsibility is on RedHat to explain themselves to the community clearly, at least if they want to continue to receive support from the community.

Re:money or principle?

[gargle]

If they believe in linux as a principle of their company they won't prevent anyone else from using it, but if they simply want to make shareholders happy they might charge for it.

Redhat is a public company. Public companies are owned by the shareholders. Shareholders are interested only in a profit. So what do you think?

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

registering an invention isn't enough.

redhat needs it's own patents so they can do cross-licensing. More and more stuff (like cleartype and so on) is covered by patents, and redhat can only use that in their software if they have patents of their own to bargain with.

So, these patents are tools to bargain with other proprietary companies. They were never meant as something the open source community should have to know about.

Re:money or principle?

[Tet]

Expect a formal clarification from the Red Hat folks about this patent and usage

I'm intrigued about this. I hope that they'll do the right thing. I'd like to see an immediate and permanent license to anyone writing code under the GPL, as done by Raph Levien, plus a firm statement about free licensing to code under all other OSI approved licenses on request (there can't be a blanket statement as there can with the GPL). But in addition, I'd like to see Red Hat actively working towards reform of the patent system as it stands now.

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty sad, isn't it. The stock market is the engine that runs America's greed. Surely there must be a better way.

Re:money or principle?

[smittyoneeach]

Hopefully, a thumbing of the nose at stereotypical let's-line-our-wallet-ism.
Could be a defensive patent, don't you think?
I buy their distros hard copy because I like open source and figure that's a way to show appreciation.
SuSe or Debian might also bear investigation, should their actions get MightyStupid.

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the key feature of patents here. The one "proven" to invent first by virtue of a patent gets the privilege of setting arbitrary license terms for any use of the covered invention. Thus, a patent has everything to do with licensing, and it may be "closed" at the whim of the patent holder at any time.

Actually, patents are, by definition "open." You can look them up in the [US]PTO database. You can learn from them. You can even come up with alternative methods/devices to do the same thing. The only part that can be "closed" by the patent holder is direct copying of their clever idea.

Also, one imagines that PTO examiners are much more likely to search their own database for prior art than they are to search (eg) RedHat's website.

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

If RH doesn't "do the right thing" then you can expect the Open Source/GPL community to compare them with Microsoft and view RH as 'mini-bill'

Re:money or principle?

[uglyduckling]

I like your idea about academic publishing. If Red Hat simply want to stop someone else hijacking and patenting the idea, then why don't they write a paper and get it published in a journal (I'm sure there are journals about web server implementation, or general Internet technologies).

Since RH are going for the patent option, there's only two reasons I can see: either they want to stop _anyone_ from using their ideas, or they want to stop non-GPLed code from using their ideas. Let's hope its the latter.

Re:money or principle?

[Dajur]

Even if you arn't going to charge you need the patent. Because if someone else patents it leter they can sue you. I know there is a "Prior art" clause or somthing like that in patent law, but It might cost you millions in legal fees to prove that it actually was your idea, if you even prevail in court. I think OSS developers should patent every good idea they have as long as they have an "open" licencing scheme. Like use my idea for free, if you don't stand to profet from it. Or all implementations of this idea must open sourced. This could prevent companies from basterdizing things that should be left open.

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

The money is hard to turn down sometimes. I don't like software patents much, but when my employer (who shall remain nameless) offers US$1500 for one's first patent application, that is pretty attractive when I'm the sole bread winner trying to raise a family.

Re:money or principle?

[NDPTAL85]

Yeah you are right. The stereotypical "Lets be able to pay our employees" is such an old and outdated way of thinking for such a modern company. Good thing they're only pro-forma and not GAAP profitable!

Re:money or principle?

[NDPTAL85]

No its not sad at all. Its the principle that fuels our economy and allows us to have such a high standard of living. You're making this out to be some big huge moral dillema. Its just software after all.

Re:money or principle?

[Zygo]

These patents, if granted, will become the property of a legal person (corporation). This is VERY dangerous. The danger arises when the person might lose control over the patents.

It would seem to me that all a large company would have to do to get unlimited access to these patents is to start suing RedHat (it doesn't matter what for, and it doesn't have to be related to patents at all, as long as the legal costs of defense are mandatory and large) until Red Hat runs out of money, then show up when Red Hat's assets are sold at bankruptcy auction and walk away with a government-regulated monopoly on some useful pieces of free software.

This would result in the unfortunate situation that a critical component of certain free software might be held by an entity that refuses to license it on any but the most draconian terms.

Red Hat is (comparatively) well-funded for a Linux vendor. Smaller corporations shouldn't even attempt to play patent games, because the only two possible outcomes are 1) be ignored, or 2) lose everything.

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

You trust RedHat, ROFL! Just as bad as MS, if not, worse! I would trust MS over RedHat any day!

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only need to take a machine-gun is to kill people.

Hummm... I can think of another reason: I take the machine-gun so *anyone else* can take it.

Now, it's not to say that I'm sure Red Hat is not going to try to make profit from the patents it holds, what I say is that Red Hat *migth* want to patent this or that so it assures itself the ability to permit anyone else to use it (kindof I patent this so Microsoft can't patent it).

On the other hand just exactly Bush has told the world he is not going to completely disable those nuclear heads because "no one knows what will come in ten years" software patents are BAD THING (TM) no matter how good guys Red Hat are: if they hold a patent sooner or later they'll apply it (who knows what Red Hat's CEO or VCs will be in then years).

I see a software patent as stupid (and dangerous) as any other procedure-based patent (As simply as this: it is not that I invented a terribly good artifact to drink, so you'll have to pay me if you want to take advantage of such a superb artifact, it is that I prohibit you to drink anyhow unless you pay my fees!!!)

Re:money or principle?

[Courageous]

You're missing the key feature of patents here. The one "proven" to invent first by virtue of a patent gets the privilege of setting arbitrary license terms for any use of the covered invention. Thus, a patent has everything to do with licensing, and it may be "closed" at the whim of the patent holder at any time.

This isn't actually very correct in practice. There are plenty of companies who have extensive patent portfolios that they created simply for self protection. So, in theory, while the patent portfolios might one day be used as draconian licensing instruments, they (under the current system) also provide a valuable instrument for self protection. I myself have two patents acquired for just that purpose.

C//

Re:money or principle?

[Hard_Code]

"If I understand how patents work, there is no reason to take out a patent on principle--the only thing a patent is good for is to stop people from using an invention"

OR , by patenting, be able to enforce a GPL-like license which gives everyone free royalty to use a certain patent (e.g. there is a "patentleft": OpenPatents). If you DON'T claim the patent because you want it to be usable by everyone, that still doesn't stop somebody in the future from patenting it, and restricting usage.

Re:money or principle?

[sayk]

I think a majority of the shareholders (me included) is interested in the intentional idea of Linux itself. That means to always keeping your inventions open and free to those willing to use it any time. The idea to counterstrike M$ with a patent would be only the result of it's licence policy and takes my full agreement ... I also believe in Red Hat and all other OpenSource Distributors, if they'll ever fall from grace there would be a lot less to believe in anymore :)

Re:money or principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus, a patent has everything to do with licensing, and it may be "closed" at the whim of the patent holder at any time.

Actaully, if somebody has a patent and doesn't use, or won't resonably licence, the patent it's possible to get the courts to force them to licence. Actually, it could go as far as having the patent struck down.

Re:money or principle?

[morleron]

Whether or not others are allowed to use a patented process, product, etc. depends on whether/how the patent holder licenses the use of the patent. The original patent holder has a wide variety of options regarding how to license the patent. They can range from not allowing anyone to use the patent to making the patent available to everyone that can come up with the license fee. It is this flexibility which will be the test of RedHat's committment to Open Source.

Personally, I think that software patents are a very bad idea. However, given that they are part of the reality in which software developers must function we have to deal with them. RedHat has the opportunity to make a very big statement in favor of Open Source software by making their patents available for free to Open Source developers. They could put together a license that provides no cost licenses to OS developers, but also allows them to charge a fee for closed source developers. I think that, given RedHat's track record, they will do something very much like this.

The only way we can avoid the problems that software patents will continue to cause is to convince the powers that be that software patents should not be allowed. Unfortunately, it is very doubtful that that change in course will ever happen. Not only is bureaucratic inertia working against us, but too many large corporations (can anyone say Microsoft or Sun?) are wedded to the use of patents as leverage for competitive advantage.

Let's hope that Redhat does the right thing here and makes the patent licenses available for no cost to Open Source developers. It may be worthwhile to write to RedHat and encourage them to take this course.

the software patent business

[CmdrTaco (editor)]

Red Hat, it seems, has decided to get into the software patent business.

Hmm.. Apparently lwn.net thinks patenting software is a legitimate business.

Re:the software patent business

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a phrase, CmdrTaco, that even I, as a non native speaker of english, understand. "X had decided to get into the cocaine business" is perfectly clear in its meaning as well.

Maybe you just don't like lwn for some reason?

Thomas

Re:the software patent business

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. Who gives a fuck?

It doesn't matter what you think

[ObviousGuy]

As long as you smell the hypocrisy the RedHat is cooking!

What about MS in this deal

[CatPieMan]

Won't this have the potential to hurt MS embeded OSes as well as embeded linux? Maybe Redhat is just protecting themselves from having some other company come up and steal this patent out from under them and make Redhat pay someone else to liscense something that Redhat created in the first place. Not that I am a total Redhat supporter, but, we should wait and see what happens with this one.

-CPM

Re:What about MS in this deal

[ObviousGuy]

And they couldn't have simply released the new technology into the public domain thereby nullifying any patent attempt by a competitor?

Re:What about MS in this deal

[Ed Avis]

In a town where the mayor is handing out free guns, you'd better make sure you get some of the best guns for yourself. But the citizens would probably be better off if the mayor behaved more sensibly.

(BTW - I don't mean to start a gun control thread, just for the sake of argument, okay? Please feel free to post a better metaphor if you can think of one.)

Re:What about MS in this deal

[BCoates]

IANAL, but you don't need to take out a patent to stop someone else from patenting your invention--if you publish it before someone else patents it, their patent is invalid.

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:What about MS in this deal

[Triskaidekaphobia]

True, but it is cheaper to get the patent first than to fight the other person in court for it.

Re:What about MS in this deal

[3seas]

It would be much easier and cost effective to establish it as prior art. There are other ways to protect intellectual property intended for the "commons" or GPL then going to the patent office.

As we all know current IP laws are designed for the purpose of being able to apply constraints, that is to say "no. you cannot use".

Perhaps the greatest value of this is to preceive it as a test of weither or not a company can or will follow the FSF/GNU/GPL spirit.

Thee is always Debian.

Re:What about MS in this deal

[brsett]

True in theory, but not practice. If you hold the patent, onus is on the accused party to prove that they are using prior art. The patent office hasn't proven itself to be very devoted to spending the time to actually look for prior art on a patent tho, so someone could patent RH's tech after the fact. Red Hat may have noble intentions, only time will tell.

Re:What about MS in this deal

[jsnorman]

Alas, it is more complicated than merely protecting RH's invention.

By publishing they could protect the specific invention at least in so far as publication would establish a date of invention that would be incontrovertable. But what would prevent MS (or IBM, Sun, etc. but really, we all worry about MS) from claiming a patent on a prior invention that (MS would claim) both predated and anticipated RH's invention?

More critical, though, is the reality of patent warfare. If and when RH is sued, they need something to sue back with. Something broad, something interesting, something valid, etc. The more the better. That way, you can sue back -- or at least have a bargaining chip to offer for settlement. It is truly an arms race.

Re:What about MS in this deal

[BCoates]

But what would prevent MS (or IBM, Sun, etc. but really, we all worry about MS) from claiming a patent on a prior invention that (MS would claim) both predated and anticipated RH's invention?

Nothing prevents MS, etc. from doing that anyway, except for the patent office's notoriously lax investigations of new patents.

More critical, though, is the reality of patent warfare. [...] It is truly an arms race.

Undefended patents are lost... Won't RH have to sue (or get a licence agreement out of) anyone who infringes on these patents in the meantime, in order to preserve them for the fight against MS?

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:What about MS in this deal

[finkployd]

Let's talk about gun control, I'm all for it :)

There is no "best gun" (unless you count a BMG), it makes no difference how big your bullet is or how 1337 your gun is if you don't practice good gun control. Someone who is very skilled at gun control, armed with only an old single action revolver will have no problem against someone with poor gun control who is holding an H&K USP.

Finkployd

Re:What about MS in this deal

[Ed Avis]

OK, how about large clubs with nails sticking out. In that case size does matter :-).

Re:What about MS in this deal

[pthisis]

Undefended patents are lost

No they aren't.

Undefended trademarks are lost. Patents are often submarined (ie not defended for years until the patented idea is in widespread use, then you can sue more people for money), the canonical example is what Unisys did with the GIF patent.

I am not a lawyer. Consult a lawyer if you need legal advice.

Sumner

Re:What about MS in this deal

[BCoates]

Oops, damn, I think you got me there.

Re:What about MS in this deal

[pnatural]

There is no "best gun" (unless you count a BMG)

The best gun by far is the BFG. If I recall, the canonical definition is Big Fucking Gun, but I suppose it would be reasonable to use the phase Best Fucking Gun, as it is just as accurate.

Your mileage will vary, of course, but I have always preferred the Rocket Launcher.

Re:What about MS in this deal

[Anonymous Coward]

An exceptionally eloquent version of "Gun control means being able to hit your target" and well said.

Re:What about MS in this deal

[jellybear]

Furthermore, being able to threaten a countersuit is an effective way to reach a settlement. Sadly, it is sometimes easier to stock up on "defensive" patents which can be used to threaten, than it is to actually go into litigation and challenge patents on prior art.

Re:What about MS in this deal

[AJWM]

And they couldn't have simply released the new technology into the public domain

You can still do that with the patent, and that guarantees (well, in theory) that nobody else will be granted a patent anyway. Given some of the PTO's decisions, merely PD'ing it without a patent gives no such guarantee.

This is what Bell Labs did with their software patent on the Unix SUID bit -- they formally released the patent into the public domain.

Re:What about MS in this deal

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just DYING to start a flamewar, aren't you?

Re:What about MS in this deal

[jsnorman]

"Nothing prevents MS, etc. from doing that [filing a broader patent with a claimed invention date prior to RH's] anyway"

Right, but RH is in a much much better position if it has its own patent for several reasons. First, MS's patent may not be granted because of RH's patent (MS may end up "provoking an interference" which would at least mean that the PTO gets to decide who invented first, and whether the inventions really overlap). Second, if MS does get its patent on some prior, broader technology, RH's patent is possibly still valid -- it could continue to exist if RH argues that it is an improvement (not a technical improvement, for those patent prosecution attorneys reading this) on the MS claimed prior invention. Then, both MS and RH would potentially have covering patents, and that could force MS to have to negotiate with RH.

Without a patent, RH is pretty much stuck with a "first inventor" defense that has all kinds of weaknesses.

I won't address the other point (patents that are not "defended" are not necessarily lost) since others have alrady.

Software Patents = Bad

[smcavoy]

Is it not agreed in OSS community that software patents are bad?? The argument that their protecting the community is garbage. The money effort should be put into fighting software patents.

Re:Software Patents = Bad

[cemcnulty]

Is it not agreed in OSS community

No, regardless of what might come after this phrase.

-Chuck

Re:Software Patents = Bad

[Wyzard]

Software patents are bad because they facilitate "patent attacks" - companies that get a patent on some ludicrous thing (like pop-under ads) and then use it to sue other companies for infringement.

If Red Hat is applying for these patents in order to defend themselves against such an attack, (as another poster put it, pretty much the only way to prove prior art these days is to get the patent yourself), that's fine. What's troubling is the state of the political/business world in which they feel they have to do it.

Re:Software Patents = Bad

[smcavoy]

But software patents can seriously harm Opensource software, by "protecting" themselves and the community, they are legitmizing the use of them.
It's really hard to fight against something that you are supporting....

typo?

[BCoates]

Is it just me or do both patents end with the patch for the atomic file lookup?

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:typo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the world could end if some nasties use "atomic file lookup"

Re:typo?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was supposed to be a chronic file lockup.
I otoh have patented the atomic kneedrop.

Is "atomic file look-up" something new?

[jc42]

They don't seem to define quite what it means, but as near as I can tell, it's pretty much the same thing as the atomup updates that database systems have been doing for a few decades.

What is there in Red Hat's patent application that is actually new?

Sounds like they have become ignorant...

[numbuscus]

...to the community from which the spawned. I can understand them trying to 'protect' their 'intellectual property' from other firms such as M$, I would just like to urge them to remain sympathetic to the 'cause' and offer their software as a *service*. If they don't, there is little chance they could catch up with true, open source options such as Apache.

What's so special about TUX that they could patent it? Sorry for MY ignorance.

Re:Sounds like they have become ignorant...

[larry bagina]

What's so special about TUX that they could patent it? Sorry for MY ignorance.

"A Method for getting non-employees to do write software that you resell"

Re:Sounds like they have become ignorant...

[NDPTAL85]

Catch up? How hard can it be to catch up to a free option? All Red Hat would have to do is sell just one copy of Tux and they've "caught up" and surpassed Apache.

What if this could defeat GNU license?

[Henry V .009]

I just had an unecessarily alarmist thought. Could this be used to defeat the GNU license? Sure, you still release your source code under the GNU license, but also charge everyone for using 'your' patents.

Re:What if this could defeat GNU license?

[JordanH]

• I just had an unecessarily alarmist thought. Could this be used to defeat the GNU license? Sure, you still release your source code under the GNU license, but also charge everyone for using 'your' patents.

I don't think so, but maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. I think these clauses from the GPL pretty much cover this potential problem (along with the GPL as a whole and the associated rights that everyone are granted who receives GPLd code):

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

ooohhhh... quoting the GPL on Slashdot... (-1:Karmawhore)

Re:What if this could defeat GNU license?

[MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM]

Not only do you want the source code, now you want it free of charges. Where do you draw the line?

Re:What if this could defeat GNU license?

[mikeee]

No, I don't think so. If we have to pay Redhat to use it, they can't distribute with violating the GPL. Oddly, if Redhat has patented Linux, I can still distribute it (but you can be sued by them for using); however I think they have to grant a royality-free license for Linux use in order to be able to distribute it themselves, (Alan Cox said something to this effect in a discussion on the real-time Linux patents, IIRC).

I suspect this is just a defensive move to protect Linux from somebody else patenting its algorythms, and maybe to get a MAD thing going with other software vendors where RH can retaliate if they start to enforce other patents against Linux.

Re:What if this could defeat GNU license?

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually just had an unnecessary thought. The GPL forces you to essentially give up (or rather, provide a free license for) rights on the code you release. If the work is patented, you are obligated to protect the users of the code from the patents (which, if they're your patents, isn't terribly difficult).

Re:What if this could defeat GNU license?

[blakestah]

No, they cannot release under the GNU license and also protect the patent on the GPL'd software.

However, nothing prevents them from charging proprietary software companies from using the invention described in the patent.

Re:What if this could defeat GNU license?

[Dr. Evil]

I love the GPL. It seems to have thought of everything.

Just stating the obvious, but as I read it, Redhat has either granted license for the patents compatible with the GPL, or Redhat is in violation of the GPL for tainting the code with patents incompatible with the GPL.

This is a beautiful opportunity for Redhat and other companies to make money similar to Troll Tech: Charge license fees for closed-source commercial use.

p.s. You're a karma whore.

Re:What if this could defeat GNU license?

[MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM]

Can I touch it? Plz Thx

Summary

[Triskaidekaphobia]

The first, "Embedded protocol objects", seems to be saying that if you have a webpage that consists of dynamic and static content then the static content can be cached for faster access. Hardly novel.

The first, "Method and apparatus for atomic file look-up", basically says that it is a good idea if you can see if something is in a cache before requesting the operation that would put it in the cache. Again, not particularly revolutionary.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have examples where this has already been implemented? This is not a criticism. I'm thinking more along the lines of something that would defeat their application because it already presently exists.

Most patents are crap. Personally, I think IP issues are the reason the US is/was in a recession. I mean, hell, there's a patent on how to move CDs from one location to another using essentially a 2 axis arm. Ooo. Guess what? Patent office approved it. There's got to be a jukebox out there that already did this. I find that more insulting that one-click.

Re:Summary

[Triskaidekaphobia]

No, I don't have examples.

The 2nd one is probably the one most likely to have prior art. You'd need to find software which has a cache and which has a "if it isn't in the cache, don't do it at all" codepath.

Personally, I don't mind software patents too much. True, there are some well publicised stupidities; but I feel they do offer protection to smaller inventors.

Re:Summary

[tunah]

Great, but what about the second?

Re:Summary

[Triskaidekaphobia]

Someones owns the patent on "Method for describing a plurality a patents on an online discussion forum"; so I had to pretend that there was only one. Sorry.

Re:Summary

[BarefootClown]

Thirteenth post!

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

if you have a webpage that consists of dynamic and static content then the static content can be cached for faster access

What, you mean like Slashdot itself and the old index_F.shtml? That was a server-side cache since generating the pages was unbelievably slow at times.
These days they solve it with brute force, but before Andover, there was a different approach to solving these problems.

I just hope...

[Devil's BSD]

I hope they make it open source. Otherwise, they won't be Red Hat--they'd be bald! =)

Pushy companies.

[Decimal]

Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux... Ironically, this makes it the best weapon Linux has against Microsoft.

Re:Pushy companies.

[JordanH]

Agreed. This is not a bad thing as long as RedHat only uses their patents defensively.

Surely, RedHat and others must be concerned about patent suits creating huge clouds of FUD surrounding OSS. Without some patents of their own to attack with, it could be something that could trip them up seriously at some point.

Re:Pushy companies.

[archen]

Agreed. This is not a bad thing as long as RedHat only uses their patents defensively

Well really what else would redhat do with them? If they actually did try to charge money for a patent or try to stomp someone for infringement, it would be like a bullet to the head for the entire company. Everyone (myself included) would basically jump ship and use another distro.

Re:Pushy companies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of that kind of people have already switched to Debian, or never left Slackware in the first place.

Re:Pushy companies.

[harlows_monkeys]

Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux

Let's see...let's count the similarities between RH and MS. #1, RH is the biggest Linux company. #2...oops, no number 2.

What they heck are you talking about?

Re:Pushy companies.

[reaper20]

How is this +5 Insightful? What kind of Microsoft-like behavior has RH done in the past?

Re:Pushy companies.

[larry bagina]

Asswipe, Red hat doesn't make money by letting leeches like you download their latest distro for free (which costs RHAT money in the form of bandwidth) -- they make money by selling expensive support contracts to comapanies replacing some proprietary Unix with Linux, and they don't give a shit about how Red hat uses patents.

Re:Pushy companies.

[Flower]

Yes, but it's people like me who reccomend linux distros to management and I would actively torpedo any RH solution if they were stupid enough to betray the community with some patent issue.

Heck, I could download RH 7.3 for free, install it on a thousand servers and get my support from a third party. Redhat would never see a dime. From the articles I've read which have reviewed professional support for linux I'm extremely confident that I have more choices than just RH for a support contract.

You vastly undersell the value of RH's branding and goodwill within the linux community imo.

Re:Pushy companies.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have been saying many years ago, to be on
the lookout about Red Hat. We now know that we were wrong!
Red Hat is in good standing with the community,
so unless proven otherwise the default disposition is to
leave Red Hat alone and consider them friend.

I was very vocal several
years ago against Red Hat on slashdot. Now that
I was wrong, I will not stand up against them without
good reasons. We know our friends, and we know
our enemies. Red Hat has been a friend.

Re:Pushy companies.

[Chris Johnson]

No. It doesn't. You can't beat Microsoft at its own game. The reason Linux scares Microsoft is because of the aspects that are NOT Microsoft's own game. Are they mounting jihad against coders of binary stuff for Linux? No, they are mounting jihad against the GPL- against mandatory cooperation and compulsory openness and the absence of things like seizing and exploiting intellectual property.

If you are not going to trust Microsoft's threat appraisal, what gives you the idea you're better qualified to gauge threats to them? Some vague notion that to beat them you have to act like them? They like that. It's their turf, and they'll bury anyone who tries to play that way.

and from the looks of it

[waspleg]

it's also been awhile

Filed: August 22, 2001

if they were gonna open this stuff up i think they would have already

and after reading both filings i can safely say i have fucking idea what they're patenting, descriptions being pretty vague, anyone else knwo what these patents are for?

Re:and from the looks of it

[SwellJoe]

it's also been awhile

Filed: August 22, 2001

if they were gonna open this stuff up i think they would have already

Where have you been, man? This stuff has been opened up. It is in development kernels already. Heck it might even be in the shipping Red Hat kernel (TUX was offered in my most recent Red Hat installation, and these patents regard nifty stuff Ingo wrote for TUX).

These things are a part of the kernel. Red Hat can't help but open it up.

Re:and from the looks of it

[waspleg]

why did they file for patents if it's part of the kernel? isn't it already covered by a license =)

Re:and from the looks of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it may be covered by a license, but licenses are not as formal as patents are. Licenses are contracts where two parties agree to the rights of use of whatever. A patent gives you, basically, a "legal" ownership in the eyes of the government. If it goes to court, it would be easier to say say "Hey I have a patent of exactly that" vs "I have a licesne that hasn't really been tested in court and is kinda vague and you could please ignorance to even knowing the software was covered under it".

Re:and from the looks of it

[byran lei]

>why did they file for patents if it's part of the kernel? isn't it
>already covered by a license =)
>
To keep from being hit by a submarine patent lanched by a Microsoft Stooge like you.

So what?

[GravySkin]

Let them patent it. Let them charge money for it. Does it make Linux less useful or more useful? Just because Linux is free does not mean that every fucking program ever compiled to run on it must be. Get your head out of your asses and start thinking about making a buck, feeding a family, running a successful business.

Re:So what?

[Triskaidekaphobia]

Who says they're going to charge a licensing fee. They could be defensive - if RH hold the patent, then an evil person can't come along, patent the idea and demand fees.

The demand for fees might fail because of prior art, but claiming the patent first is probably cheaper and easier than fighting subsequent battles.

Re:So what?

[michael (troll)]

Right. Red Hat is the most used corporate distrobution. Why? Cause corporate managers like big companies... it gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside when doing things like, say, choosing operating systems. Just go to your boss and suggest installing something called "Slackware" on your servers and just note the way he looks at you! Red Hat has a big red logo, their software comes in nice pretty boxes, they offer live, humanoid support, and most of all, like is mentioned in this article, there is money transfer somewhere. That makes your boss raise his eyebrows... remember, every corporate manager is the pointy-haried boss from Dilbert&reg. Likewise, I think SuSE is the European Red Hat. They don't even let you download ISOs! But they are a great distro... but you gotta pay up!! Remember... some things ARE worth paying for.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

As just another closed source, proprietary software
company, RedHat will be an utter failure. Microsoft
already has that market locked up. Remaining
different may marginalize them somewhat, but
competing head-on will destroy them.

Re:So what?

[ActiveSX]

They're both implemented in the Linux kernel, not separate programs.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo. Ok, it's stated a bit more coarsely than I would have, but the sentiment is there. OSS is for the most part fantastic, but it doesn't do everything people want/need. If you don't want to pay, make do with whatever other solutions you can come up with, but for deity's sake stop jumping on everyone because they decide they want to *sell* software that happens to function on your OS of choice. Sheesh.

[eg, I'll be buying StarOffice as well as continuing to use OpenOffice. Why? Because I need to be able to tell my customers, with some authority, what the differences are so they can make an informed decision]

Re:So what?

[MoneyT]

It's not a matter of just the current program or making linux more or less useful, it's a matter of setting a precident. What people seem to forget about big things like this is that they're all spawning points for new paths and ideas. If you allow a patent for software that at one point was freely distributable and useable for whatever purpose you see fit. Able to be modified and redistributed as long as the source remained intact, you open a whole can of worms.

Can we limit the use of this software to paying customers (despite the inclusion of source), enforcable through such things as the DMCA.

Can we refuse to let people reverse engineer and redistribute the software?

Can we limit the source to only paying customers?

It's not a matter of closing software and making proprietary software to earn a buck (see Apple's Aqua for that). That tactic is fine with me, release something for an Open Source OS that's proprietary, as long as it's released under that licence. But what happens when you start patenting GPL software? That's what makes this interesting.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen GravySkin. Stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be restated. It's just something that's going to have to happen to move Linux to the next level.

After all how are you going to win anything with an OS (no matter how good it is) if everyone distributing it is having trouble making any money? Profitable companies in the Linux business are a good thing and their success is going to push the free as in both beer and speech things along with them.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you take a look and see if anyone had their head up their ass?

evil empire

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone spell "Evil Empire"? :-) Let's see how they use those patents before we pass judgement.

Unfortunately...

[Groucho]

...they are looking towards the future.

If the US patent office allows you to patent knives and forks, RH is assuming that they will have to patent the spork to guarantee their future rights to use it without paying royalties.

This just shows how sick the patent process is at the moment. I only wonder why someone hasn't patented callable functions--prior art hasn't seemed to be much of an obstacle in the past.

G

Re:Unfortunately...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same tactic that Microsoft generally uses with regard to Software Patents. They have a bunch of 'em and they don't sue others for using the method patented, but they hold 'em because it keeps some upstart do-nothing company from extorting money from Microsoft.

However, since a Linux company has now done the same, it's okay, and software patents are now kewl.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Groucho]

Okay, what patents has Microsoft filed and not used, purely in potential self-defense?

Oh Gee, there's Clear Type, an idea which they seem to have stolen from Apple.

So tell me, what groundbreaking ideas have they patented in their self defense?

(What else have they come up with? NT, which is lifted from the OS/2 codebase, which seems to be based on VMS. SQL server, which was licensed from Sybase. The GUI, which they stole from Apple, who stole it from Xerox. Disk compression, which they stole from Stac. Their TCP/IP stack, which they stole from BSD. Their version of Kerberos, which they lifted from an open spec. Wow! The government needs to protect these invaluable innovators!)

G

Re:Unfortunately...

[RedGuard]

Microsoft wrote the first version of OS/2 and
Windows NT was to have been the second version.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Twylite]

OS/2 was a cooperative project between IBM and MS. IBM designed and wrote the low-level stuff, including the kernel, security system, object system, and object communication (OLE, DDE, etc). MS did the pretty stuff on top, all the while putting more work into Windows 3.0.

When Windows was ridiculously more successful than OS/2, MS licensed a huge amount of IBMs technology behind OS/2, defined a 32 bit API (which evolved slightly to become the Win32 API) and build NT. In the process they removed all of the crap that made OS/2 difficult to use. We know that crap better as "security features" and "robust object model".

(No, this is not a joke. MS intentionally removed a whole lot of security from IBM's code to create NT 3.1 and 3.51. Then it removed even more to create NT 4.0. The original design was sufficient for Orange book B1 classification.

Prior art.

[WasterDave]

There's something I do not understand about patents, like, how on earth can this be patented? Specifically the first patent:

"Dynamic and static protocol objects are mixed together at a server and included in a dynamic reply to a communication request made by a client application."

Ahhhhm, so a client requests something and a reply is made that is partially dynamic and partially static? So, like php then? Like perl cgi pages? Like any reporting engine ever written?

And, check this out, step by step explainations of how the code works. This shit only exists to keep lawyers happy.

Don't get it.
Dave

Re:Prior art.

[Narchie Troll]

IANAL.
The patent is unlikely to stand up under prior-art challenges if Red Hat tries to extricate licensing fees from implementors of similar software.

My best guess is that these patents are strictly to avoid the situation of some company with plenty of money to burn *cough*MS*cough* patenting them first and using the patents as a club to take down companies that can't afford the legal expenses of challenging the patent.

Re:Prior art.

[jkirby]

The USPTO is at it again. What a crock of shit. I have never read anything in my life so rediculus. What is even more amussing is the posting from supposedly technacly savy /. readers who think this is something great!

Hahaha... The NT kernel goes evewn further... It keeps the cached data lying around too so that not only are subsequent opens fast, but so is subsequent IO.

Haahaha...

Jamey Kirby

Re:Prior art.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft historically hasn't used their patents that way.

In fact, they've used patents mostly 'defensively' in the same fashion you suppose RedHat may be doing.

Golly.

Re:Prior art.

[Dwonis]

Just because MS hasn't done something doesn't mean it won't. In 1995, who thought MS would try to coerce its users to rent Windows instead of buying it?

Re:Prior art.

[Anonymous Coward]

how on earth can this be patented?

It depends on how narrow their specific method is. They're (almost) certain not to be granted a patent on generic processes that combine static and dynamic responses, but if they have a very specific circumstance, an equally specific method, and the PTO examiner can't find where it's been done before, then it's patentable. The titles of these things are generally much more broad than the actual content.

What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel, IBM, Sony, Philips, et al file for thousands of patents every year. I say go for it, Red Hat.
You are in business to make money. Do what you have to do. That's reality.

Re:What's the problem?

[MoneyT]

The difference being, Intel, IBM, Sony, Philips, Microsoft, Apple, EA, Blizzard et al don't release their software and hardware as open source / open spec.

The big deal isn't the patent...

[flatlineloc]

It's what they do with it. I hope redhat sticks to the open source model, but if they need revenues to remain in business we may see them be forced to "villify" themselves. They already seem to at least try to do a lot of good for the opensource community, pushing linux in schools, donating training resources... I think we can cut them a little slack. Yea, I know slippery slope and all that.

Re:The big deal isn't the patent...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't agree. I think it would be good if Red Hat played hardball, and culled some of the weaker players from
the field. A little bit of consolidation would be good for Linux. Leaner, meaner, tougher. Take no prisoners.

Re:The big deal isn't the patent...

[MoneyT]

(Posted without +1 because it isn't worth the attention, posted logged in because I'm not a coward)

Mini Rant:

Wait a minute, isn't cutting out extra stuff and making thins "leaner and meaner" the reason why so many people hate Apple's approach to things? Cut down on all the garbage and stick with a couple standards and things work better. But isn't choice a good thing? Don't we want support and the ability to use everything and anything regardless of how it might affect our performance?

Re:The big deal isn't the patent...

[Wyzard]

No, it isn't just what they do with it. A patent is supposed to indicate that someone has uniquely invented something. From what people are saying here, neither of these patents seems to be anything new - the technologies are already widely used.

If the technologies are already widely used, that's prior art, and nobody should be able to patent them. Not Red Hat. Not Microsoft. Not me.

The reason they feel they need to do this is, presumably, to defend themselves. If they get the patents, nobody else can get them and use them as weapons. If the USPO finds they can't be granted because they're not novel, then (presumably) they can't be granted to anyone else either and therefore still can't be used as a weapon. This makes sense.

But it's still wrong, from a fundamental, moral point of view. No matter how it's used, nobody should be able to get a patent for something they didn't invent.

Hard to say...

[kcbrown]

Back when RedHat was a privately owned company, I'd have had little trouble believing that any software patents they acquired would be used for White Hat purposes only.

But RedHat is a publicly-traded company now, so it has the same "duty to the shareholders" that every other large corporation in the U.S. has. Hence, I have a lot less faith in the company regarding the use of stuff like software patents only for Good. In short, I won't be surprised at all if they use these patents to smack down other commercial Linux distributions, all for Profit at Any Cost.

Only if a Good Guy retains a controlling share of the company would that not apply.

Re:Hard to say...

[Twylite]

This is bulshit which is only allowed to survive because no-one raises complaints against company directors for neglecting their fidiciary duty.

A company is a juristic person, and the directors are entrusted with making decisions on behalf of the company. Their behaviour is described fidiciary duty, and includes as two of its most important requirements the wellbeing of the COMPANY (not the shareholders) and that the company act in a manner consistent with the law (i.e. the directors are its morality and conscience).

A company which screws its support base in order to make money is NOT acting in its best interests. If such action is taken and doubt is cast by the market on the long-term viability of the company, then the directors may have failed in their fidiciary duty, and any shareholder can raise a complaint with the appropriate body.

I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I don't even like redhat linux. At all.

But, as much as I dislike their product, I just get the strange feeling inside, that their company isn't run by the complete and utter assholes we see everywhere else.

To suspect them of pulling any dirty is just damn wrong. Maybe it's just me wanting at least one company out there to be ethical, some really corny wishful thinking on my part, but what have they ever done to you? They deserve an an apology.

Besides, they might be able to stick it to M$ somehow...

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but what have they ever done to you?

RPM ;)

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Not to me, I still download tarballs.

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[reaper20]

To suspect them of pulling any dirty is just damn wrong.

Not to mention if they were, I'm sure some of the more vocal redhat employees would say something about it.

If Alan Cox doesn't even want to come to the USA because of ridiculous idealism (DMCA) - do we really think he wouldn't say anything about Red Hat doing unethical things?

One of Red Hats strengths is the brain trust of talented linux hackers - even if some PHB jerk were to start closing parts of Red Hat Linux tomorrow, methinks we'd see a huge exodus of talented people leaving Red Hat.

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[rubinson]

But, as much as I dislike their product, I just get the strange feeling inside, that their company isn't run by the complete and utter assholes we see everywhere else.

I suspect that you are correct. However, it's largely irrelevant whether or not the people running the company are assholes or not - the company is still required to be competitve and make a profit. Especially since it's public.

When it comes down to it, a company will always choose profits over ethics -- else, it won't survive. This isn't to say that a company can't do good while still making a profit and doesn't mean that RedHat can't be a good member of the free-software/open source community; however, we must always be aware of where their priorities truly lie. If it comes down to it, RedHat will not hesitate to sacrifice the community in order to save itself.

(A good read in this regard is the history of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream. This is a company that has always tried to do good. Whenever it came down to it, however, they always chose profits over doing good. And for a very understandable reason -- if they hadn't, they would have been bought out by Hagen-Daas or another competitor. Nevertheless, it shows you who they really are.)

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alan Cox doesn't want to come to the USA because of ridiculous, idealistic bullheaded nationalism.

Yes, he's a member of the Hippie Nation.

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[HiThere]

Well, I am a Red Hat supporter. I have bought several copies (not to say I never use CheapBytes, but I generall buy all of the x.0 releases).

And I'm going to be watching how they handle this quite closely. I won't say that I disapprove of the move ... yet. It all depends on what they do with these patents. Totally.

Their stock prospectus indicated that they would devote much effort to maintaining a good relationship with the Open Source community (I forget the exact wording). So they don't need to abuse this. It could be a good thing. E.g.: "Software may use this patent freely, provided it is licensed under the GPL, and the code is made available to Red Hat. Otherwise special arrangements are available. Please contact our lawyers." If they used that I would have no problem at all. But I can also imagine other scenarios. When there is so much flux, perhaps the wisest choice is to defer decision.

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes down to it, a company will always choose profits over ethics

That is an utterly ridicoulous statement.

First off- no company gets the opportunity to choose between pure profit and pure 'ethics' as you term it. It's a fine balancing act. If that were not the case, companies would be reported all the time for doing the kind of thing Enron did, and Union Carbide did in Bhopal.

Second- your term 'ethics' is utterly ridiculous. There are good ethics and bad ethics. Using the word the way you did is the equivalent of saying 'it is temperature outside today.' It can be a cold or a hot temperature, and companies can practice good or bad ethics.

Enough for now. Just felt like you could learn from my criticism.

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[LoonXTall]

Amen!!

Until the day that I can do './configure --enable-multibyte --enable-perl-interp' on a binary RPM, I will hate it with a passion. Figuring out how to do it on a source RPM is pointless, since nobody distributes those anyway because the "provide the source" clause is fulfilled by the tarball...

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[Dolly_Llama]

Reverse Polish Mutation???

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[rubinson]

First off- no company gets the opportunity to choose between pure profit and pure 'ethics' as you term it.

I think that you're misunderstanding what I said; I may have been unclear. I never intended to say that a company will always choose profit over ethics. Rather, when forced to choose between behaving ethically and being profitable, a company must choose profitability -- else, it won't survive.

Second- your term 'ethics' is utterly ridiculous. There are good ethics and bad ethics. Using the word the way you did is the equivalent of saying 'it is temperature outside today.'

From dictionary.com:

ethic:
1. A set of principles of right conduct.
2. A theory or a system of moral values.

Just felt like you could learn from my criticism.

Re:I'm far from being a Redhat apologist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Figuring out how to do it on a source RPM is pointless, since nobody distributes those anyway because the "provide the source" clause is fulfilled by the tarball

Don't talk out of your fat ass. Most of the packages I've downloaded recently have had srpms - and even if you don't want that, you can get the source out of it. Fucking FUD spreading dickwit.

This has been proposed in the past as a defense.

[SwellJoe]

I recall a few year back, this was discussed amongst GNU folks, and others as a mechanism to prevent proprietary vendors from locking 'us' (us being Open Source developers, users and businesses) out of important inventions.

I have only seen one 'iffy' thing ever come out of Red Hat (the RHN server, which is an in-house secret...though they appear to be helpful with the Current developers), so I tend to believe they have no intention of using this offensively against Open Source companies or users.

Besides, I seem to recall the GPL protects us against anyone integrating incompatibly licensed code into GPL software. TUX is part of the Linux kernel, thus it cannot be restricted or fees enforced on its use. Red Hat would have a bear of a time rewriting TUX independently of the kernel (Ingo could do it, of course), but the damage is done. Those inventions (and inventions they are...Ingo does really cool stuff, this isn't a one-click patent folks) are already in the development kernels. We (the community) already own these developments.

So, what I'm trying to say is:

Thank you very much, Ingo and Red Hat. I am very appreciative of the interesting inventions you have given to us. I forward to learning about them, using them, and enjoying the benefits they give us. And boy, that sure was clever of you to patent it, so that Microsoft will have a bit of trouble stepping on your toes in the future. Way to play hardball!

Doesn't matter

[awptic]

The GPL requires anyone holding a patent on the software to allow others to freely use/modify it.
From the GPL license:

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 only thing this patent prevents is from others creating proprietary versions of the technology in question; which, IMO, is a Good Thing(tm). In fact, in the thread about this on the LKML someone brought up that the FSF even encourages doing this.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Zapdos]

The GPL requires anyone holding a patent on the software to allow others to freely use/modify it.
From the GPL license:

Yes on that piece of software, but not on the methods or technology.

Re:Doesn't matter

[MisterBlister]

In fact, in the thread about this on the LKML someone brought up that the FSF even encourages doing this.

Whoever brought that up is full of shit. RMS is against software patents, period, end of story.

Yeah RMS isn't the entire FSF, but he basically sets the policy. And you won't find any official documentation or website backing up that claim that the FSF encourages patents on Free software.

Please refrain from passing along bogus info like that in the future unless you can back it up....

Re:Doesn't matter

[LoonXTall]

we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Does that "everyone" cover the entire world, or only those using GPL code that incorporates the patented stuff?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't RMS's politics as red as his blood?

I thought so. It figures he'd be against software patents.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Dwonis]

I would think that "everyone" means "everyone".

Re:Doesn't matter

[loucura!]

No. 'Everyone' means the recipients of GPL'ed software that incorporates said patent. Which means, that they can release GPL'ed software based on the patent, and anyone can make changes to it and freely distribute it.

The GPL does not force someone to release all rights to a patent. RedHat -CAN- charge proprietary vendors for using the concept under patent, or prohibit the use of the concept altogether. All the GPL states is, that if you have a software patent and you want to release GPL software, you disclaim any licensing fees regarding the use of the patent.

Re:Doesn't matter

[SLi]

Yes on that piece of software, but not on the methods or technology.

Wrong.
Patents cover methods and technology. Copyright covers the software itself.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Hugonz]

No, it means everyone.

Re:Doesn't matter

[benb]

> The only thing this patent prevents is from others creating
> proprietary versions of the technology in question

What is "proprietary"? The GPL is known to shut out other Free Software licenses (like the MPL) in other cases as well.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[toupsie]

Gee, this is something that you would hear Linux Zealots bashing Mac Zealots for. Sure it isn't Mandrake, SuSE or Slackware doing the dirty deed. Like the frog in the frying pan, this is the first notch on the burner. Profit for these sort of companies relies on them being able to differentiate themselves from their competition. Staking down differences with patents is a common step for "Evil Closed Source OS" companies. Apple and Microsoft do it all the time. RedHat is following their path.

Welcome to the club, RedHat. Don't worry, I still love ya on my cheap x86 servers. Your ISOs power my lot. I would hate to waste my Macs for the same job. However, the Xserve is an appealing option for the future. Rack 'n Roll!

Protection against MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder, if any, what impacts this will have on MS placing IIS 6.0 at the kernel level?

...but no I don't agree with software patents either. With RH first attacking other distros with their discount and now them placing patents on software...I wonder if we will see RH as the next MS (- the security problems and - the whole stealing software thing) in a decade or so?

License terms.

[Anonymous Coward]

One has to wonder (if their patents are granted) what their licensing terms will be.... free for open source, or a tool to try and screw other Linux distros?"

What's the big deal? The GPL is pretty clear on this:

if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

So, Redhat can't use these patents in an abusive manner unless they're going to release this stuff in some kind of software that's released under a GPL-incompatible license.

Last i checked, Redhat had a policy of releasing software they write under Free Software licenses. So unless i'm badly mistaken, or Redhat is moving away from Free Software, which i haven't heard they were doing, then this is nothing at all to worry about.

Now, if redhat were going to announce they were going to start writing software and releasing it under non-free licenses, i would be worried indeed.

But for now.. Haven't you people ever heard of a defensive patent? Maybe a bit unecessary, maybe a bit worrying, but this isn't the end of the world.

- super ugly ultraman anonymous cowards filtered. if their comments aren't worth so much as a nom de plume why should i read them?

Re:License terms.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask for the Kickstart installserver, up2date satellite server etc ...

Flo(@rfc822.org)

Damn right they should file patents

[tjwhaynes]

So Redhat has done some significant work on the TUX webserver and it's patentable. They should DEFINTELY file those patents.

Now don't get me wrong. Software patents are generally bad news - they are too long (even 10 years in software is an eternity) and a lot aren't even worth the paper they are written on. But for the software industry today they are part and parcel of developing software and protecting the work that a software company has put in.

Patents aren't like trademarks - there is no 'patent dilution' to worry about. So RedHat can be extremely selective about who is allowed to benefit from the patent (even free of charge) and who is never going to get a license. This is particularly important - MS has a vested interest in watching over a lot of the developments in the TUX webserver as TUX is the main performance competitor to IIS. If RedHat patents its best ideas, it makes a public record of the 'invention'. If MS patents something that RedHat came up with, yes, prior art may be used to fight a legal battle to have the patent nulled but that is considerably more expensive than simply patenting the good stuff first.

Now I look forward to the day when software patents last 3 years from filing (because I dont see software patents ever going away totally). I look forward to the day when all software patents are published PRIOR to the patent being awarded so that many eyes may suggest prior art challenges. But until that day comes, Free and Open source companies had better use the weapons at hand to protect their assets. And if that means filing patents so be it.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Re:Damn right they should file patents

[mickwd]

But for the software industry today they are part and parcel of developing software and protecting the work that a software company has put in.

Copyright is a protection of (intellectual) "work". If you really want to "protect" your work, don't open source it. Patents are a protection of inventions - new, original, non-obvious inventions - not just work. Just because you've done some "work", you shouldn't be able to charge people who want to do similar things.

RedHat can be extremely selective about who is allowed to benefit from the patent (even free of charge) and who is never going to get a license.

So now a single patent can be used to completely exclude any company, individual or group of individuals from doing something someone else did first? You really think this is a good thing?

So open source people should beat Microsoft through patents ? Yeah, forget all this technical work, making a better, more secure and reliable product than theirs. It's too hard. Let's just hire a couple of lawyers, and keep filing patents until we get one really good one we can really screw them with. That'll really make the world a better place for 100's of millions of people, won't it.

What if Red Hat gets sufficient patents to really hurt Microsoft financially? What happens then? If Microsoft are really hurting, they would just have to buy Red Hat. Remember that $40 billion in cash? Screw everything else in the company. Hell, it'll probably also hold up the development of Linux for a good few months. Not all the programmers will be able to find jobs elsewhere just like that, even if the Alan Cox's and similar are famous enough to do so. And then Microsoft get the patents. And then they can use them to screw over the rest of the world - especially the Linux community.

No, using patents in this way is not good. Look on it as a necessary evil at best.

I agree with your last paragraph, but I look forward to the day when big companies and small have all become so sick of being screwed over by patent leeches, and third-world countries with a more enlightened attitude to progress and fairness on this issue have begun overtaking the USA, that the whole concept of software patenting ideas (in the USA and everywhere else) has been thrown out.

Re:Damn right they should file patents

[tgke]

Microsoft buying and owning all RedHat patents looks like an evil thing to me for sure. On the other hand, as far as I see in the patent description (I'm not the expert), the credits are put on Ingo's name, and not the RedHat company, so, I hope this is a non-issue.

Re:Damn right they should file patents

[Twylite]

Has anyone actually bothered to read these patents? I've browsed through half of the /. comments so far, and seen only patents vs. the GPL arguments. Where this any other company being discussed, they would have been shredded for patenting the patently obvious.

The first patent covers an HTTP server in kernel space which caches static and dynamic parts of pages separately. Yay. ASP (with caching on) and JSP do exactly this, but not in kernel space (at least, we're assuming ASP doesn't run in kernel space). So they're going to patent something because they were the first to think of putting it into the kernel (supposedly). What complete bullshit!

The second patent is even more ludicrous. Keep a cache of open files (name->handle map by implication) to improve performance - you don't have to open the file again if its already open. Heck, why didn't I think of that?! Ooops, I did. Used it several times.

RedHat has not invented anything. Its filing for bogus patents, probably as a defensive tactic. And as the GNU proponents have kindly pointed out, RedHat is fscked if it doesn't license the patents appropriate (to allow free software development) because they will then be violating the GPL by integrating TUX into the kernel. And if they don't do this then TUX won't be covered by their patent. Doh!

Maybe somebody needs to gather hard evidence of prior art an sumit it to the USPTO before they award this patent ...?

I got out just in time

[42forty-two42]

I'm glad I switched to Gentoo Linux before this...

Re:I got out just in time

[MagicKoala]

I'm having a look at Gentoo myself. I still use redhat a fair bit (the main reason I don't switch completely is because I don't have the motivation, not because I think redhat is a terribly good distro).

All in all, I think the danger level here is negligible. If redhat pulled a fast one on us, there are bound to be plenty of people (myself included) who'd be sufficiently annoyed to just leave them in the dust. And they must surely know this.

The archaic practice of looking after one's customers (as opposed to repeatedly beating them in the head until they give you more money) might be making a come back.

Re:I got out just in time

[arkane1234]

Amen, brother.

I've been using Gentoo for about a month and a half now, and I'm loving every minute.

Course, I didn't come from Redhat, more of a Minux->Slackware->Redhat->Debian->Mand rake->Debian->Gentoo Line up over a matter of 6-7 years.

Re:I got out just in time

[42forty-two42]

Well, I started a week or so ago, and had numerous hiccups again. I think I first did it for the Geekiness Factor :) BTW, is the ebuild for kde-i18n-3.0.1 failing for you as well?

Re:I got out just in time

[42forty-two42]

s/again/along the way/

Re:I got out just in time

[arkane1234]

I didn't use the International stuff for KDE, I just emerged the normal kde packages.

I haven't gotten up to 3.0.1 yet, either... I'm still on 3.0, so we shall see.

You build a Project.

[Zapdos]

Patent it before someone else does, or lose it.

Re:You build a Project.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the USPTO has plenty of prior art, though.

Re:You build a Project.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, shit, that was supposed to go on the next thread :)

Honest third party

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon, Redhat and numerous others seem to be trying to get away with claiming software patents "to stop others doing it first".

Is there not a place for an independent third party organisation *committed to the freedom of software* that would hold these patents for these *allegedly pro-freedom* patent holders, but in effect give out completely free licenses to use the patents ?

Lawyers suck.

I'm afraid I've patented patents.

[teamhasnoi]

Too bad, so sad.

Sounds like what MS did.

[Rebel Patriot]

Gotta hand it to RedHat, they may have finally found a way to make money. In a world where most every commercial distro is loosing money (or barely floating along) by playing ball the old way, RedHat has turned to a new game it would seem. Here we basically have far and away the largest commercial linux distro. They have appeared to many to be the hero of the commercial linux world. Now they are showing they're not in this business to be anyone's hero (unlike Loki). They are in it to make money.

It reminds me of how MS came along in the very early days with dirt cheap prices and was basically the savior of the microcomputer world. before then nothing existed beyond Unix. Unix was EXPENSIVE! DOS was comparatively cheap. Microsoft seemed like everyone's buddy back then, before they started to charge exorbitant fees and put an iron-tight contract in their software in the form of a EULA.

Since RedHat is in this world to turn a profit (and make no mistake about it, offering your products for free isn't very profitable), they are looking at an alternative way to produce. Will they be the next restrictive MS, or is this simply a neccessary "evil"?

Re:Sounds like what MS did.

[arkane1234]

Slackware forever. Honestly, what else would you trust when it absolutely positively has to be stable, secure, and easy

Debian, *BSD?

A counter action to MS anti-GPL license.

[3seas]

If this is a counter action to be used against MS anti-GPL license then it really should be held by a well defined pro GPL party, such as the FSF.

Let's not jump to conclusions?

[mountainhouse]

I think you need more information from RH before you can judge them. Certainly, patents are inconsistent with free software. BTW, if you're looking for more patent info:

http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

Unfortunately, RH and SuSE seem to want to play in the big server world (e.g. with IBM and HP). Those companies have so many patents, it can become necessary to have your own to use as "bargaining chips". It's not right, but you have to do it to survive It seems like you have to wait and see how they handle licensing to determine their intentions. On the other hand, with their past involvement with the Open Source community, one would hope they might make their intentions clear now, with some sort of statement. An example of a company that opposes patents, but feels the need to file them defensively:

http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/testimony/statemen ts / racle.statement.html (I'm not sure this is still Oracle's position)

Lawyer tricks...

[Anonymous Coward]

The drive behind obtaining a patent is first and foremost the need to match the number of patents held by another company in the same market, the company with the most patents wins... or at least has better odds of twarting potential law suits when the competitors stock price dips too low. So if you can split an "original" concept into serveral patents all the better. I'm not a lawyer, but this is the reason our lawyer gave for patenting our "original" technology.
-Matt

This probably wouldn't happen, but...

[fidget42]

could it be used as in the exact oposite of M$'s "shared source" licenses? I.e., You can use these patents for GPL'd products only and not for profit. That would allow products such as Apache to use them, but they could sue M$ if they incorporated them in their software.

Just a thought.

Re:This probably wouldn't happen, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL doesn't mean "Not for profit," nor does "free software." Because of the derivative licensing to recipients, it often times ends up being freely available, but that is not a stated goal. The goal is to have the FREEDOM to modify and share the program in a formalized way.

My question is one of ownership. If a distributor of GPL software is distributing the software with a patent they own, would that GPL software then become an invocation of that patented idea? Then, due to the GPL, derivative works could be produced based upon code within that original patented code, provided the derivative works were also distributed under the GPL? If so, this could be a way to rope a lot more software into the GPL realm.

In other words, the patent would provide a community service as a GPL program, since anyone willing to accept the license could use the patent.

This is void and null if a software product is not released under the GPL to correspond with a patented idea.

Heh

[MisterBlister]

If this were Microsoft, Sun, or anyone else, you'd all be flaming them like crazy! Since its a LINUX company, most of the posts are of the variety "Well I'm sure Red Hat won't do anything bad with this..." and "Well, I'm sure its just for protection...".

Hah!

These patents are wrong. Even if Red Hat doesn't ever sue anyone, they just add to the fear and confusion software developers will face when they go to implement similar concepts -- even in Open Source projects! And whose to say the Red Hat of 5 years from now, under new management, won't go and start suing projects that use these techniques now retroactively? This isn't a trademark..So they COULD do that..

Is Red Hat going to sign contracts with any software developers who wish to implement these techniques saying they WONT sue them in the future? If they don't, you HAVE to assume they WILL sue you sometime in the future, even if the current management has all the best intentions!

Trivial software patents are DEAD WRONG. These are trivial software patents. Red Hat is WRONG. They won't see money from me in the future, EVER unless they somehow alter this situation.

And the patent-for-protection argument doesn't hold water..All they'd have to do is publish these techiques in some public place (I'm sure one of the Linux journals would give them space for this) to ensure prior art is on record.

My guess is they want to get involved in the cross-patent licensing game... Which is simply evil in general and hurts OSS developers more than anyone.

In short, fuck you Red Hat.

Re:Heh

[Burdell]

If this were Microsoft, Sun, or anyone else, you'd all be flaming them like crazy! Since its a LINUX company, most of the posts are of the variety "Well I'm sure Red Hat won't do anything bad with this..." and "Well, I'm sure its just for protection...".

Microsoft and Sun don't release almost anything they write under the GPL. Red Hat releases virtually everything they write under the GPL, including the code covered by this patent, which means that this can be freely used under the GPL (there is a patent clause in the GPL).

You can download 100% of a Red Hat Linux release with source code under an Open Source compatible license (except for Netscape, but that's going away soon). That's part of why programs such as tin have been removed; they don't fall under a true Open Source license. The same is not true of many other Linux distributors (they don't release everything for free, or don't release source for their own software, etc.).

And whose to say the Red Hat of 5 years from now, under new management, won't go and start suing projects that use these techniques now retroactively? This isn't a trademark..So they COULD do that..

No, they can't, because of the GPL.

In short, fuck you Red Hat.

So, when are you going to stop using Linux? Face it, a lot of development work is done by people on the Red Hat payroll. As long as you use Linux, you are receiving the benefit of Red Hat's work (including the work covered under these patents, which you can use for free forever).

An excellent strategy

[Peter Eckersley]

Well, software patents are deeply flawed - they do nothing to encourage innovation, but they are used collectively to protect organisations against other software patents (sue us,and we'll sue you).

Given that they appear to be the way of the future (even in Europe, the organised eurolinux campaign seems to be struggling to hold off the "overly enthusiastic" patent office), the Free Software community should definitely use them when they discover nifty algorithms.

As someone above pointed out, the GPL guarantees that any GPL-dependent organisation (such as RedHat) will have to license software patents on a royalty-free basis for GPL software. It would be better to license them for all DFSG-free code. Note that such a license would not apply if, for example, Microsoft took some *BSD code an incorporated it in Win2k, because it's no longer DFSG-free.

The only question then is whether you charge royalties to proprietary software firms for use of the patented techniques, or whether you exclude them completely...

And I just had SQUID for lunch...

[jemele]

An atomic look-up operation allows an application to find out whether a file is opened atomically based on whether or not the file path is present in a file system namespace cache. If not, the file open request can be redirected, avoiding or minimizing impacts to the scheduling of various operations involved in executing an application

and my cock is fourteen feet long; novel enough?

Gilmore Patent

[geoffsmith]

I think Redhat should Gilmore Patent these ideas. The Gilmore Patent was proposed by John Gilmore ( I saw him present this idea at a Foresight Conference ) Basic concept is that a Gilmore Patent is like the GPL of the patent world, once you Gilmore Patent something only companies who have Gilmore Patents (or no patents at all) may use the patent royalty-free.

The only thing that concerns me about this idea is that it seems like it might be easily circumventable, you could do something like set up a subsidiary that doesn't have any patents, and then funnel the money back to the parent company. Any IP lawyers out there have a feasibility assessment of this idea?

Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon

Re:Gilmore Patent

[akharon]

IBM and HP are two companies that are beginning to use linux extensively, yet they also have numerous patents, both in their posession and pending. Are you sure you want to alienate the two largest friends linux has on a religious basis?

Re:Gilmore Patent

[Thalia]

It sounds like a reasonable idea. Basically, it's just a fancy way of saying "cross licensing." In other words, if you license me your patents under these terms, I will license you my patents under the same terms. This is done on a daily basis by large corporations.

The only possible problem is that you will likely never see revenue from the patent, from other sources. Most licensees will insist on a "favored nation clause" that basically says that they won't be charged more than any other licensee. Clearly in this case, that would not be possible. So, I doubt you'd find many takers for the license. Remember that getting a patent is relatively expensive. If you hire a patent attorney, it'll run between $10-15K, just for the US. If you do it on your own, expect to spend 100 hours if you're inexperienced (about 40 with experience), and approximately $2000 for a patent. If you want international protection, multiply by 10 or 20. So, if you'll never see revenue from it, you're unlikely to get funding based on it, and you can't trade it for protection against other "evil" guys, what's the point of spending the money? You'd be better of using either Statutory Invention Registrations (cheaper, no examination, simply publishes the idea & documents your date), or publishing your ideas.

Thalia

Re:Gilmore Patent

[saforrest]

I think the real patent analogue of the GPL would be a system whereby you could use the patent royalty-free in a product only if all other patents used in the product were "Free".

That is, the restriction is tied to the product, not the organization.

The idea of dealing only with Gilmore patent companies seems wrong to me. Companies are bought, merged, or sold. Inventing a system to maintain these Gilmore patents sensibly, across all potential acquisitions, mergers, deals, etc. seems excessively complicated.

It's also much easier to convince an existing "closed" company to release a single "open" product than it is to change their licensing/patents for all existing products.

What's wrong with software patents anyway?

[RelliK]

Could somebody please explain to me why software should be excluded from patenting? If it's a legitimate innovation (i.e. not Microsoft "innovation") why shouldn't it be patentable?

It is a separate matter that the vast majority of the software patents are absolute garbage (like the (in)famous one-click shopping), but so are the patents in other areas (like Rambus, and that guy who patented sideways swinging...)

Re:What's wrong with software patents anyway?

[BCoates]

Because patents are for inventions, and programs aren't inventions any more than books (which are not patentable) or math formulas (ditto) are.

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:What's wrong with software patents anyway?

[Error27]

>>Could somebody please explain to me why software should be excluded from patenting? If it's a legitimate innovation (i.e. not Microsoft "innovation") why shouldn't it be patentable?

Software is too easy.

If you start dressing it up with fancy vocabulary you can make it seem difficult. For example method and protocol objects sounds really difficult but if you just want to build a webserver into the kernel it's under 200 lines of code. Sure that's khttp vs TUX but you could just add 100 lines of code at a time and very soon khttp would be as good as TUX. Which 100 lines of code is worth a patent?

Bio-engineering is different because each product is just one or two ideas. Software is built from combining ideas. Any large project is 1000's of little ideas. If 100 of those ideas are patented what are you going to do?

The truth is that part of the reason that software seems different is because I am involved in it. If I made medicine in my spare time then I'd probably think those type of patents were bad too.

Re:What's wrong with software patents anyway?

[MoneyT]

My new patent:

void ()
{
cout"Hello USA"
}

No prior art, the closest thing is Hello World program, but it's not the same thing. It's a new invention, so should I be able to patent it and collect royalties everytime the code is used? Software patents are just mushy things that don't really help much. You don't want people using your code, close the source.

Re:What's wrong with software patents anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

You ought to phrase your comments in the form of a question since you are clueless.
By making false statements you are confusing people who are here to read authoratative opinions.

Re:What's wrong with software patents anyway?

[mc6809e]

Software isn't patentable. What is patentable are inventions that can be implemented using a general purpose computing machine, configured to perform as described by software.

Software is merely part of the description of a machine in the same way drawings and diagrams are part of the descriptions of other machines. A software engineer uses programming languages to describe his machines while other types of engineers use lines, points, and measurements.

What makes it difficult to see that programming is machine building is the scale at which the parts are manipulated. People don't see bits of charge getting put into memories. A computer before and after it's been programmed look the same.

On the other hand, if I hand you a diagram of a tinker-toy computer showing you how the parts go together, etc, its pretty obvious that this describes a real machine. When such machines are patented, we don't call them drawing patents just because they are described using abstract things such as lines, circles, and polygons. There are no shouts of "lines can't be patented!" because its obvious that the drawings are describing a machine, and its the machine that patented.

If its still hard to see this, you're not alone. It isn't obvious to most people (even programmers) that software fullfills the same role for electronic computing machines as drawings do for other machines. Patent-wise, the situation has been quite unfair to programmers until recently and it took a long time for the USPTO to come around.

If you still need convincing, ask yourself this: can a machine the consists of a circuit be patented? Can it include transistors? If yes, then software must be allowed in patents for practical reasons, otherwise patents would become enormous collections of huge diagrams showing the placement of charges in capacitors, or magnetic domains on a disk, or pits burned in a CD read by laser. A software description of these patterns is much more economical.

Re:What's wrong with software patents anyway?

[Percy_Blakeney]

The truth is that part of the reason that software seems different is because I am involved in it. If I made medicine in my spare time then I'd probably think those type of patents were bad too.

You would think that, and you would probably have a case for it (logical, not legal.) The barriers to entry into the software market are very low -- all I need is a computer and I can start cranking out new software that includes revolutionary new ideas. On the other hand, the barriers to entry into medicine are very high -- you would probabily need millions, if not billions, of dollars to discover, test, and patent a new medicine. This means that there are naturally fewer new ideas in medicine than in software, hence the need for additional protections on the few that do occur, hence patents. So, if the costs were low enough to where you were able to do medicial research in your spare time, there would probably be less of a need for patent protections as there would most likely be a constant stream of innovation anyway.

I suppose that it doesn't matter, though, since patents have long since lost their original purpose and have become strategic tools for corporations.

Re:What's wrong with software patents anyway?

[BCoates]

If its still hard to see this, you're not alone. It isn't obvious to most people (even programmers) that software fullfills the same role for electronic computing machines as drawings do for other machines.

That's not true at all. Computers are patentable machines just like anything else, but software does not describe the operation of a computer, it is data which is input into the computer.

Patenting software is equivalent to patenting the words cut into a printing press roll.

Patent-wise, the situation has been quite unfair to programmers until recently [...]

It's not unfair to programmers because programmers aren't inventors, and they know it. Programmers create programs by taking a specification and translating it into machine-readable code. It's not a mechanical process, but there are well-known techniques and it's usually pretty straightforward. There is no invention going on here--any competent programmer could write any program given sufficient time.

otherwise patents would become enormous collections of huge diagrams showing the placement of charges in capacitors, or magnetic domains on a disk, or pits burned in a CD read by laser.

CD pit patterns aren't patentable, they aren't an invention, they're data and they have copyrights.

Do you believe that books should be patentable? How about literary "inventions"? There has been substantial change in the state of the art in writing over the years, isn't the denial of patents unfair to writers?

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:What's wrong with software patents anyway?

[mc6809e]

Computers are patentable machines just like anything else, but software does not describe the operation of a computer, it is data which is input into the computer.

I didn't say software described the operation of a computer. I said software was part of the description of a machine. The parts of the machine include the processor, memory, etc of a computer, and those other physical, real, tangible elements that work with the computer to implement the machine. It might be bits of charge or strips of aluminum in a circlular pattern on a plastic disk with holes burned in them.

Patenting software is equivalent to patenting the words cut into a printing press roll.


Exactly right, which is why software isn't patented. Machine's whose description include software are. There is a difference. Just like lines and circles and sketches aren't patentable, neither is software, but that doesn't stop people of including them in their descriptions of their inventions.

Programmers create programs by taking a specification and translating it into machine-readable code. It's not a mechanical process, but there are well-known techniques and it's usually pretty straightforward. There is no invention going on here--any competent programmer could write any program given sufficient time.

The entire history of software engineering runs counter to what you just wrote. Its just not that simple. Programmers are constantly inventing ways to solve certain problems. There's a big gap between specification and machine code.

How's this for a specification: write a program that will determine if a program will halt on a given input.

This is the halting problem and it is known to be unsolvable.

CD pit patterns aren't patentable, they aren't an invention, they're data and they have copyrights.

You say they're data. I say they're holes in a disk of aluminum. We're both right. Whether or not they represent data doesn't matter. The strips of aluminum with their holes are still part of a real, physical machine. If I wish, I can just describe the position and length of each strip of aluminum and submit a giant description to the USPTO along with the rest of my machine. Better would be to provide source code and save everyone a lot of time.

Re:Heh (Evil Doers)

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone notice that a good bulk of slashdotters have the similar simplistic moral values of George Bush? Every thing they dislike is 'evil' and of course we know who the evil doers are..

So i guess the question is... Should redhat be included in the axis of evil?

good times.

The GPL trumps all.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the reason there's never any 'serious' threat to it is because it was damned well written, at least in legalese. ;)

Anyway, I'm a less than avid RH user. I got hooked on them back in the day, and, well, you know how that is. I've currently got three boxes running it. I'd love to switch, but three boxes? Damnit, I don't want to go through that again (Hell of a lot easier to keep one distro - one download of sec updates.)

It always amuses me when people refer to RH as some sort of 'Microsoft' or 'Evil Empire'.

Right, considering the amount of stuff RH's given to the community? They don't deserve crap like this.

Ah well, most of the complainers are either source-zealots (Sure, I'd love to do non-binary as well, but I have these two things called a life and a 56k modem. I could get rid of one easily, but I'll wait for 'real' broadband rather than pay outrageous cable charges ;)).. And people like Mandrake users.

You'd be surprised how many Mandrake users I've met that whine about RedHat. Heh.

Slackware is, well, Slackware. Debian? Where's the support? Mandrake installs everything including the kitchen sink. Got broadband? If not, don't try Gentoo. Suse is great if you've got a DVD drive and a few hours to select packages, if not, prepare for a few days and lots of disc swapping. RedHat, well, damnit, I can't say that I *want* gnome, and wish the darned binaries for half the critical things a Linux box needs weren't tied in to their gnome rpms.

Every distribution serves a purpose. Now, if only we could get elitist bastards to spread FUD against companies who deserve it..

Re:The GPL trumps all.

[MoneyT]

Personaly, I've like SuSE, I love QNX (it's different), OS X is just plain cool and then there's the mini ditro over at toms.net (tomsrtbt)

Re:The GPL trumps all.

[arkane1234]

Anyway, I'm a less than avid RH user. I got hooked on them back in the day, and, well, you know how that is. I've currently got three boxes running it. I'd love to switch, but three boxes? Damnit, I don't want to go through that again (Hell of a lot easier to keep one distro - one download of sec updates.)

I hear you there...but why not try out something new one one of those boxes and expand your horizons? Unless that's not what you want to do, and are using Redhat as a nice alternative to a Windows desktop.

Right, considering the amount of stuff RH's given to the community? They don't deserve crap like this.

Redhat has done quite a few good things, I have to agree with you there.

Ah well, most of the complainers are either source-zealots

sorry guy, this is where I have to interject. I am by far not a "source-zealot" and severely dislike the word zealot being thrown around nowadays like the word "witch" in the early days of America. I agree with the ideals of the "source-zealots", and it doesn't take that much bandwidth at all. Gentoo for instance does not require broadband access, but it does realistically require a fast processor. (for the compiles) 56k dialup is rather old school and just downloading updates is an issue over an analog connection... so the relation is a moot point. (You've used Windows Update, yeesh.. that thing smacks you around bandwidth wise)

Debian? Where's the support? The debian website? Most IRC channels? Most any techhead that's out there? Hell, pop into irc.openprojects.net and go to #slashdot, I'm sure there'll be more than one person there at any time to help.

Steal what patent?

[jemele]

You mean this:(?)

An atomic look-up operation allows an application to find out whether a file is opened atomically based on whether or not the file path is present in a file system namespace cache. If not, the file open request can be redirected, avoiding or minimizing impacts to the scheduling of various operations involved in executing an application

Oh shit, I think I've stolen it a hundred times:

snip: class APalmCatCache; class ALinkMasterCache; /snip

... except mine applies to db's - not filesystems. Hey! wait! That is novel!

Just like RedHat

[Navarre]

RedHat has been proving time and time again that the bottom line matters more than free/open software. They're not true believers, and their work is sloppy. Stop supporting them and they might change their behaviour.

Debian rocks.

Re:Just like RedHat

[Rubbersoul]

Or maybe they are just proving that they are a company attempting to make money. Maybe they are not as open about things as Debian (I use that because that was in your post), but Debian is not a company ... you see what I am getting at ...

Re:Just like RedHat

[Anonymous Coward]

> Debian rocks.

No, "debian/rules". ;-)

The patents will never be granted

[ScottMaxwell]

The patents will never be granted because they don't represent original work. We can prove this by the fact that open source development consists entirely of chasing tail lights, and never involves doing anything original. We know that's true because Microsoft says so. Q.E.D.

Re:The patents will never be granted

[Bremen24601]

And swinging on a swing is original?

Re:The patents will never be granted

[arkane1234]

We can prove this by the fact that open source development consists entirely of chasing tail lights, and never involves doing anything original. We know that's true because Microsoft says so

I know this was meant as a tongue-in-cheek statement, but I'll bite.

As far as open source development not being original, I would imagine that most of the things being brought out today aren't original in the least, just have a different interface. .NET, Microsoft's haralded god of programming environments, is nothing more than the idea of distributed objects, as Java had in mind. (and somehow didn't capitalize on like they said they were going to do, thank god they didn't.)

patents aren't abandoned like trademarks

[_|()|\|]

Undefended patents are lost... Won't RH have to sue (or get a licence agreement out of) anyone who infringes on these patents in the meantime, in order to preserve them for the fight against MS?

No. Trademarks can be abandoned (i.e., revert to the public domain) if they are not defended against dilution. Patents don't work that way. They can lie in wait for the technology to be more widely used, even if by independent invention. The most public instance of such a "submarine patent" is the GIF patent. Slashdot has also reported on BT's hyperlink patent. Ditto Rambus's SDRAM patents.

The only obstacles to late enforcement of a patent are public opinion and laws against unfair business practices. The latter is mentioned in the Rambus link above.

Chuckles...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the garden snail has the squid beat by 2 feet; so it's novel, but not *enough*

Very punny.

NOT a defensive move by Red Hat

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simply a bad idea. Patents are a bad idea in software, period. Some people have mentioned the possible "defensive patent" strategy, but it won't work in this case, and here's why:

(From the GNU 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."

So Red Hat may NOT enforce (in a traditional sense) their own patent in regard to their GNU GPLed software, which is derivative of others' GNU GPLed work on the kernel, without violating the license terms and losing the right to distribute the kernel.

Also remember that public companies may change strategy or be bought out by a competitor. If cash flow gets tight, doubt not that scruples will go out the window and previously "good" companies will turn to the dark side for the sake of the almighty buck.

Fortunately, the GNU GPL prevents such bad behavior in this case, which makes the patent puzzling from a practical standpoint. Perhaps it's a "feel-good" proprietary fix for the less-informed shareholders?

One interesting point, though, is that the preamble in the GNU GPL doesn't quite match up with the license terms. It appears that a company could enforce a patent as long as the code is NOT derivative! So you couldn't write your own Tux equivalent, but you COULD modify the existing code. This is quite odd.

Re:NOT a defensive move by Red Hat

[arkane1234]

It appears that a company could enforce a patent as long as the code is NOT derivative! So you couldn't write your own Tux equivalent, but you COULD modify the existing code. This is quite odd.

Derivative means derived from... if you modify existing code, the said code is derived from the old code.

So, no... if it says that a company could enforce a patent as long as the code is not derivative, then modifying existing code and patenting it is not allowed.

You Stupid Slashbots

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop with the "Red Hat sux0rs" already. If you wake the fuck up, you'll realize that this is going to work out alright no matter what.

Checkitout. Linux is GPL. RH claims to have done this with Linux. GPL requires all patented code covered by it to be licensed freely to everybody. So if RH wants to sell their improved Linux, the patent will be free for all. The patent app is basically a publication... for all to read. Happy now?

Or of course RH might just distribute their patented code incorporated in Linux, but then you'll have the opportunity to finally test the GPL in court. Everyone who's written a line of Linux or utility code that goes on the RH CD gets to be in on it too! Joy!!!!

You can't lose here. Make the most of this good news.

From the GNU GPL ITSELF:

[sudog]

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.

This means that if RedHat designs any software and puts it under the GPL, we all instantly get free access to the patents, forever. Even if we want to re-engineer the solution using proprietary software.

Re:From the GNU GPL ITSELF:

[arkane1234]

This means that if RedHat designs any software and puts it under the GPL, we all instantly get free access to the patents, forever. Even if we want to re-engineer the solution using proprietary software.
according to the GPL (and no.. I'm not a karma whore, who the hell cares about that.)
-- start gpl peice--
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
--end gpl peice --

You have to distribute them as seperate works in order to have them not apply as GPL code... because of this section right after the above:

--start gpl peice--
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
-- end gpl peice--

Pretty much if you re-engineer and completely rewrite an app, your in the clear. But, you can't just re-engineer by modifying the code and start selling it.

Re:From the GNU GPL ITSELF:

[sudog]

But the whole purpose of Free Software is to provide workable, high-quality alternatives to commercial software. Algorithms themselves mustn't be allowed to be proprietary--that's the whole point. Sure, modification of code and re-selling is bad. The thing is, what I was talking about was complete re-engineering from the ground up. In other words, the patents logically shouldn't be enforceable, unless RedHat uses them in non-GPL software that doesn't have any patent clauses in the license.

If the patents are used directly in GPL'd code, the GPL says they have to license the patent for free use by anybody--free use should include re-engineered clean-room type competitors.

Re:From the GNU GPL ITSELF:

[arkane1234]

Well yeah, in that case, thats perfectly moral and legal.

I wouldn't see how that's a problem anyway... I mean, thats how it's been for years before the GPL in academic software.

What?

[estoll]

Yeah yeah, I don't like Redhat linux. I never have. Whatever. They have been doing wonders for the Linux operating system. They bring a great product like Tux to the open source community and you are screaming about it! Look at the the bottom line they are looking at. Screw it and let them have a damn patent. They developed the software so they deserve to own the rights to the technology. Why does everyone always scream murder over someone trying to make a little money off their hard work? Sure, the idea of linux is to keep everything open source and "free". Damn. Why don't you just look at it like StarOffice? Hell, I don't hear anyone yelling about the StarOffice/OpenOffice partnership?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember, everyone who accomplishes something stood on the shoulders of giants to accomplish it. This patent promotes exclusivity and is evidence of severe ungratefulness.

mixing patent and copyright

[_|()|\|]

I've got two [patent] applications and I need to finish writing up - which I wouldn't be doing unless I was *convinced* this was the only way to do things in the short term, and that generic GPL use would be granted

If you're opposed to (software) patents, I hope you won't limit free licensing to GPLed software. While it may be difficult to implement, mutual defense is the appropriate patent analog to the GNU GPL.

The intersection of copyright and patent opponents is smaller than either on its own. If you are in both camps, support them separately with copyleft and mutual defense. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or something like that.

Re:mixing patent and copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL doesn't allow for patented techniques to be used that aren't licensed for everyone's free use, so that isn't an option without modifying the GPL.

Re:mixing patent and copyright

[_|()|\|]

The GPL doesn't allow for patented techniques to be used that aren't licensed for everyone's free use

That depends on how you're interpreting "everyone's free use." It is definitely possible to license a patent for use only in GPLed software. See, for example, the RTLinux open patent license.

If I had a patent, I'd license it defensively: to people who have no patents and to people who only use patents defensively. In terms of mutual defense, I wouldn't grant a license to patent aggressors. This is similar to the Gilmore patent license someone mentioned in another post.

A good read

[SimplexO]

From the gnu project:

Software patents

The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983, and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed GIFs. In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.

There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job. But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users want. What will we do when this happens?

Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with free software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the patented features. But those who value free software because they expect it to be techically superior are likely to call it a failure when a patent holds it back. Thus, while it is useful to talk about the practical effectiveness of the "cathedral" model of development(1), and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop there. We must talk about freedom and principle.

Legitimate Reason?

[PRickard]

Maybe someone at Red Hat thought they should get a patent on it before some asshole from another company did. If Red Hat patents the technology they can let anybody or nobody use it - at least they have control. Some outside group might have gotten a patent on the concept and held it hostage, forcing all users to pay.

I'm not a fan of silly IP actions, but Red Hat filing for a patent is NOT the same as Red Hat preventing others from using the technology. There are occasionally good reasons for this stuff and you should wait and see what the company does before you jump on them.

Re:Legitimate Reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the very same reason Microsoft gives for their software patents.

Kind of a coincidence, eh?

Re:Legitimate Reason?

[Steffen]

I think you are sort of missing the point:

The idea of "patenting it before some other asshole does" is unreasonable. Once I invent something, the patent cannot be granted to someone else who patents it post that invention because it is not an original work. If I can prove prior art (ie that I made the invention before that time), the patent will not be granted/invalidated.

Fear and Lothing in the IT Industry

[_Sprocket_]

Working within the IT industry is can be frustrating. If your job is to integrate and maintain technology, you will be dependent on vendors to produce that technology. Due to economy of scale, resources, the demands of R&D, and simply "how business is done", these vendors tend to be corporations. And eventually some of them are going to screw you over.

At this point it might be worth touching on the subject of morality. When something is labeled as "evil" it is a moral judgment. Something is opposed to one's sense of morality. One moral code often expressed within tech circles is functionality. Interoperability and functionality is a goal - anything that intentionally interferes with that goal is "evil". Business morality is often centered around profit. Anything that makes profit can be approved. Tech and business moral codes clash when technology is used to create a (often profitable) dependence on a product by limiting functionality and interoperability through technical or legal means.

Vendors will screw over the average tech worker when the company's moral code moves from a technical one to an aggressive business one. Take a look at Silicon Valley's history. It is chock full of techies starting a business, the business growing, and then the techie is pushed out as the business-types move in. The only question is how aggressive the business types get. It is a part of how corporations work and how "business is done." A company that is "cool" now can change based on who runs it and who decides on company policy and direction.

The double-cross might not even come from the trusted company in question. A company's assets (products, patents, and other intellectual property) often survive the company. The patent that is held "just in case" by the "cool" company of today can be sold off at pennies-on-the-dollar in tomorrow's liquidation and become a tool for its new owner's questionable, aggressive business tactics.

Why the distrust of Redhat? Because we almost expect a double-cross. Its history, nothing personal.

It may not be fair. But then, its not the game that we created. But the rules are well known. And Redhat should be very familiar with them by now. Knee-jerk journalism aside, Redhat should be prepared to explain their situation, their tactics, and provide a system of assurance to their customers and community they work with.

Unless, of course, their moral code has shifted.

but.. isn't this what you wanted?

[__aawavt7683]

Ok, Red Hat's going to be the next microsoft at this rate.. right? I mean.. patents.. didn't they have odd licensing and odd software in there somewhere? A big company for the whole desktop thing and such.. least, I could see it going there. That's right. Competitive upgrades from other linux distros. That was bashed a bit on the register, I believe..

But now all are complaining about how it's patenting things.. Well, that may be, but going by the title of the patents, they look like they could be actual legitimate patents. Nothing like the whole wheel thing that went on.

So.. they might be on the way to proprietary code, closed source, and all that.. Well, GNU will keep it open. and we all like open because, unlike how Micro$oft does it, it allows people to fix bugs and work with the code they're given. So.. it's not bad there, either, imo. Or at least it can't be.

So.. give Redhat a break. They have to make money some way, and this may be what works on their end. Even doing what it's doing, it seems to be being nice.

Just my few pennies. But what do I know.

-DrkShadow

RedHat supporter ?

[tollieman]

Well I have tried almost all Linux distributions since 1995, And I have yet to see all the bad thing I hear about RedHat.

They say RPM is bad, compile your own, yet they talk shit about Slackware... wtf?

Seems like everyone just wants to bitch about somebody else's hard work.

I use .rpm's ALL the time, I have not yet screwed my system up!

I compile my own packages ALL the time, I have not yet screwed my system up.

I am a RHCE holder but I prefer Slackware, just because it is the 1st Distro I ever used, but guess what I'm composing this on my edHat 7.3 system hehehe.

I feel if RedHat patents something that they have created, then so be it. More power to them!

I just hope that it will not be abused, and so what, if it turns out that it sucks, well all those non redhat fans have no gripe right? and I am sure that all the redhat fans will keep defending redhat.

Dont waste your time with all this crap, just use the damn distro that you like, and leave well enough alone ok guys?

And if no disro is good enough for you, build your own damn distro like I did, and to hell with them all

tollieman

claim1 && claim2 && ...

[_|()|\|]

how on earth can this be patented? ... Like any reporting engine ever written?

I'm not going to defend these patents, but keep in mind that the claims are ANDed together, not ORed. Don't read the first claim and exclaim that Red Hat patented reports. It patented a static HTTP server that uses an object cache in an O/S kernel and meets the characteristics of all twelve claims.

The question is, as with all patents: is this a novel, non-obvious (to one skilled in the art) leap from the existing prior art? I doubt it.

Re:claim1 && claim2 && ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That't not correct.

A dependent claim is equal to the ANDing of all claims that that dependent claim is dependent upon.

For example, Claim2 of the Redhat web caching patent start with the magic words: "The method of claim 1,". That means "Claim2 == Claim1 AND Claim2". Claim1 is an independent claim and is limited only by the text in Claim1.

Take a look at Claim1:

"1. In a communication server, a method of responding to an application protocol request from a client application, the method comprising the steps of: receiving the application
protocol request from the client application; creating at least one dynamic protocol object to form at least a portion of a reply to the application protocol request wherein the reply
is disposed to include embedded, static protocol objects; sending the at least one dynamic protocol object to the client application; retrieving at least one static protocol object;
and sending the at least one static protocol object to the client application to complete the reply to the application protocol request at the client application."

Try to explain how a dynamically generated HTML page that contains an IMG tag is not covered by this claim. They may not have intended to cover this use, but it's not clear to me that they haven't. In my mind, it's this type of over generalization of claims that makes the patent system suck.

ANDs and ORs in claims

[yerricde]

I'm not going to defend these patents, but keep in mind that the claims are ANDed together, not ORed. Don't read the first claim and exclaim that Red Hat patented reports. It patented a static HTTP server that uses an object cache in an O/S kernel and meets the characteristics of all twelve claims.

Actually, the items in an individual claim are ANDed, but the separate claims are ORed.

Re:ANDs and ORs in claims

[kogs]

The features of an independent claim, e.g. claim 1, are ANDed. If claim 1 turns out to be bad, you AND in the features of one or more dependent claims, e.g. claim 2, which refer back to the independent claim.

Dependent claims, i.e. those that refer to preceding claim can be thought of as fallback positions.

Re:ANDs and ORs in claims

[Anonymous Coward]

To infringe an independant claim you must have each and every element of the claim. Dependant claims are as they are written - they incorporate the features of the earlier dependant claim. Citing an abstract as what a patent "covers" is completely pointless. The function of the abstract is to allow searching.

How so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux..

Why? Because they're successful? Doesn't that make the USA the Microsoft of the world?

Re:How so?

[Dwonis]

The USA is not a good example, because in many ways, it is the Microsoft of the world (pushy/bullying -- even to friends... but I guess US products don't suck as much as MS products. :)

RedHat Patents

[hackus]

Depending on what they use the patents for, is really the question. If they use Patents the way they are currently being used, to lock out competition and make software technology come to a stand still, obviously we have to re-evaluate RedHat and perhaps stick/migrate with Debian only installations or other distro's that do not patent.

Software Patents/Patents are a bad idea. They will eventually cause economic wars, the US I believe will not be able to win.

Unless of course, we threaten to bomb our neighbors into accepting our market laws, which by thier very structure of patents, will lock them out!

Patents and other "arcane" methods of market monopoly building will not be accepted, mark my words, by our up N comming third world friends.

China and Russia will not be bullied. They will take advantage of the fact that corporations in the US and Europe can only devote a small segment of thier populations to scientific and technological research. Simply because patents do not allow large numbers of people to advance a problem or develop a market to maturity as quickly as those markets that do not recognize patents.

Imagine cures for cancer accelerated for example by CENTURIES simply because China allows and shares information economically without restrictions, to billions of potential researchers, investors, and government research institutes. Compare this where any advance in technology in Biotech for example in the US only a handful of people can work on a problem legally.

I predict the best software advances in computer technology will come from the far east in the 21st century.

Lets not forget, where we got Linux from. It came from outside markets that do not recognize software patents.

I don't think this is a cooincedence and I predict advances in software technology will advance far more quickly outside those markets and countries which do not recognize patents.

-hack

Ben Coates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this you?

A Gilmore Patent can be Licensed

[geoffsmith]

Why would a Gilmore patent alienate IBM and HP? They just have to pay license fees, like with a regular patent. And since they are a commercial entity, they can afford to. The Gilmore Patent does not put any more restrictions on its use that a regular patent, and it is most definitely not "religious."

Shut the fuck up, retard.

[Anonymous Coward]

man, if that wasn't the biggest waste of breath I've ever heard on slashdot....oh, wait, it was.

Ever heard of cross-licensing?

[Radical Rad]

It has been discussed on slashdot before that if Open Source advocates held software patents that other software patent holders want to use then cross licensing agreements might be set up allowing Open Sourcerers to duplicate the functionality of those programs that you say are forever off limits. Well I say we need more software patents to be held by free software friendly parties as well as a legal mechanism to pool those patents and use them as bargaining chips.

Re:Ever heard of cross-licensing?

[BCoates]

Well I say we need more software patents to be held by free software friendly parties as well as a legal mechanism to pool those patents and use them as bargaining chips.

Free software groups can fight that war if they want to, but they won't win. Do you seriously think RedHat or the FSF can out-litigate Microsoft, or IBM, or Sun, or any other big patentholder?

Besides, patent cross-licencing would be next to impossible to integrate with the GPL... The patentholder would have to not just allow Redhat or whatever to use the licenced patent, but everyone, which means that trading with a free software patent company means (effectively) surrendering your patents entirely. Not likely to get many offers on those terms...

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:Ever heard of cross-licensing?

[Radical Rad]

I won't waste my time pointing out all the flaws in your FUD. Luckily I don't have to. Most Slashdot readers are smart enough to see through it.

Re:Sounds like what MS did. [OT:sigcomment]

[Anonymous Coward]

"...secure, and easy"

Absolutely nothing. NT is easy. OpenBSD is secure. "Easy" means you don't have to think about it--it makes mistakes (insecurity) just as easy.

Security is somewhere between mind-numbing and mind-bending.

To Open Source a Patent?

[xee]

What would the ramafications be of requiring the use of technology described by a patent to be open source? Microsoft would have no way to incorporate a kernel-based web server into their IIS product without opening significant amounts of source code to the public.

You are all missing the point behind patents.

[rolfpal]

Patents were concieved as a trick to get inventors to disclose their inventions or trade secrets instead of keeping them secret (no source code). Patents are a system where an inventor discloses an invention, and receives a monopoly for a period of time on the implimentation disclosed.

The general idea is to promote the exchange of ideas. In most cases, once the idea is disclosed there is always another implemtation (that doesn't violate the patent) that can be marketed or disseminated.

The only value of a patent is to recognize the inventor of a significant concept and disseminate that concept, while giving the inventor a lead time to exploit the idea. They are usually not a barrier to entry in most markets, depending on the field concerned in the way that copyright is. A more significant barrier is expertise in the field.

Re:You are all missing the point behind patents.

[borgheron]

Most patent lawyers try to make the wording of the patent as broad as possible to:

1) expand the companies monopoly and
2) allow lawsuits against practically anyone who uses anything even remotely resembling the "present invention".

Patent litigation is extremely expensive and, most of the time, the courts err in favor of the patent holder rather than the infringer.

Not only that. There is this troublesome trend towards large companies using patents as a barrier of entry to smaller companies who lack the resources to fight a frivolous suit and must simply pay the royalties right or wrong.

Patent law is being abused in a number of ways in this country. So, I assure you, patents are VERY VERY real and extremely effective in blocking progress when the USPTO is granting patents on things like sideways swinging (check out the slashdot story on that).

GJC

I think I picked the wrong career . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I should've gotten a Law degree and a CS minor.

Looks like the New Revenue Stream will result from applying for patents and sueing everyone that uses the protected technology without paying for it.

Irony dept.

[Platinum Dragon]

I have this shirt in my closet (well, it's in my laundry basket right now, but you get the idea) that I'm rather happy to have. I got it from ThinkGeek a couple years ago. It takes a rather cute shot at the USPTO, with a certain someone's signature emblazoned under the text.

"All good things...", I suppose, though I still can't get the "skunky beer" look off my face right now. I hate when reality sticks its nose into my idealism.

I wouldn't be doing unless I was *convinced* this was the only way to do things in the short term, and that generic GPL use would be granted.

First thing: whenever I see someone take an action they would normally be stringently against due to "short term" considerations, alarms go off in my head. In my 22 short years, I've noticed that short-term gains made against principles can cause long-term problems. You're almost certainly far wiser than me about how the "real world" works, but something about the whole thing just seems... off, I dunno.

Second thing, potentially exposing my lack of understanding about certain patent-related issues: It's my understanding that if a patent is not defended by the holder, the protection may be ruled unenforceable later. This is partly the reason for many of the stupid patent fights, and the raison d'etre of several companies that do nothing but purchase and "offensively defend" patents. I imagine some legal beagle over at RH came up with a great answer for this, but would allowing distribution of code implementing the patents under the GPL potentially allow certain competitors to later challenge the validity of the patent protection by arguing that early free distribution of said code indicates a lack of concern about patent protection? I have some trouble explaining precisely what I mean, but could there be a potential conflict between the aspects of the GPL meant to ensure unfettered, open distribution of code and the patent system's requirement that patents be defended if the holder intends to control use of the patented technology or process?

I think the answer is "no", as I don't recall hearing any limits on how a patented technology can be licensed, and I think my above concerns are unwarranted due to the intent behind the GPL; it wouldn't be as if the patent-implementing code would be released as closed-source without legal raising hell over other implementations of the code.

Or is this exactly the intent; patent code, license it under the GPL, and go after any patent implementations that aren't derived from or released as GPL code?

Lots of meandering questions and thoughts, so some clarity from a knowledgable person would be wonderful.

Re:Irony dept.

[plam]

It's my understanding that if a patent is not defended by the holder, the protection may be ruled unenforceable later.

Nope. That's false. You're thinking about trademarks. Patents can be as selectively enforced as the owner wants.

Re:Irony dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm not sure if that applies to patents too, but it does to trademarks. It isn't a law, but it is one tactic that can be used in the court room to say a patent isn't valid. However, there is also a certain about of reasonablility.

Re:Irony dept.

[Platinum Dragon]

Nope. That's false. You're thinking about trademarks. Patents can be as selectively enforced as the owner wants.

OK, that makes some sense, though for some reason I still think patents have to be defended by the holder, lest their legitimacy be lost.

Maybe the defenses only need to be made if the holder intends to license the patent exclusively, or not at all.

More minds needed.

Re:Irony dept.

[psamuels]

It's my understanding that if a patent is not defended by the holder, the protection may be ruled unenforceable later.

If that were true we wouldn't have PNG. Unisys decided to start making threats about LZW compression only after GIFs became popular - i.e. very late in the game.

As noted elsewhere, you're thinking of trademarks (and probably, by extension, service marks).

Paranoia Runs Deep

[GroundBounce]

"Screw" other Linux distributions? Wow.

Of course, RedHat has to *compete* with other Linux distributions, but "screw" them? I seriously doubt it.

Red Hat is not my favorite distro (although it is one of several that I use), but It's a pisser to see all the irrational, unfounded RedHat bashing that goes on.

Red Hat is one of the biggest Linux distributors (probably *the* biggest here in the US), and many people seem to feel that just because they are big, they are also evil.

First of all, TUX (and most everything else that Red Hat has added to its Linux distro) is licensed under the GPL, and others have pointed out that the GPL provides that a free license effectively be granted for any patented part of the code. (The method and apparatus are still protected, which gives them the protections they are trying to get against MS and others using the technology in a proprietary product). On this point alone, any fears of Red Hat screwing other Linux distributions seems little more than paranoia.

Red Hat is by no means a perfect company (is there such a thing in the real world?), but they have gone out of their way many times to help and assist the goals of Linux and open source in general. Of course doing something for Linux as a whole also benefits Red Hat, but because of the nature of open source it also benefits everyone as well.

Many people don't seem to realize that because they are bigger than most Linux distributors, they have some extra reasources that others don't have to apply to general causes. For example, pushing Linux in education, lobbying to fight really bad laws like the DMCA and the Hollings Disney protection act, providing the credibility and support to get Linux into large corporations, and many other things that in the end will benefit everyone in the OSS world.

Moreover, Microsoft has shown the ability to steal ideas from others. Software patents may be bad in general, but Red Hat is actually acting responsibly to protect IP that they've licensed under the GPL. Assuming the patents are valid, which I'm admittedly not in a position to evaluate, this will give them the ability to further protect the ideas in the GPL'd code from abuses by MS and others while still making the technology transparently and freely available to the open source community. Because the code is GPL's, the patents are actually a benefit rather than a liability.

Re:Software Patents = Bad (pedantic)

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have written Software Patents = = Bad because you mean to say Software Patents are the same as Bad. But instead you assigned Bad to Software Patents which is the criticism of your comment that a couple replies to you pointed out!

Concern is non-linux os's?

[AIXadmin]

The concern I have is, Will the GPL protect someone who impliments a kernel extension of the same nature as TUX in say Darwin. Will RedHat try to go after Apple? Or does the GPL protect Apple in this case even though it is not using GPL'ed code, just concepts from GPL'ed code.

Re:Concern is non-linux os's?

[byran lei]

>The concern I have is, Will the GPL protect someone who impliments a
>kernel extension of the same nature as TUX in say Darwin. Will RedHat
>try to go after Apple? Or does the GPL protect Apple in this case even
>though it is not using GPL'ed code, just concepts from GPL'ed code.
>
>
Now RedHat's patent makes of TUX sense. They must've got wind of either Apple or Microsoft trying to pull exactly this kind of stunt being described here, and wanted to cover themselves.

old hat

[g4dget]

It seems to me like the "method and apparatus for atomic file look-up" is an old technique. See, for example, Stanford's Cache Kernel, which is entirely built around the idea of the kernel keeping caches (address space translation, file name translation, etc.) and faulting to user mode processes.

Re:old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the reasons in support of the redhat patents being made with the idea of blocking predators (such as MS), one interesting fact has been ignored: the issue of "prior art", which is a very strong parallel of GPL in the world of patents.

If u can't or don't want any thing to be patented (by urself and others), u just publish it. Once thats done it automatically becomes prior art and therefore nobody can get a patent granted (assumming the PTO is doing their homework which they frequently don't).
IBM does it very often.

This approach should have been taken by RedHat to match their open source "friendliness". What they have actually done is very suspect.
I hope the community keeps track of their future activities.

I've got some necessary evil pending as well

[Wee]

In fact I've got two applications and I need to finish writing up - which I wouldn't be doing unless I was *convinced* this was the only way to do things in the short term, and that generic GPL use would be granted

First off: I trust you, Alan, if for no other reason than you still have the bullocks to post here. Call me a lemming, but if you're down with the patent thing, then I'm fine too. I don't like patents, yet I have my name on 17 pending patent applications. I'm not sure they'll pass muster, and I'm not sure I'll care either way. They were filed a while ago, when I worked for a very pro-IP company.

Having said that, it *is* a little weird that Red Hat is patenting stuff. The suits want CYA, the lawyers want accountability, but the guys that wrote the stuff you distribute don't like patents. I didn't either, until amazon.com decided they could patent my finger acting upon a microswitch in the mouse on my desktop, then I realized that everyone had better patent whatever they can before the unscrupulous money weasels got their act together. We're well into the 3rd act.

IM(V)HO, patents aren't that great unless you're on the right end of the licensing agreement and I wish we didn't have to have them all. But we need to have them, if only to keep the bottom feeders of the world from reinventing the tux wheel and then patenting it out of existence. If I invent some novel "Method and Apparatus for the Extraction of Novel Nutrients from Common Playground Sand..." and then GPL/BSD/give-it-to-charity, can someone then patent a slightly reworked version and sue me for doing OSS work? Is that the precedence under which the license I pick wants to be tested? So, completely non-hypothetically, is Red Hat taking the so-called pre-emptive strike here?

I'm hoping -- as a very long time RHAT user, and a stockholder as long as there's been stock to hold -- that you guys will use some clout and cash to take out a patent or fourteen for the "good guys", as nasty as the conept sounds. If you have a claim to something novel, than have at it, I say, as long as you give back the key bits to the world. If you don't, then someone else will just patent it and hold onto/license it. So what sort of use to regular humans will be granted with the rights given RHAT by the USPTO? Does your company have a policy for this sort of thing?

I don't mean to grill you, but it *is* weird. Maybe I should think about patenting the process by which an OSS, for-profit company patents new ideas in order to give back to the world by protecting those ideas... :-)

-B

one word

[Anonymous Coward]

hypocrits

Redhat Redhat have you heard

[Anonymous Coward]

The people in the streets
Are talking loud and clear
THey don't want you to profit
From work you hold so dear

They don't like stingy coders
Who want to feed their kids
They just want big free handouts
And lots of gay porn vids

The people in the streets
Are saying to the masses
Redhat and Microsoft
Screwed us in our asses

Bill Gates may be the devil
But RH is his pawn
And both MS and RH
Both have to be gone

Stallman's in his corner
Saying GNU/this GNU/that
But all of us just know
That fucking dude is fat!

Taco's in seclusion
and BSD is dying
everyone is losing
and cowboy neal is lying

someone please god help us
we know it can't be true
redhat's filed patents
now there's nothing we can do!

I have a solution !

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not switch to SuSE or Debian ?

SuSE and Debian Work more accurately than Redhat I think...

Re:This has been proposed in the past as a defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Bit of trouble ? With only a small fraction of their cash reserve they can buy out RedHat ....if it comes to that. Neither Ingo nor anyone else will be able to stop that. You can give it to them to "think out of the box".

Am i the only one who sees this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't any one realize that the only reason they have affordable hardware to install Linux and GPL software on is because there is a marketable business that hardware manufacturers can survive off of. Freeware is not marketable. There would be no $20 NICs if there weren't Compaq and Dell to buy them by the tens of thousands. Linux is an awesome privilege. Yes, privilege! The only reason it exists is because there are people who want to contribute to larger community and give away their unique creations. GPL developers can't really afford to develop much hardware and if they do they can't do it for a mass market, but there are a few people who write code. And then they give it away. Great! that's really nice of them. Thank you! It doesn't help the economy, but it's very generous. Then there is all the hacks who claim that the GPL is god's gift to man and they don't contribute a thing. If you spent any time in the real world you'd realize what money meant to the average man and you'd realize that a company couldn't run on good intentions. Since we live in world were you need money, don't you need to find a way to make it? Red Hat has developed a product or two that somehow manages to break free of the GPL and good for them that they can make some money for a change. Who paid for your computer? How could you afford it? Why was it so cheap? How do you contribute to the free software world? What do you know about macroeconomics? You sound like a bunch of children boasting about whether Chuck Norris could kick Bruce Lee's ass. Open up your eyes and smell the coffee percolating down the cubicle... Oh wait, you can't run a business when you have nothing to sell. So that must mean we have a bunch of hypocrites or a bunch of starving artists.

Re:Am i the only one who sees this?

[arkane1234]

Thanks for the theatrics.

Now, let's get down to History 101. Redhat started off selling Linux on CDROM with instructions. That is how almost every Linux distributor (thus the name) came around, and still do it. Since Redhat decided to go IPO they have had to somehow increase revenues and gain market through different tactics. This is there problem... Redhat was doing great before the IPO, as they continued to sell their Redhat Linux solution to newcomers.

Now we are in the catch-22 where they have this business structure that is a stable form of income but doesn't satisfy stockholders and growing executives within the company.

I hate to sound cold and heartless, but as anyone else would say if it was me on the other end: I missed the part where that was my problem?

Mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

From the text of the "Embedded protocol objects" Patent
> [0020] [...] implemented in a computing platform based on the computer operating system commonly known as "Linux"

Obviously this must read either ``operating system kernel'' or ``known as "GNU/Linux"''

Re:Software Patents = Bad (pedantic)

[Anonymous Coward]

He was using Visual Basic, not Java, you asshole.

software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

nice to see even redhat patents are easily considered OBVIOUS ideas.

Ingo Molnar

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, Guys,

If you read the linux kernel mailing list you'd recognize Ingo, c'mon...He's one of our famous and beloved linux hackers!

Check out the source directory /linux/net/tux,

/*
* TUX - Integrated Application Protocols Layer and Object Cache
*
* Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, Ingo Molnar
*
* main.c: main management and initialization routines
*/

It's good that he's patenting it, let the patent system protect the good guys for once!

Don't point at Red Hat

[Veteran]

The problem is not that Red Hat filed for the patents - the problem is that they could file for the patents.

Software patents are ridiculous - they are the work of ONE MAN who both pushed the idea as a practice and later became a judge and ruled on the legality of his own creation! . Can you say "conflict of interest"? Historically software was properly ruled out as being unpatenable.

This is not Microsoft ...yet

[theolein]

RedHat is a tinv company compared to Microsoft, so I think the screaming, "RedHat goes to Redmond" is a bit premature. They are of course trying to compete with other distros or else they would not have offered those competitive upgrades for Mandrake and SuSE users. I don't think they are either as bad as some claim (rpm's etc) or as user friendly as SuSE or Mandrake. It's a company trying to make some money in fairly difficult times.

I really would wait and see what happens. If they start throwing cease and desists and legal suites around, that would be a better time to start an outcry.

Is it not already a 'free' patent?

[pol-pot]

Since this is included in a pice of software that redhat is licensing to me/you/anyone, we are allowed to use the software along the spesific terms of the license agreement.

Since linux and redhat is GPL'ed, we are allowed to use it in any derived GPL-software???

RedHat, welcome to the business world

[forgoil]

And so it begins, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I can't blame RedHat, they are in this for the business, you can't give away everything if you are going to make a profit.

But I can't say that I like these kinds of patents, the are not good for a free market, for healthy competition, nor for non-profit software or the users.

Something needs to be done.

It's not about killing other open source projects

[bero-rh]

There has been no official statement on this yet, and probably the final wording of the license isn't done yet, but in short, this will not be used against any open source projects or companies.

Software patents are evil, yes. But if you can't get rid of them, you unfortunately have to play the dirty game if you don't want to be sued for infringing on patents like "text in a window".

There are several things I totally dislike about Red Hat (such as their ultimately stupid choice of default desktops), but there are plenty of other things that keep me here, like the strong commitment to Open Source.
If that were to change, I'd be out of here the same day.

As long as you see my posting from a *@*redhat* address, don't worry about things like this.

Downloadable SuSE isos

[Abnormal Coward]

You CAN download suse isos, see below:

http://www.suse.de/en/support/download/suse_linu x/ index.html

fa!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're going to use it to screw other linux distros.

They'll just charge for it

[vedli]

Again (just with the patents on HTML filed by Amazon and the pop-under ad company) we are seeing the combination of business orientated capitalism taking over from free software. We need a body, or something incorporated into law, that keeps open source just that, open and free. I'm not sure how it would work but it needs thinking about otherwise the two worlds of capitalism and open-free software will continue to clash in this way

Don't think you're so important.

[NDPTAL85]

Fortunately geeks like you don't make the purchasing decisions at large companies that "matter". What really happens is a marketing exec from the software company, in this case it could be either RH or MS sets up a meeting or golf game with one of your company's VP's or CxO executives and they discuss and decide on the deal that way. Very little imput from the grunt workers on the IP assembly line is solicited. If the software isn't chosen that way then slick advertising picks up the slack.

If you think this is not the way it happens then how else can you explain the proliferation of MS software when it is so clearly not the best solution for all of the companies that use it?

Small clarification.

[Doktor Memory]

TUX is the main performance competitor to IIS.

Uh, no. That would be iPlanet, thttpd and Zeus.. Especially Zeus.

TUX is a cute proof-of-concept, and if RH can get some leverage over MS by patenting it, I'm all for it. But let's not kid ourselves about who IIS' competitors are.

Re:Small clarification.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But let's not kid ourselves about who IIS' competitors are."

no lets not:

Developer: March %: April %: %change
Apache 53.76 56.38 +2.62
Microsoft 34.02 31.96 -2.06
Zeus 2. 24 2.26 +0 . 2
iPlanet 2.33 2.21 -0 . 2

looks like microsoft should still be fearing apache rather a lot more than iPlanet, Zeus or thttpd for actual use which is after all what counts. source: netcraft Survey April 2002

Freedom, Community Values, all bunk.

[mindstrm]

Folks... RedHat will stay a supported of the open and free just as long as it's profitable for them to do so.

They are a publicly traded company with a duty to maximize shareholder value. If you think that means giving things away they could be charging money for, think again.

Yes, they give away some stuff for free. Why? Because they want to? No, because they have to, or because it's in their best interests to do so (ie: Driver development for linux, etc)

Re:It's not about killing other open source projec

[ainsoph]

As long as you see my posting from a *@*redhat* address, don't worry about things like this.

Yup. And Alan Cox. You guys are my barometer.

Inclusion in mainstream Kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Linus is just interested in "the best technical solution". We will soon see the kernel polluted by patented fragments.

I would like to see some policy like the w3c did with rejecting extensions/standards which have been patent polluted.

I now distrust Redhat the Microsoft of the Linux community even more. Making money has nothing to do with dropping pricinples of free software.

Software Patents are evil and instead of working against them Redhat jumps on the train.

Flo(@rfc822.org)

My Version of Goodwin's law....

[Anonymous Coward]

Any thread that quotes the GPL will begin to attract more and more Karma whores as time goes by. Since as thread size approaches infinity, Goodwin's law (and its derivatives) limit the length of the thread. Therefore, GPL quoting will cause thread death via Goodwin's law.

Software Patents and RedHat

[Famanoran]

So far, I've been reading all these threads, and they all say pretty much one of the follows:

"RedHat sucks."
"Software Patents are evil."
"The GPL requires that all software patents on GPL code have free licensing."
"Good for RedHat."

Right.
I'm a software engineer for a company that develops proprietary code on Linux systems.
I make money from software. Linux software.
Some of which have software patents.
Does that make me evil?
No, it doesn't.

Software patents are a good thing.
I spend, offically, 8.5 hours a day coding. (Unoffically, closer to 16-20 hours a day).
Why should I not be able to patent an idea that I came up with, while ensconced in front of my PC?

Moving on....

I'm no RedHat fan. Actually, I hate RedHat.
Not because they're RedHat, or they're big, or they make money from Linux..
My gripe with RedHat is that they release RedHat distributions without proper QA procedures. They fix "bugs" in programs that don't exist. They patched "ping" to do a DNS lookup on each and every ping request it sent.
They broke 'tar', so it'd generate 0-length real-files from symlinks, when extracting.
They used a development version of glibc in a production distribution.
The list is endless. That's my gripe with them, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

But don't diss them for trying to protect the intellectual property and hard work of their software developers.
Indeed, more power to them for it.
OpenSource is well and good, but, personally, I like to be able to put food on my table. And I don't even have kids -- if I did, I'd work for Microsoft themselves, if it was the only way to put food on the table.

Sight it, climb it, own it? Sir Edmund owns what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most software solutions amount to finding a path up a problem mountain. There are usually only a few reasonable ways to climb the mountain.

Any competent expedition team needing to get to the top will inevitably discover the basic approaches and paths.

The first to go should not have the right to build toll gates on the path they took (much less fence in the whole mountain), any more than Sir Edmund Hilary should own the rights to climbing Mt Everest.

What the first climber should get is acclaim, and maybe a Nobel prize if it was a really significant climb, and of course s/he could print and sell copyrighted maps (without an EULA that tries to claim ownership of the mountain and charge per climb!). They could charge per climb for guide services, of course. And they could sell cruise'n'climb tourist packages that include luxury transport up the mountain. But blocking others from making their own way? No. That's not right. Especially not when it comes to intellectual problem mountains.

Besides, what is the last Mt. Everest scale software patent you've heard of? Bah! All this arguing about mole hills is pure BS from the legally-break-your-competitor's-legs school of competition. It's really sad.

Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever RH will do with that patents; if they don't give them to other Lin-distributers freely, I will have bought RH for the last time.

Isn't NFS Prior Art?

[herbierobinson]

It seems to me that NFS satisfies the major points of this patent. Beyond that, it's pretty obvious to a normal practitioner.

Attention, anonymous moron.

[Doktor Memory]

You'll find that, in general, you'll make a complete fool of yourself if you actually read the posts that you're responding to.

The thread was about "performance competitors" to IIS. As lovely as apache is for many uses, nobody (including the apache authors) would pretend that it's anywhere near in the same performance league as IIS, Zeus or iPlanet.

And I didn't mention Apache at all in the first place.

"Embedded protocol objects" has prior art

[topping]

Isn't Apache Cocoon sufficient prior art to have this patent voided? They sure sound the same to me with Cocoon Sitemaps and stuff.

Software patents suck. Trade Secret law is sufficient protection for software ideas, since most people don't have time to disassemble the source code of others anyway.

Time for a PATENTS version of the GPL?

[Seth Finkelstein]

Hmm ... I'd say the most interesting part of the policy is this:

At the same time, we are forced to live in the world as it is, and that world currently permits software patents. A relatively small number of very large companies have amassed large numbers of software patents. ...

One defense against such misuse is to develop a corresponding portfolio of software patents for defensive purposes. .... In the interests of our company and in an attempt to protect and promote the open source community, Red Hat has elected to adopt this same stance. We do so reluctantly because of the perceived inconsistency with our stance against software patents; however, prudence dictates this position.

The idea is very similar to the GPL. Maybe we need a general "patent GPL" - one which is not a "policy", which can be changed later, but a stronger assignment of patent rights to a GPL'ish foundation in defense.

Maybe it's time to revive the League for Programming Freedom, but along these lines.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Re:This has been proposed in the past as a defense

[cduffy]

Besides, I seem to recall the GPL protects us against anyone integrating incompatibly licensed code into GPL software.

Except that Linus has given a special exemption to kernel modules. Hence, no dice.