Slashdot Mirror
The Linux Kernel and Software Patents
batsman writes "The Linux VM system programmers are discussing the software patents that could block further development of important features. Alan Cox brings up several SGI patents covering the techniques they were considering, and Daniel Phillips has found some patents that affect features already present in Linux. Linus Torvalds thinks they should ignore these patents and pretend they don't exist until they cause troubles. How long before kernel developers are sued for patent infringement?"
How long before kernel developers are sued for patent infringement?
This brings up an interesting question. Who gets sued in this kind of situation? The one who writes the code, the one who compiles it, the one who distributes it or the user? Technically, there shouldn't be anything wrong with the source code itself, since it is not a product or a device. An example is that the ISO source code is freely distributable, even though there are many patent problems. Now it's it's not the developers, who is it? Unisys seems to have tried going after GIF users (web sites), while some others seem to try differt approaches. This is one really bad thing about software patents.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Just because a company holds a patent doesn't mean they have to enforce it, or plan to. If they wish they can grant Linux or the world an unlimited license to use the patented technology (which would be the friendliest approach) or they can simply ignore patent violations, which is at least neutral. (Ignoring, rather than granting license to use, is worse because it means they may change their minds at some point when the technology's already running enterprise servers throughout the world, at which point they pull a Rambus. In some ways it's worse than enforcing right away; at least if they enforce right away there's less damage to existing codebases.)
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
This is whythe term "intellectual property": it causes people to be confused into thinking that copyrights are the same thing as patents, when they are very different.
Did you know, for example, that many patents are invalid? That is, most patents are known by their owners to be so flawed that they carefully ask for just enough royalty so it's cheaper to pay than to go to court, but even so, about half the time a patent makes it to court get tossed out?
The problem with software patents is that the more you look for, the more you will find; lots of basic techniques have been patented (often two or three times). If you look for and find these things, you either have to work around (very difficult or impossible in some cases), sue to invalidate the patent (expensive), or be subject to penalties for willful infringement. If you don't look, the patentholders have to slog through YOUR code looking for reasons to sue (and no willful infringement penalties). Why do their work for them?
(OK, maybe Linus wasn't right about the hit man thing. A hit man might be cheaper than an IP lawyer, but murder really IS unethical, and besides, you'd have to wipe out the whole corporation, and that gets almost as expensive as a lawsuit. But I assume Linus was speaking tongue-in-cheek there)
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> This issue is more complicated than you might think.
No, it's not. You miss the point.
> Big companies with
> big pockets are very nervous about being too closely associated with
> Linux because of this problem.
The point being that that is _their_ problem, and at a level that has
nothing to do with technology.
I'm saying that technical people shouldn't care. I certainly don't. The
people who _should_ care are patent attourneys etc, since they actually
get paid for it, and can better judge the matter anyway.
Everybody in the whole software industry knows that any non-trivial
program (and probably most trivial programs too, for that matter) will
infringe on _some_ patent. Ask anybody. It's apparently an accepted fact,
or at least a saying that I've heard too many times.
I just don't care. Clearly, if all significant programs infringe on
something, the issue is no longer "do we infringe", but "is it an issue"?
And that's _exactly_ why technical people shouldn't care. The "is it an
issue" is not something a technical guy can answer, since the answer
depends on totally non-technical things.
Ask your legal counsel, and I strongly suspect that if he is any good, he
will tell you the same thing. Namely that it's _his_ problem, and that
your engineers should not waste their time trying to find existing
patents.
Linus
god n. : the Supreme Being, indistinguishable from a good random number generator.
I think that much of the problem stems from the "non-obvious" bar being set too low.
When a company invests a lot of time and money to come up with an idea that the world would otherwise not have had, I think that the company should have a right to protect that investment through patents. Without such protection, they won't make the investment in the first place, so the idea won't be conceived, and society will be all the poorer for that.
The problem occurs when an inevitable idea becomes the property of whoever gets to the patent office first. When that happens, the law is taking an idea that would otherwise have belonged to society and general, and barring everybody except the owner from using it.
Linus isn't interested in standing up for our right to code. He'd doesn't like politics, and would prefer to ignore the problem. But the problem won't go away. Rather than say immature stuff like that, it's time for him to use his notoriety to speak publicly about the problem and why it should be fixed.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I think what he is meaning by that, is the fact that patents are de facto validated in court and not by the USPTO, as the latter grants nearly every stupid and insignificant patent that comes by.
:)
In fact nowadays you can't write a single line of code without a chance of having a stupid patent somewhere which forbid it ! this is just slightly exaggerated.
So when and (if) someone dare to sue a Linux hacker about some stupid patent, considering all the interests now in stack, you will probably have someone with deep pockets (or a big defensive patent portfolio, can you say IBM) who will jump to defend it.
I think this is the best strategy, as Linux is probably already infringing hundreds of patents, and nobody can review all the thousands patents that may apply every time he writes a single line of code, and this why patents are bad and impractical
Anyway experience has shown that 95% of the time, Linus always does the right thing , (well this is just bit exaggerated to, but not far from the truth)
see here.
Patents has NEVER brought anything good to society. All patents do is create a monopoly.
1) There are no truly unique inventions. Everything is an evolution of everything else.
2) The car was patented. While the patent of the car was active cars were not built and they were low quality, etc. Ford got around the patent and made cars that everybody could buy and drive. Windsurfers were patented. The company windsurfer held onto the patent and in the last couple years of the patent sued the hell out of companies. Result companies went under and Windsurfer took the money and ran. Sure the original patent holders invented the car and windsurfer. But those same inventors did nothing to further the invention.
3) Time has shown again and again that ideas or concepts are worth nothing. Execution is worth everything. There are hardly any companies that survive only on patents. If you look at most big companies they survive because they know how to run a business.
4) Now and the future the only ones penalized by patents will be the "western" world. The rest of the world does not care about patents and they clone, etc. Why? Because patents introduce a penalty that only the "western" world can afford.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I've never met Linus, but from reading the Linux kernel mailing list over the years, I think he's doing just fine. Everyone is so quick to find some cause to rant about, but he's saying, I'm here to develop the kernel. He's not a lawyer, nor has he ever been known for his activism, but quite honestly, I don't want the head kernel architect to be a political spokesman, that just slows down projects and gets the developers thinking about the wrong things. Does this issue have to be addressed, definetly, but I think he knows he's not the one to do it. It's better suited for Redhat or maybe HP, not developers.
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
If Linus (et al) are publishing source code, isn't this code protected by the first amendment no matter what patent law says? I mean, by sending out the source code, aren't they simply giving a description of *how* a patented thing works, not an implementation of that thing actually working? And since the patent requires that the patented thing be fully described, isn't source code simply a different way of saying something that is already public knowledge?
Couldn't a developer who is being sued for patent infringement simply say, "I'm just exercising first amendments rights.. and besides I'm not saying anything more than you've already said in your patent filing. I'm just saying it in a different language than you."
?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Funny, the Constitution says (Art. I, Sect. 8)
There is nothing there that says the "discovery" needs to be a machine and not an algorithm.Thomas Jefferson thought patents should be just for machines, but he was not the king of the U.S., and others thought differently. The Patent Act of 1793 states that the inventor of
is entitled to a patent. Note that "arts," not just machines, are entitled to patents. The 1952 Patent Act revised this to read,Again, not just machines, but processes were elegible according to the letter of the law to be patented. Algorithms and business plans seem to me to be processes and hence, are not automatically excluded from the wording of the historical patent laws.
While I respect your opinion, I have to flatly disagree and ask what it is you're smoking.
Patents on hyperlinks? Patents the parent poster mentioned? Patents on chat bots. Come on -- all it would take is one guy with a BS in comp. sci. and 5 minutes with Google to evaluate any of those.
This is the government we're talking about here. If any 24 year old comp. sci. major can figure that out, shouldn't we expect the same of a government body which regulates patents that result in high dollar lawsuits?
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.