Slashdot Mirror
City of Munich Freezes Its Linux Migration
Jan0815 writes "Yesterday I received disturbing news from the CTO of Munich, Wilhelm Hoegner. As previously mentioned, there is a rising concern that software patents could stifle development of open source worldwide. FFII has complete coverage of what is going on in Europe." (FFII stands for Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure.) Reader jmt(tm) writes "The call for bids was supposed to be published in late July, but the Munich Green Party had pointed out about 50 possible patent conflicts which the city wants to evaluate before moving on."
Ask yourself: Why would the FFII do this research if it hinders the proces of linux in Munich? Altough their document has the following statement: In May the EU Council and Commission have reached "political agreement" to legalise software patents and reject all limits of patentability for which the European Parliament had voted in September 2003., software patents aren't already decided, the newly elected european parliament have to have their say and I think this is an effort to keep everybody focused. I'm thinking this focused maily on the ministers of the member states,last meeting they had this was past silently, but lateron the Dutch minister got some noise from the Dutch parliament. Now seeing Munich has much the same coalition as the German government, this might be directed to the German minister who's in that meeting.
The decision to freeze the project is more of a political statement to force the federal government to take a clear stand on the EU patent directive.
The green party wants to point out what harm a law that allows software patents can have for small and mid sized companies.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
The good news about Linux is that as a distributed, non-owned asset, its difficult for owners of 'intellectual property' to pursue lawsuits that would prevent further kernel development. Who do you sue? Linus? If so, someone else will take over stewardship. If its problematic in the US and Germany, move repositories and organisations to Canada or Italy or Thailand...who cares?
The next generation of spurious lawsuits will be targeted at users of the technology. Without a blanket organisation to indemnify (sp?) the users, I suspect widespread adoption will slow very quickly. I was hoping IBM or a big player would step into this space (as per the one-off SCO lawsuit situation re: HP) but right now the scope of lawsuits is so vast that it would be suicide to do so in a blanket fashion.
When I buy and deploy MS, at least I know that EOLAS won't/can't come after me. Linux however faces increasing paralysis as this 'death by a thousand cuts' discourages widespread adoption.
Can anyone comment on the largest linux deployment in the world? How many large scale deployments exist? I'll ask people to ignore academic installations, as they are rarely relevant to corporate/government environments which drives the IT industry.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
The problem isn't software patents. The problem is that some software patents are just rediculous and they should be given to someone that at least tries to implement the idea.
Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it. They have the money to promote it and they corner the market. You've wasted a couple of years without any return.
Most of the patent litigation that gets reported on slashdot is usually the other way around, heck most of it is just the potential of a patent to be used in a bad way, but there are cases where the little guy that poured his heart and soul into something was able to prevent a bigger company from ripping him off.
Granted, if you're just someone who doesn't innovate, just copies other ideas, then you don't want software patents.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
The FFI press release says "Software patents are considered the greatest danger to the usage and development of Linux and other Free Software."
However, it is MUCH worse than that. Software patents are a danger to ALL software development, particularly software done by small firms or in-house, which is where most of the software development is done. If software is patentable, and if all those obvious patents are granted and upheld. No-one will be able to develop any software for fear of being sued.
I hope the software patents issue is not seen to be only an issue for Open Source and Linux. It's not. It's a danger to all of us. Even if companies will still create new software, it will be much more expensive due to research and defense of possible patent infringement, patent fees, and additional coding to work around expensive patents.
actually i see it more as idealism trying to build a wall against reality. the reality is that patents promote greed not science/knowledge/research, and the reality that people really can come up with the same idea in the same context without ever knowing about the other person's work. (!shock!)
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Or, it is a case of idealism running smack into the wall of reality.
But it's a reality that doesn't have to exist.
Linux being abandoned in Europe because software patents "have" to be introduced would be a bit like the cure for cancer being discovered and promptly suppressed because cancer "has" to be incurable.
There is no sight more demoralizing for the idealist than seeing work on the construction of the wall of reality speed up as he approaches.
I disagree the problem is software patents. Patenting ideas is just too general purpose and the same idea tends to be come up with hundreds to hundreds of thousands of times all over the world without anyone knowing about the patent. Software patents just give a monopoly to the first person to get the idea patented no matter how many others come up with it.
Nobody comes up with ideas on their own since none of us is on an island completely seperated from the rest of humanity. You added your small piece to the idea of many others and that should not give you any right to control that.
Look at how many came up with stuff like read-copy-update stuff. Things are independently come up with so many times in so many places that software patents are just not a good idea. We all build our stuff on the backs of others and when we get to a certain level of knowledge as a whole the same idea will be come up with in many places.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
They should NOT be painting this as just a Linux problem.
They need to immediately do an excruciatingly thorough search for software patents that Microsoft software may be infringing. Be sure to include ALL of the software in the Microsoft package - from Windows to Office to Media Player to Outlook and Exchange to Microsoft IIS webserver to PowerPoint to Internet Explorer, everything.
Presuming they find a few, then obviously the EU needs to "freeze" any Microsoft purchases as well.
Oh, and while they are at it, IBM has a couple of active software patent infringments against SCO in court right now. So if by some odd chance some EU government office is dealing with SCO software, well I guess they'll just have to "freeze" that too. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You have to look at the cost-benefit comparison of patents and see how it relates to software:
Cost:
people can't use an idea for a certain amount of time without paying the inventor (this time is incredibly long in any high tech field, including software)
Benefit:
- it encourages spending on research and technology (the software patents we hear about didn't require much of this other than writing the code - the "invention" was just a natural result of the design of the product)
- it encourages inventors to disclose their inventions (while this may be useful for things like manufacturing processes that would otherwise be trade secrets, software almost inherently discloses the invention when the software is released)
I think that the cost side for software patents outweighs the benefit side. IOW software patents give less to society than they take away.
So, yes, they are doing the right thing. Let's pray it works out.
So, you patent your idea and turn it into a product. However, some big company comes along and "steals" you idea. You contact your lawyer, who contacts their lawyer to get Big Company to pay for a license fee. Unfortunately, it turns out that your own product infringes on 53 of Big Company's patents, so your lawyers agree that the best solution is a cross-licensing deal, where they get to use your patent, and you get to use their 53. In the end, the only winner is: patent lawyers.
Have any such examples? One?Remember, patents exist to promote innovation -- to allow inventors to spend their time working on inventions that wouldn't be possible if you couldn't prevent others from copying it. What kind of software innovation is only possible thanks to software patents?
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
Is it maybe you the one who is not thinking clearly? What the greens are doing in this case is rising awareness about a very important issue for the OS/FS community. They are not against Linux - on the contrary.
Next time you post, read first, breath twice, and then write.
The general /. consensus has always been that a software company can copyright its code, but should not be allowed to "patent" an idea. In other words, Microsoft should be free to claim ownership of their DoCrazyStuff() function, but should not be granted exclusive rights of "providing an method on a computer by which crazy stuff may be facilitated".
I think what the Greens meant to do was highlight the problems with software patents, not to stop the Linux migration. Unfortunately, in classic Green fashion, their method of doing so was to point a rather large gun directly at their foot, take careful aim, and pull the trigger.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
For copyright violation.
"...and yet when it comes time for Linux to lift ideas from Microsoft, /.rs get really mad because they don't think Microsoft should be allowed to own it's ideas."
It's patented ideas.
Really - I cannot understand what is the matter with the moderators this morning - this drivel isn't even factual and rational, let alone insightful.
The problem isn't software patents.
No. Even non-rediculous software patents are a problem. MAYBE software patents would be OK if software had always been patentable... but it hasn't! We've been writing software since 1960, but people only started trying to patent it in the 1990s.
That's 30 years of time when many inventions were made, but no patents were filed. So tons of software ideas were invented, used or not, and then programmers moved on, leaving old ideas free to be patented decades later by someone who wasn't really the first at all.
Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. Some big company sees it and copies it.
Just imagine, you spend years coming up with something that ou think is great. You write a program, self-publish it, and the shareware-fees begin to roll in. Then IBM calls you and says they patented it years ago. Sure, they never brought it to market- they just have lawyers who patent every little idea that crosses their engineers' heads, without checking if it's practical or profitable.
But now that you've generously done the work of building a market for their patent, they'll be happy to drop the lawsuit against you, as long as you cease your business immediately. You took a big risk, it paid off, and you lost!
You've wasted a couple of years without any return.
The argument that patents protect little inventors from big corporations is mostly backwards today. Filing patents costs money, but it's something a big corp can handle easier than a little guy (by rolling the price of a dedicated IP lawyer into the overhead).
Patents are useful in some fields like pharmaceuticals, but not in software.
Granted, if you're just someone who doesn't innovate, just copies other ideas,
Note that copying other's ideas is the foundation for capitalism...
Now let's run this through a real life example. You spend years creating something completely different. Something new enough that it truly deserves a patent (say something on the order of public key encryption), and you create a product and start to market it. The big software companies, especially Microsoft, immediately set to work cloning your work, and within a year they have competing products.
However, you have a patent on the really clever bits, right? So you are saved.
Wrong! Instead, when you approach Microsoft and friends about licensing your patents they simply show you 20 patents of theirs that you violate. Microsoft has patented the double-click, for crying out loud. Your patent lawyer then advises that you sign a cross-licensing deal with these companies, and asks you for a big fat paycheck. So now you have spent years creating the software, and tens of thousands of dollars patenting your ideas and you are still screwed.
The only way for the little guy to win with patents is to see where the market is going, patent ideas that are likely to block upcoming software innovation, and then sit back and wait. The trick is to write absolutely no software. That way you don't violate anyone else's patents. In fact, that's what a lot of companies are doing. They don't actually create any software, they just lay out landmines for the folks that are actually doing the real work.
Don't tell me that promotes innovation, because I don't buy it.
No. Issuing patents on software is fundamentally broken. Software is not an invention. Computers cannot implement inventions. The only thing a computer can implement is calculations. Calculations, math, are not inventions.
The US screwed up and went against globally accepted patent stanards and reversed it's on accepted patent standards when it began issuing software patents.
Specifically the US abandoned the "Mental Steps Doctrine". The Mental Steps Doctrine said that mental processes are not - cannot be - inventions. And that anything that can be done mentally is not - cannot be - an invention.
It may be slow, but absolutely any code can be executed mentally. I am a programmer, executing code mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging code. All software is fundamentally mental steps - mental processes.
Physical objects and physical processes can be inventions. Mental processes and calculations are not inventions.
Answer me this:
If I choose some convient/simple software patent, and I then proceed to in fact execute that software through pure thought, have I committed patent violation? Were my thoughts a violation of the law?
And if not, then please explain how it magically become an invention and a violation when I take the obvious and non-novel step of using an ordinary computer merely to speed up that exact same non-invention calculation?
I really really want you to answer that. It's funny, every time I ask that of a software patent advocate they completely ignore the question. They can't rationaly answer it, so they pretend the question was never asked. So I will state right now that if you reply in support of software patents, yet completely ignore the previous two paragraphs, I will just repeat the question. Can thoughts executing the software violate the law? And if not then how does the obvious use of a computer merely to speed things up turn a non-invention into an invention?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Really?
And please explain to me how it would be better not to raise issue now? How is it better to simply wait for it to pop up later in the form of an actual patent lawsuit after the EU passes the Software Patent Directive?
The worst case scenario is that the Munich Linux project gets killed now rather than later by actual patent suits. The best case scenario is that raising the issue now will dissuade the EU from legitimatizing software patents in the first place.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I agree that software patents aren't the problem. In fact, I'm unaware of any actual patents on software. There are patents on methods or algorithms that are implemented in software, but that's justifiable. For example, if I made a control systems algorithm that I implemented mechanically or electronically it would certainly be patentable, so why shouldn't it be patentable if I implement it in software?
What seems to be the problem is the defacto removal of patent restrictions regarding obviousness and prior art, along with the patent duration. Very obvious things are getting patented in software. It's like patenting a plastic doll because it now has a new hat.
But my biggest concern with this Munich thing is why the concern over Linux specifically? Patent violations are just as, or more, likely in proprietary software. In fact, all litigation I'm aware of for so-called "software" patents have been between proprietary software companies and there have been no lawsuits over Linux violations yet. Plus it is quite obvious that Linux developers would be quick to make new "non-violating" implementations very quickly if anything was found. In other words, the reasoning behind slowing Linux implementation in Munich makes no sense to me.
the key to destroying poorly issued software patents is prior art.
3. A call from you for us to help you find prior art would meet with tremendous response.
No! Absolutely not!
The goal here is not to invalidate a handful of stupid software patents. The goal here is avert the EU from passing a directive legitimizing and legalizing software patents themselves.
If the Council's version of the Software Patent Directive passes it will legalize the patenting software. If software is established as patentable then defeating these few patents isn't going to help. There will be tens of thousands of software patents issued every year and we inevitably lose.
However if the Parliment's version of the directive passes then it will affirm that the existing European Patent Convention which explicitly excludes software from patentability does in fact prohibit software patents. That last sentence is confusing, but it is correct. There is already a European Convention saying you cannot patent software. The problem is that some people are playing word games, by their interpretation the text prohibiting software patents doesn't actually accomplish anything, by their logic it was intentionally written to do nothing.
If Parliment's version of the Directive passes then all previously issued software patents will be established as invalidly issued. All of them are invalidated in one fell swoop and no new software patents can be issued.
So the goal of raising this issue was to shine a spotlight on the disaster to ensue if the Council's version passes. The intent is to ensure the Parliment's version passes, preventing these patents from becoming valid.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If your company cannot comepte in the market without patents, then your company deserves to go down in flames.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Patents are useful in some fields like pharmaceuticals, but not in software.
...and yet, I'd say that both (a) and (b) above are ideal cases: we don't want people to suffer and die prematurely, and if they have to, we'd prefer that everyone gets treatment, not just the wealthy, even though simplistic supply-and-demand wisdom would suggest that limiting drug access to the wealthy would be more likely to turn a profit and thereby enhance chances for future cures.
I don't even like the idea of patents in medicine. Aside from the fact that the only possible use for patents in medicine is to limit the distribution of cures to those who can pay for it, thereby callously disregarding the value of human life, there's a deeper concern.
There are several arguments that run along the same thread, but all of them is a permutation of profits driving interest in further R&D:
- If we don't let them patent, and thereby profit, what's to encourage future cures being developed?
- If everyone can get the cure for cheap or free, why will anyone pay the prices necessary to help the developers recapture their investment?
These for me are just a bit to close to saying that we need to keep people dying so that the medical industry can keep making money. After all, isn't the ultimate goal to put the medical industry out of business? I'd like to think that the goal (however unrealistic) is a world in which people are so healthy that drugs and complex medical products are no longer needed for the most part.
So long as we continue to reason along the lines of, "But who will support the drug companies, and how will they make a buck?" we are espousing a mentality that needs continued suffering and death, because a) if people aren't suffering and dying of diseases, there's no impetus to develop drugs because there's no market, and if people aren't suffering and dying because a drug is b) so freely available, there's no motivation for the wealthy who can afford it to actually pay for it...
I'm just not sure patents in general are ever a good idea.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW