Slashdot Mirror
Patents and the Penguin
In an article entitled Patents and the Penguin, the non-partisan Alexis de Tocqueville Institute observes, "[i]t is not uncommon today for patent fights to erupt even between parties that have engaged in rigorous diligence. By contrast, open source developers and distributors do not engage in patent searches, thus, there is a real possibility we will see a major patent fight involving open source, sooner than later. The article also ominously warns: "IBM will be competing with large Linux-based developers and distributors themselves. As the deployment of Linux increases, it can be expected that IBM will be going head-to-head with its "friends" in the Linux community. It is unquestionable that the biggest irony of all will be when Big Blue resorts to using its war chest of patents against a "friend" in the Linux community." Even Homer Simpson can see this coming.
I thought the whole idea is that IBM are selling services for a product where the vast majority of the developers are NOT employed by IBM. Surely they wouldn't be stupid enough to piss about 95% of 'their' developers?
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
Just because IBM is on the "good" side for now, does not mean that Big Business will be the saviour and flag bearer for the Open Source movement for ever. Sooner or later O.S. will be screwed and we will see court cases vs IBM, HP etc will steamroll over smaller organisations and people in order to enforce software patents.
Non-partisan, you say? I think not.
If they would have read the GPL it says that you license *all* your patents with that software for that software. So if IBM is distributing Linux it would have a pretty hard time suing any other Linux distributor or user over code that IBM has distributed under the GPL. It's pretty easy actually and one of the beauties of the designed in features of the GPL.
IIRC this wonderful institute has written some very controversial studies and analysis for Microsoft and other proprietary interest before. They can hardly be called neutral or non-partisan.
--
Andre
"Even Homer Simpson can see this coming.
Homer Simpson CANNOT see this coming. However, given a half hour, he could accidentally trap the entire IBM legal department in some underground cave (or perhaps Moe's), find an old patent in his attic registered by his great grandfather* in 1901 for a "computing device", show up to court and take IBM to the cleaners for, oh let's just say $3 Billion, and then sign over the check to Mr. Burns in return for a week off and a couple of donuts.
*OK, we all know Lisa forged the 1901 patent, but as long as it works in court we're fine.
null sig
Patents are the last card in the deck. Consider the fact that SCO was looking to generate revenue having exhausted all of its other streams. Everyone knows SCO had nothing to offer, and that's where part of their disdain came from.
On the flip side there are small companies making a name - but most grass roots efforts can defeat them.
IBM is no where near as close to closing its doors as Sun, so I don't know why everybody is worried about IBM.
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
IBM allows anyone to license any and/or all of its patents. All you have to do is give them a call and they will be more than happy to work out an agreement with you. The large patent portfolio is more of a defensive measure - if IBM is sued, it's more than likely that they can countersue with a few choice patent violations.
Bottom line - don't sue IBM unless you are sure you haven't infringed on ANY of their IP.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Is this the same "non-partisan Alexis de Tocqueville Institute" which is funded by Microsoft? That suggested "Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems"? Or did people forget this already?
0 &mode=thread&tid=109
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/04/22824
I don't know if the military is much of a potential lawsuit source. There is a good chance that the military could leverage OSS mushroom style.
For example, until Theo pi##ed them off, the Air Force and Darpa were sending money to OpenBSD. Who's to say that they haven't since forked it to "DarpaBSD" and moved on?
The military does have programmers who know their stuff, and they can hire IBM as a contractor doing 'work for hire' that legally belongs to the U.S. Government, complete with NDAs & whiterooms.
They also have a secrecy == security mindset in many areas, so they may choose not to release their work. Even GPL software could dissapear into the system like this, since they would all be working under the umbrella of the U.S. Government and so therefore the work could be widely used in binary but never "distributed."
In that case, patent cases or other IP disputes would probably not be made public, as in order to make a case the military work would have to be published. And unless they publish their work (like SELinux), nobody else would really know enough about it to sue them. Given that Microsoft et.al. has already complained about the unfair competition provided by SELinux, I think publishing complete operating systems or adaptations of OSS operating systems would be rare.
Anyway - just a thought.
null sig
This group has a long history of being microsoft funded and packed with neocons. Non-partisan? I had to laugh when I saw CmdrTaco put that there.
On the IBM point, IBM already has a giant patent portfolio. GIANT.
The difference with IBM is while they'll make money on their portfolio, they are not a dying company who'es only source of revenue are patents. They've played exceeding well with the linux world, have expressed their dislike of patents in the past, and distribute Linux so have agreed to the GPL.
Even Home Simpson could see this is a bunch of BS.
The issue if patents and FLOSS software is real, and the way things are going these days, I think we're headed for some real problems in the not too distant future. However, I strongly suspect the problem is not going to come from IBM or other Open Source "friends". (They have no interest in "crushing" open source as a competitor.) It's going to come from either deep pockets like MS, with an ax to grind, or from more small-operators like SCO or other "Intellectual Property Houses", looking to cash in on the Wave.
Software patents are a real issue, but the problem is not isolated in any way to the FLOSS development model. Nor should it be a reason to shy away from using, or developing FLOSS software.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.
The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process. After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.
An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"