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."

Comments

What a shame....

[DrStrangeLug]

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

Re:What a shame....

[Anonymous Coward]

dare i say the words "prior art"
hopefully this will lead to the courts regarding software patents with the same contempt that I do.
An idea doesn't belong to a person, nor does it belong to a company... ideas belong to us all; it's society that inspires an idea, it should be scoiety that reaps the benifits!

Re:What a shame....

[kcbrown]

Prior art doesn't mean shit in the U.S. anymore, even in the courts, and especially to the patent office (who see fit to issue new patents even against things which have been patented in the past!).

And this won't change, either, since it benefits large corporations at the expense of smaller entities, and large corporations are the only entities the U.S. government responds to anymore.

The keyword is "potentially"

[NiceGuyUK]

Until someone jumps up and down in court with their army of lawyers, we'll keep it at "potentially"....

Shooting self in foot?

[philbowman]

Surely if your business is in insuring against something, it's not in your interest to do the research to show exactly how that thing can be brought about, even if in the first instance it improves your sales?

Kind of like an auto insurer producing a report on which car locks are least secure, and how to pick them.

Re:Shooting self in foot?

[jpetts]

They are NOT releasing the list of patents. They just state there are 283 patent infrigements.


They will show you the patents if you insist, but they recommend strongly that you not look, since if you know about the patents you are infringing, then in the US the infringement becomes wilful, and renders you liable to triple damages.

This is one of the reasons that people such as Linus recommend that engineers should not do prior patent research before coding anything.

Re:Shooting self in foot?

[Bruce Perens]

I am on the board of this thing and would not allow them to goad patent holders into suing. Indeed, the entire thing is calculated to prevent people from suing, because a big insurance company with a $100M fund will defend against suits instead of a little customer.

Bruce

I'd hate to see something happen to your nice OS..

[twd]

Sounds like a protection racket, to me.

419

[pyro101]

So this is the new 419 scam coming out of Nigeria. Seems inventive.

Re:What kind of patents can a kernel have?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

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.

Patent violation is rampant

[192939495969798999]

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!

283? That's it?

[Luveno]

Heck, I accidentally violated more than that in the last 2-tier app I wrote.

Re:Gee...

[Otter]

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.

yup.. .and here's a more critical analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Forbes has a rather more critical article about this.

Re:This insurance doesn't make any sense.

[Zocalo]

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.

Re:One interesting approach in America

[jc42]

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.

Re:Microsoft's patent strategy

[Bruce Perens]

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.

Bruce

Cart's before the horse

[dfenstrate]

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.