Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Violates 283 Patents, says Insurance Company

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the prior-art-needed dept.

Apro+im writes "According to this article over at ZDNet: 'Linux potentially infringes 283 patents, including 27 held by Microsoft but none that have been validated by court judgments, according to a group that sells insurance to protect those using or selling Linux against intellectual-property litigation.' Dan Ravicher, founder and executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, conducted the analysis for Open Source Risk Management. OSRM is like an insurance company, selling legal protection against Linux copyright-infringement claims. It plans to expand the program to patent protections."

10 of 475 comments (clear)

  1. What a shame.... by DrStrangeLug · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That most of the code was written in Europe BEFORE we had software patents.

  2. Microsoft's patent strategy by glinden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is some question about whether Microsoft has an explicit strategy of using patents as a weapon against open source.

  3. What kind of patents can a kernel have? by byolinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously - can anyone think of the kind of thing that anyone could have patented? Disk I/O? Threading?

    --
    Join the Free Software Foundation
    1. Re:What kind of patents can a kernel have? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, and don't go looking for anything either. If we know about infringement and do nothing, we can be punished. If we don't look, don't care, and don't know, all we have to do is change the code when someone else points out a problem.

      It's not our responsibility to enforce the property rights of other people.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  4. Gee... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Starting to sound like Open Source Fear Mongering to me. I don't know of any product that doesn't "potentially infringe" on other patents. Certainly for every software product I've worked on, when we did a patent search, we turned up several patents we potentially might be infringing on. Of course, our solution was to file a few of our own defensively so if any of our competitors came after us, we'd be able to go back after them too.


    The problem with Linux is that there is no one organization with sufficient stake to specifically pursue such a strategy. Though I'm sure if push came to shove, IBM would be willing to use its patent arsenal in defense of its Linux-using customers, given how much they've invested in Linux deployments and Linux-based services work. Anyway, of course it's in this insurance company's interest to point out every possibly infringing instance.

    1. Re:Gee... by Otter · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Starting to sound like Open Source Fear Mongering to me.

      Uh, no kidding? It's interesting how the one time the OSRM guy doesn't get Bruce Perens and PJ Groklaw to be the company's public face, all the comments are suddenly about what a scam this is. Tomorrow there'll be an interview with Perens where he talks about what a noble, altruistic venture it is and the mob will instantly fall back in line again.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  5. I'd hate to see something happen to your nice OS.. by twd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like a protection racket, to me.

    --
    ~*~ Tara
  6. Kernel-land or User-land? by bsd4me · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article didn't mention it, but are the potential violations in kernel-land, or do they also entend into user-land and ``Linux'' is being used in the broad sense of the term?

    --

    (S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))

  7. yup.. .and here's a more critical analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Forbes has a rather more critical article about this.

  8. Re:This insurance doesn't make any sense. by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Actually, it does make some sense, although I don't think it's necessary just at the moment and hope that it never will be. I'm assuming that it will function in the same way as car/home insurance if you have cause to make a claim, and also that OSRM itself will be under-written to protect its clients against OSRM going bust.

    So, when Foo Corp claims that by using Linux you are infringing their patents you simply remain noncommittal (just as you should never accept blame at a car accident) and call OSRM. If OSRM is as good as my car insurer that's pretty much the end of the matter as far as you are concerned. They deal with Foo Corp and their lawyers and resolve the issue as best they can, whether that be getting the case dismissed or negotiating and paying your license fees. You'll probably get a letter every now and then letting you know of any developments, requesting information they might need and so on, but that's all. For many CTOs paying a company like OSRM some money each year might just be worth the removal of one less thing to fret and loose sleep over.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!