Slashdot Mirror
Linux Violates 283 Patents, says Insurance Company
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."
That most of the code was written in Europe BEFORE we had software patents.
There is some question about whether Microsoft has an explicit strategy of using patents as a weapon against open source.
Until someone jumps up and down in court with their army of lawyers, we'll keep it at "potentially"....
Kind of like an auto insurer producing a report on which car locks are least secure, and how to pick them.
Phil
Almost.
This sig no verb.
Seriously - can anyone think of the kind of thing that anyone could have patented? Disk I/O? Threading?
Join the Free Software Foundation
Well if these are big issues then OSRM will go bankrupt at the first patent attack of doom. And all your money paid to them will be useless.
On the other hand if the patent claims are bogus then your investment will be useless, too, as there is nothing to defend.
The money would be better invested in a real legal insurance which covers being sued by teh mad discrimination laywers of NAL-p'ThUK-NZer-RaK etc.
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.
Im a little skeptical when the news comes from selling protection against the same problem. Hey look, there is a problem here, but guess what I will sell you protection agasint it.
Interestingly enough, at least one person works for both orginizations, Daniel B. Ravicher.
What does everyone else thing? is it something to be concerned about or is it a ploy to sell insurance and drive up the cost of linux adoption?
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Since its the same company that is selling insurance saying there 'might' be a problem... Sounds like they are just trying to scare up some business for themselves..
Either that, or OSS is screwed, and the other shoe is about to drop. ( don't think it would stop with the Linux kernel, much more is vunerable if its taken that far.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If they are selling insurances againt it, then they won't believe it would be a problem. Otherwise, they would loose money. Simple as that.
Anyone believe that is they really thought this could happen, they would sell insurances against it ?
morcego
Sounds like a protection racket, to me.
~*~ Tara
So this is the new 419 scam coming out of Nigeria. Seems inventive.
Of course it's a publicity stunt. Their whole business is dependent upon anti-Linux FUD. If PHBs believe this crap, as well as the junk they see in the press from SCO, they start thinking about who'll take the fall when they get sued for using Linux. Nevermind that it won't happen. If that particular PHB is the one that might get fired, he just might start trying to convince his own PHB that thy need Linux insurance.
It's like selling earthquake insurance to a farmer in Indiana.
This whole thing might be a nice way for companies to pool together for a legal fight.
If someone does sue the OSRM insured companies, the insurance company's best interest is fighting the battle with its resources (insurance money) pooled together instead of each companies having to fight on their own.
It might not be that bad of thing.
Check this out.
OSRM is the company PJ (you know, of Groklaw) joined a few months back to provide indemnification for Linux users. This organization isn't the enemy, folks.
[I thought that name (OSRM) sounded familiar.]
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
And how many patents does Windows (or DID windows) violate of Apple? (Before Microsoft either changed it, or bought the patent, etc) This happens all the time!
stuff |
Sure, Linux may have some features that are listed in several registered patents, but to me the question is: Who has prior art?
My guess is that very few companies will persue any litigation in this area because of the possibility that the OSS community came up with the concept first, thereby invalidating the patent they claim to be protecting.
The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation by protecting the income for the developer/innovator to recoup the cost of innovating/developing, not to discourage innovation.
If Linux truly violates patents, why are they only bringing it up now that Linux is becoming a viable alternative for mainstream america?
Besides, the whole thing is suspect simply because it comes from a company selling insurance for patent suits.
Karma, We don't need no stinkin' karma!
This violates my patent on FUD.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Heck, I accidentally violated more than that in the last 2-tier app I wrote.
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))
Seeing how m$ gets every and more both obvious and non-obvious patents granted, soon everyody and everywhere will infringe some m$ patents when writing more then 2 lines of code.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Forbes has a rather more critical article about this.
Since source code has been ruled as expressive speech, do software patents mean speech is patentable? Or will the stack collapse from that end?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
May be embedded in devices other than plastic toys found in breakfast cereals and happymeals
May be built without bloat (a prohibitive patent owned by Microsoft)
Able to run for months, or years, without reboot (another prohibitive patent)
Uses letters of the alphabet
Uses arabic numbers
Multitasking
May be networked with multiple other computers
Enables a spoon to stick to admins nose during boot
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
And because PJ works for them, the entire company is comprised of saints?
For all I respect PJ and Groklaw, this does look like a pretty grimy attempt by OSRM to stir up business. Just the headline gives it away: "Results of First-Ever Linux Patent Review Announced, Patent Insurance Offered"
I mean yes, there may be patent issues with OSS. Yes, it's good that someone did the research. And yes, it is important that someone have answers ready for when the CIO raises the issue. But there are obvious vested-interest questions about OSRM's research.
I'd like to see it replicated outside OSRM. Or at least some disclosure, with right-of-reply to OSS developers. Spill the beans OSRM: what are those 283 patents?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What is a shame is that an organization that is purportedly pro-OSS (they are the owners of Groklaw.net) is pushing the idea that there is an unacceptable level of liability in using Linux, for the purpose of selling their insurance product (which is of negligible value due to the extremely small coverage amounts). It's FUD, and surprisingly it's coming from "our side". PHB THINK: If a large enterprise is considering Windows vs. Linux, but wait! Linux requires user insurance because of its questionable pedigree, and Windows does not, the choice is obvious. Lot's of people have suggested that SCO and the various M$ toadies are trying to deep-six Linux. I think ORSM is doing quite well at this also.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Probably true, but remember that Microsoft's strategy isn't based on winning lawsuits. Their behavior is based on the understanding that they can drag the case out for a decade or more, so the legal fees will bankrupt you long before you win.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
There are plenty of copyright infringements in proprietary code
Patents are another story. Given right now the patent system seems to suck (even though it's supposed to serve a valid purpose) -- is patent infringement truly patent infringement in many cases? I would argue a lot of the patent cases will be thrown out because of prior art, no merit, etc. I'm not advocating patent infringement, but just saying that a lot of the existing problems are most likely not really problems at all. Only some will be huge problems.
Ravicher found that about a third of the 283 issued patents are owned by large
corporations that are friendly to Linux - ones with some current financial interest in broad Linux
adoption, including: Cisco, HP, IBM, Intel, Novell, Oracle, Red Hat, Sony, and others However, to date,
no Linux vendor has [...] entered into an explicit agreement promising never to use its own patents against Linux users.
How about this one?
Each time you redistribute the Program [...]. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
I think threatening patent infringement action against any user of a Linux distribution that you had provided them with would be placing a further restriction on usage, hence a violation of this term that a Linux distributor must have agreed to in order to distribute Linux.
but then were re-applied copyright retroactively when the terms of copyright law were extended
Those things are illegal not because of ex-post-facto, but because it violates the 5th Amendment: private property was taken without compensation.
Copyrights which had been scheduled (since their inception) to be turned over to the public were seized by the government, and then handed over to the copyright registrants. This is flagrantly illegal, and if Lawrence Lessig were a better litigator, he could've proved so in the Eldered case.
I'm tired of all these "+5 Insightful" comments about how this is a protection racket.*
/who/ would get what, when (it's like life insurance -- everyone will die, but no one knows how much money will be paid into insurance before that date. But, statistically you can get a good idea and charge people accordingly. That's where actuarial tables and increasing rates come in. But I digress).
Look, insurance is not some crapshoot. It's highly dependent on using statistical analysis to mitigate risks. Stats require data. Insurance companies are ALWAYS trying to get more data to understand the risks they need to hedge against.
Why does the insurance industry fund Underwriter's Laboratory (you know how everything under the sun is "UL Approved"?)? So they understand (and, by engaging in the process, can minimize) the risks associated with using electrical appliances (electrocution, fires, loss or damage). They then price insurance accordingly.
Ideally, an insurance company will contract (or fund) a third-party company to do the analysis. The insurer gets the stats and determines their rates, while the 3rd party works to minimize the risks. The UL label program has dramatically reduced house fires, for example.
This is exactly what's going on here -- OSRM engaged PubPat, a group dedicated to FIGHTING bad patents, to do the analysis. They get their data, while PubPat can work to get those patents invalidated.
There's another benefit here to the Linux community: companies should feel more free to adopt Linux now that the risk is known and there's a way to minimize it (i.e., insurance). Which is more likely to keep you in the house, knowing that if you go outside you can be violently murdered, or that there's a less than 1% chance of being murdered that can be made to almost zero if you avoid certain behaviors?
Put another way: Companies don't mind taking risks (it's what they do), provided that they're identified and can be hedged. Unknown risks that can take down a company, however, are untenable.
Everyone knew that patent suits were a huge risk to Linux, but it was an amorphous big deal that was unquantified. Now it's known. I'm surprised that people who so violently disagree with "security through obscurity" are against the public release of risk information around patents. Understand the problem, make it public, then address it quickly. It's the same situation, just a legal one and not a programming one.
As an aside, this is not to say insurance companies can't be evil -- dropping people after genetic testing shows a proclivity for a disease is just wrong, IMHO. But, economics dictates that if everyone knew exactly what chance they had of contracting diseases, there would be "genetic protection insurance", since no one knows
In short, what you're seeing is a responsible insurance company going about their business.
* Full disclosure -- I only read the comments on this article at +5 before writing, so sorry if this is redundant.
I see a lot of posts saying that these 280+ patents are invalid or ridiculous. Are we burying our heads in the sand? It only takes one well placed patent lawsuit to disrupt Linux development. Look at the SCO case, they used the scatter shot method and it has distracted Linux development and adoption. Not severely, but enough for the FUD machines to have companies and persons re-evaluate their Linux adoption. The enemies of Linux and Open Source will use patenets against us. Have we all forgotten what happened to the companies that stood in Microsoft's way? Once they do find a weakness, they won't hesitate to exploit it.
What can we do to counter act software patents? Can we create some sort of "prior art" / "idea" database online that holds instances of prior art or ideas for software programs that the community could build up and use as a weapon in defense of the open source software development? If we create a resource for prior art then it may be easier for the USPTO to deny some software patent applications...
Just my two cents...
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
No, the "purpose" of patents was to encourge the disclosure of knowledge. The "means" by which it does this is to grant a limited monopoly to those who publically disclose information.
Never do patents protect or grant the right for someone to make money, nor do they even grant the right to use/manufacture the idea that was patented. Patents only restrict anybody else from making money or otherwise using the idea.
This is why the "don't look, don't know" advice is so indicative of a really messed up system. In order to minimize your legal liability, you have to not look at patents...which means the primary purpose of patents (the disclosure and distribution of knowledge) is directly subverted by the very law establishing them.
According to them, those patents should already be enforceable today, but the law is not interpreted the same everywhere. So they want to harmonise it and make sure that software patents are enforceable everywhere in Europe, except pretty much only in the UK as it is until now (they never mention this last part obviously).
Of course, our (FFII's) position is that until now, those patents are generally not enforceable, in the UK they interpret the European Patent Convention in a completely ass-backwards way (just like the Commission/Council) and when you force all of Europe to accept the UK's case law then this is not just some formal "harmonisation".
Donate free food here
Linux almost *certainly* infringes on software patents. This is true of almost any large software product these days, including Windows. It is no longer possible to legally write a significant piece of software without infringing on software patents. I'm sure every major piece of Internet-using software I have infringes on some patents.
This is not a sign of "Linux is broken", this is a sign of "software patents are broken and it's fucking insane that the US allows them".
I'd love to see IBM lobby against them, but IBM, like all large tech companies, has their own healthy patent portfolio to keep competitors from entering their markets.
Very depressing. Every day that we continue to allow software patents is another day worth of patents that must be grandfathered in if any fix occurs -- the US legislature will never, *ever*, *ever*, even if they eliminate software patents, not grandfather in old ones. Lots of comopanies put a ton of money into getting them, and they won't yank assets from under their feet.
If we stopped allowing software patents today, we'd still have a two-decade-long software patent minefield to deal with. If you're fifteen today, you'll be thirty-five before the industry is free of software patents. If you're twenty-five today, you'll be middle-aged when the industry is patent-free again, and if you're forty-five today, you'll be retired when the industry is patent-free. Assuming software patents stopped today, which isn't going to happen.
May we never see th
Take a good look at the pharmecutical industry and the cost of drugs in the third world, and you will be convinced that patents do kill people. Doctors Without Borders has a good case on this, search them on the web.
The drugs protected by patents wouldn't even exist to save anyone if the pharmaceutical companies didn't think they could profit from developing them.
Do you think that brilliant research doctors and investors decide to develop drugs because they'll get a warm, fuzzy feeling in their hearts?
Do you think that a geneticist is going to work his tail off to develop some vaccine to save some people in sub-saharan africa, who can't pay for it, or work for a profitible company that will reward him so he can live comfortably and maybe even send his kids to college?
I certainly appluad companies that decide to play nice and sell drugs cheap to third world countries. I hold no ill will against those who do not. Either way, nothing would get developed without the profit motive, and no one, rich or poor, would benefit from the non-existent drugs.
And if you're going to bring up 'public funding', at least show me an instance where a government lab in the same field as dozens of private companies has managed to hold even a candle to private enterprise. I'm not saying such an example doesn't exist, but they will be few and far between.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
"Loser pays" needs to have a reasonable cap or it just ends up making the "my lawyer is more expensive than your lawyer" argument even more effective than it already is. If you think you have a good case, and only a 20% chance of losing, are you willing to take that risk if that 20% chance will result in losing a few thousand dollars? Probably - but what if it's a 20% chance that you'll have to pay for a team of Microsoft's Lawyers salaries for a year? Not so ignorable a risk anymore...
The "loser pays" plan is usually implemented in countries where Lawyers don't command nearly as large a salary as they do here.
And on Kerry vs Ashcroft: Compare apples to apples - potential presidents to potential presidents, or potential cabinet members to potential cabinet members.
If you have problems with Ashcroft's civil liberties record, don't vote for his group just because Kerry is even worse - go third party.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Regarding how much I expect to make, I have helped create several companies so far without making anything. Maybe someday Progeny will be worth something, I don't know. So, I am not expecting anything. Nor do I see that my rep is suffering among those who take the time to examine the issue. The main reason I am participating in this is so that there will be a force able to defend Linux while being independent of hardware vendors and distributions, with their proprietary agendas. I am also working hard to fix the system, but politics takes years or decades to change. What else do you suggest?
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
This line of "reasoning" has gotten repeated so many times, people are starting to accept it as true without questioning it. So let's stop a moment to question it here. Yeah. And no one whould write an operating system from scratch if they weren't assured of making a fortune. Or, for that matter, a novel.
And, by the same logic, nobody ever makes food or thinks up new foods because you can't patent or copyright them.
No, the brilliant ones do it because they are obsessed. It's the dedicated ones that do it because they care.
Oh, and (in my experience) the ones that only do it for the money are the hacks that we'd be better of without. Pretty much the same as in any field.
Well, given the fact that they always seem to talk about the choice (again, in my experience) in terms like "selling out" vs. "doing what I love" the fact that many of them "sell out" doesn't mean they like it.
There are actually many logical steps here, all highly questionable if you stop to think about them:
- Nothing ever gets created without the creator being reasonably assured of a profit
- The more talented and creative people are, the more they are obsessed with money
- You can't make a profit at all unless you can crush anyone who tries to compete with you
- R&D is the reason companies need to make so much money, even though they spend far more on marketing, lobying, etc.
- The pharmaceutical companies profits are causing all the progress; and, by implication, general advances in science and technology have nothing to do with it (oh why didn't they think to give patents and promises of obscene profits to the alchemists! Think what they could have accomplished!)
...you get the idea
-- MarkusQ