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."
I thought we did not have patents as of yet in the EU....
How come?
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.
Oh, common, did anyone else read "Munich freezes linux" and for about 10 seconds I'm like WHOAH It really IS cold over there....
I can only urge you to read the study that lists the potentially infringed patents./ swpatmuc.p df
http://www.ffii.org/~blasum/basisclient
Even though it is german there are a lot of patents listed in english and you will be able to see how incredibly absurd this whole thing is.
For example there are patents for:
- Tabbed Browsing
- Multitasking
- Using your browser to browse online forums
- Creating documents through macros
to just name a few.
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 list of example patent claims (most of which would be easy to fight but we aren't really rolling in dough here in Munich at the moment) should be clear enough and translation sites don't mangle them too much.
Note that this is mostly based on patent applications, not accepted patents. The majority of concerns become moot if the EU denies software patents.
Cheers,
woof.
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 green party just brought up the software patent issue to get some attention to an existing problem - software patents.
:)
They are pro Linux (at least for Munich), and against (pure) software patents.
Just to prevent misunderstandings...
That could be fun.. "We're sueing you for using Linux"
"Try it... you can come to OUR courts and do it"
"..er..erm..but we can't use our money to win there"
"...hmmmm.. indeed"
I hope they do move over to it and then if Microsoft try anything they'd have to win with evidence and not with money.
I like muppets.
because problem is became so obious. It's not about will you or not use open source if software patents will be granted in US. You simply won't. Imagine all the good things what open source brings - Apache, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc. INCLUDING BSD operational systems, will be hard to use in the work and in enivorements you would like to. Even I guess Mozilla Firefox and OpenOffice.org could be in harm. It's time to stop program patents, NOW. There's no discussion about half-backed solutions. It must be stopped.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
...the Munich Green Party had pointed out about 50 possible patent conflicts which the city wants to evaluate before moving on.
Gee, I wonder where they got such a coMprehen$ive list from?
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Europe doesn't have patent law on software yet, they are making a point to stop the patent law on software going through.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
For the FSF and Open Source Software organizations to begin filing patents for any applicable technology. You can't fight this by not holding any.
mbbac
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.
ok you are not wording it right, but you have a valid point.
Everyone is running around screaming about the "liability" of using linux and it "possible violates" some patents.
please, I guarentee that hese same patents arebeing violated by microsoft, if not more of them.
why is it that people think that if I use Microsoft I am immune to being sued while linux= anyone can sue me for any reason?
when did this sillyness in thinking come about??
IBM is being sued for breach of contract by SCO, nobody is being sued "because they use linux" contrary to the hype and fud spread by the media.
so yes, please can someone in the know enlighten us as to why?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They are with Linux and they are against software patents. I know that because I helped them last Friday with some of the PR work for their motions that made the city administration put the LiMux project on hold for now.
.NET framework. I really love .NET but I want its developers to face open source competition because that's the best assurance that they'll do their best in the future.
If everyone in the industry and in politics understood that you can only be either for open source or for software patents, it would all be a lot easier. Some say that software patents have not hurt open source so far but today we have the first incident that shows how software patents can put a hallmark Linux project in jeopardy.
What people need to understand is that the competitors and enemies of open source may very well accept today's stack of open source software, but they lay huge patent minefields in new areas of technology so they can arbitrary restrict the functionality of open source and keep its market share limited in the future. However, the best that can happen to all of us is an unfettered proliferation of open source.
I'm not just involved in open source. I'm also developing a closed-source computer game based on the
.. FUD! Not only are patents not currently legal, but there aren't even any patents! These people are afraid to deploy something that might possibly conflict with a patent application. This is just plain silly. Why is it that the only time politics has to be involved with the choice of a software product is when the software product isn't one sold by Microsoft?
Steal This Sig
Looks like SCO has managed to create enough of a fuss to get things like this looked at. IMO software patents are the devil and here is one result of them.
Lets consider tabbed browsing, and 169 degre opening doors on these new Nissan Titans.
My company spends millions building this door, the hinge is a peice of work requireing many hours of effort and testing. We pantent it all of course and are awarded it and people buy our trucks for it's superior way of opening vs say a ford with the same feature.
Tabbed browsing should be considered in this same light. Everyone should be able to implement tabbed browsing. Company X could code it one way and Company Y would code it another way. Both have tabbed browsing, one's method is superior, provides more features, and the code size and memory footprint per tab is lower than the competitor.
Just blindly posting patents for the idea is wrong. Software patents should be more specific and not on the general idea. Yes you can have a patent on a tabbed browser but not on the tab metod itself just your way of coding it.
If my theory is correct, it is an incredibly dangerous game they are playing. However, if it helps stop software patents in Europe it is worth it, even if it means losing Munich to Microsoft. It would be losing a battle to win the war.
In principle, this sounds like good business practice to me. If choosing a particular product seems to expose you to nasty legal action against you, you naturally want to assess the risk and consequences before making your decision.
Products from Microsoft or Sun are just as likely to contain infringing code as Linux, but if such code is found, it's likely that the producer of the software finds itself at the wrong end of a lawsuit, not the users. The scary bit about the problems with Linux and purported IP infringement, is that the people laying claim to parts of Linux go after the users, since there is no real producing company to sue.
So it is accurate to state that software patents stifle free, open software development specifically. To use software patents against an incorporated competitor isn't very practical. You'll have to actually fight your claim in court, since your competitor's product is their bread and butter, and it'll be worth it to them to defend it. But to fight an OSS competitor, it is enough to threaten potential customers with a lawsuit... to them, the risk of a lawsuit isn't worth it, and they are likely to choose a non-OSS solution (unless they think the claimant has no case whatsoever).
You can be sure that Gates & Balmer are dancing a little jig after hearing this news... I'm not against patent law per se, but lately we see too many examples of corporations threatening to sue over the most outrageous claims on IP, and getting their way by scare tactics, not having to prove their claims or even spending one penny in court. I fail to see how this practice is in the 'publics best interest', as the proponents of software patents claim it is.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
All operating systems run the risk of infringing upon patents. How can anyone choose one system over another based on the same type of risk?
Since Windows is much bigger (code-wise) than *BSD/Linux/Amiga/etc., would that not mean that it has a higher chance of running into patent issues?
Would the users be immune to the issue since they did not infringe (the software developer(s) did)? Eolas did not go after the users but Microsoft.
It seems this event is showing the world how dangerous software patents are. It's better to put a project at risk and rise awareness about this issue, than go on doing business as usual and wait until MS decides to shut OS/FS down using an unjust patent system.
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.
Want to see a legal version of windows? I can make a copy of mine, so you can see what it looks like.
Ok, so I can't mod this discussion anymore, but it has to be said ...
Seeing all the stunts that have been pulled by the big lobbyists in the last year or so, in order to pass the software-patent litigati^W legislation (I live in Europe, and followed the debate, more or less), it is not at all unlikely that the Green Party of Munich uses a different tactic now to get a broader audience's attention. Remmeber, the upcoming law might be ratified by the Europeean Parliament in no more than 6 weeks!
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 only protection any software needs is a copyright. A copyright protects the owner's right to the expression (code). You can't copyright an idea (As shown in that texas case posted earlier, having thoughts of a program grants no rights, only writing the code implies copyright. This may have been part of the grounds for the ruling.)
When you really think about it, that is what software is, it's the expression of whatever you're coding (a tab, a purchase order, an email sorter).
So what needs to be decided is this: Is software an artistic expression of a concept (copyright) or is software an invention (patent)?
I tend to think of my software as an art form, expression of a concept (copyright). No one can copy my code, but anyone can see a program and say "hey that's a good idea, let's do something like that". This is how ideas evolve, ultimately benefitting society.
Imagine if some music artist patented the C chord, how much would music suffer if no other artist could use that sound? However, the sequence of sounds (like software code) is rightfully protected by copyright.
you are right, the greens are generally counted to the left wing. on a national level they are against software patents, and imho this was not a bad move from them. They only raised the question what will happen to the migration if the EU passes software patents. The migration is at a point where going back isn't really an option given the money which was spent already, and the money which is available (which is next to none). Therefore it raises awareness about the whole issue and shows the average politician the link between software pantents and FOSS.
The paradox about this is, that the german domestic department recommends using FOSS in public service, whereas the department of justice voted for software pantents in the EU. Should stir some people up, me thinks.
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.
http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/bb_dir/presse/2004/ 08/99502/limux_softwarepatent.html
Here's a translation:
The [Bavarian] state capital Munich certainly holds on to the Linux project that was decided on by its city council, and upholds its strategic decision in favor of an open source project. [reference to dpa report, a German news agency]
"It was just yesterday that the IT experts of the city explained the strategic benefits of its Linux project to the city administrations of Augsburg and Nuremberg [two other Bavarian cities, Nuremberg is the 2nd largest one]. We were pleased to see that those cities, like Vienna (Austria), are interested in Munich's open source solution." All that is correct to say is that the bidding process for the base client has been temporarily put on hold because the legal and financial risks due to a draft directive proposed by the EU Competitiveness Council (which would allow for the very broad patentability of software) need to be checked into.
In the opinion of the mayor, it is now the highest priority that all European municipalities and enterprises that have a vested interest in open source take influence on the EU institutions and the national governments of the EU member states. The goal must be that the envisioned directive does not take effect as a European law. In that regard, Munich concurs with a decision by the European Parliament, "which once again is attempted to be turned around and into the opposite, by small EU committees that pander to the interests of large corporations".
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.
this is why we decided to freeze this huge project, that the SPD, the major partner in the german administration and our political partner in this project, just cant allow to fail. The had too much trouble with toll-collect, a recent huge waste of tax money. That way the SPD just cant continue to silently support software patents in the EU. Without a EU software patent law, we happyly invite you to OUR courts to discuss this in full detail.
Yours sincerly, the greens of germany
P.S.: Did you manage to unbundle your software from your OS in the meantime, or do we need to call the EU to fine you again?
The real issue is the totally stupid "software" patents issued by ignorant offices.
I.e. the "one click buy" patent, the tabbed browsing and even methods for embedding "something" in a browser are examples of ignorance and stupidity.
There are 1000 ways to code "one click buy" commerce functionality - but only ONE patent for it. That's what's wrong. It should be the code and the algorithms there where the target for patents NOT the method. As an example I could file for a method for making a car move. That would be the engine, and that would be ridiculous in the eyes of engineers. Such a patent would never make it trough the patent offices. Of course there would be prior act, but in many situations prior act is forgotten or the little man are afraid of the battle with the "mastodont" - an whole other issue.
Therefore I must conclude that the people patenting software methods and functionality are somehow not fit for the job.
It is then up to us citizen of the world, to raise a flag saying that the entire world will be in state of limbo if the current insane software patent wave continues.
Next time I file a patent it should be for bad endings in novels!
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
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.
Although the original auther didn't bother, here is a basic list of what some of the patents are:
Tabbed browsing...
Reading fees for web based applications...
Web shopping basket....
60 Firewall patents....
Jpeg compression...
Windowing systems...
Document creation via macros...
Multitasking...
SMB/CIFS...
Web based deployment...
These patents are literally criminal. Why bother to use a computer at all. Why bother to even consider working in IT since, due to patents, you're fucked the moment you write your first line of code. Christ alfuckingmighty, Microsoft and these fucking patents make one feel like being back in the fucking dark ages when you were forced by law to pay taxes to the fucking church just because they were there.
I'm going to work in a fucking restaurant as a waiter. At least there I know why the customers and the boss treat me like shit.
Write your software. Period.
If it is infringing on anybody's patents, you will show diligence and stop infringing.
If it is an innovative product, you are creating prior art thus blocking any idiots trying to patent your idea. Of course there is always somebody trying to pull a SCO in legal systems that are utterly broken, but you can't do much about that, can you?
Write code, learn, enjoy it and face the situation if it arises. There is nothing the common person can do about this, the most softwar is produced the more difficult it becomes for any stupid dishonest company or person to appropriate ideas they did not create.
And of course do all what you can to abolish software patents. They are an aberration and a danger to knowledge advancement in societies that uphold them.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.