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."
We don't have them yet. That of course didn't stop the european patent offices from granting thousands of software patents even though they are illegal. As it is now these patens are useless as they will not be enforcible in front of a court, however the moment software patents become a reality that will change.
Stop Software Patents!
OK, I am replying to my own post...
Some important issues they raise in the 'patent PDF'
- mozilla tabbed browsing (from opera?)
- GIMP image export formats (ie. JPEG, GIF)
- OOo macro support
- OOo XML schema (from MS Office)
- CIFS / SMB
- Use of browsers for eCommerce (Oracle patent)
Seems to me that they have been exaggerating some patent issues.
Others might apply, such as CIFS, Gimp GIF issues etc.
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.
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 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.
EU commissioners are unelected and don't exactly have a reputation for honesty
You're right, they're not elected, but they're appointed by their respective national governments, which arise as a result of democratic election. I know it' debateable whether this is good enough or not, but then again, there are countries that don't have directly elected presidents.
I think a lot greater problem with software patents is that the issue is well understood only by a few people. Knowing enough about programming AND law is a rare combination.
It is very easy to confuse (and bribe) anyone into supporting the patents. Hopefully the case of Munich will actually be a good thing, because it will make politicians realize, that yes, software patents do matter to them!
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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!
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.