Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Consider Linux Kernel Patent Risks?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the something-to-think-about dept.

chromatic writes "After the hoopla about OSRM's study of patent risks in the Linux kernel, I talked to Dan Ravicher, the patent attorney and free software afficionado who conducted the study. Contrary to my initial reaction, I've come to believe that the study is actually very valuable. Linux and Patent Risks on the O'Reilly Network explains why."

10 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. So.... by evan_th · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If somebody decides to sue Linux for copyright infringement, who defends it?

    1. Re:So.... by sloanster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If somebody decides to sue Linux for copyright infringement, who defends it?

      I think you are a little confused, perhaps... When you say someone will "sue linux", exactly who do you mean is being sued? Novell? Linus Torvalds? IBM? Red Hat?

      Once you apply a bit of clear thinking, and decide who is being sued, the answer to your question will follow naturally.

    2. Re:So.... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You can sue anyone. Indeed, lawsuits are generally brought against a list of defendants and "John Does 1 through 1000", so that more defendants can be added later. So, suing all known kernel mailing list subscribers would not be impossible.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  2. Has anyone audited non-free OS's for patents? by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I would still like to know if anyone's audited the source code for any of the proprietary OS's for patent violations.

    Seems Linux will be one of the safest kernels from a (patent point of view) to run, since it has had the most companies scouring it's source code looking for infringements.

    1. Re:Has anyone audited non-free OS's for patents? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yet it seems customers (perhaps Daimler/Chrysler, since they're now sensitive to the issue), would start demanding that proprietary software they buy gets audited for IP rights.

      They could demand this, but what they would get would be indemnification or insurance. Their motivation is to reduce their legal risk, so either of these would be acceptable.

      You really can never complete a patent search. Because of the vagueness of patent claims, it is difficult to say conclusively that a patent can't be asserted against a particular body of code.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  3. It's a MAD World!!! by grunt107 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the gloom of the patent infringement reports, the one bright spot is the Patent machines of IBM (and HP). It is doubtful that other major patent holders (MS) do not violate any of IBM/HP (and vice versa), so the threat of mutually assure destruction is the only seeming deterrent.

    Who are the commies in this scenario?

  4. Re:implied patent license by d_jedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's only a patent license for those who *distribute* the GPLed software. Linux is still vulnerable to patents owned by any company that does not release a distribution (and AFAIK, IBM does not.. but it would be stupid for them to try to enforce their patents, given their investment in Linux).

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  5. High risk for any company suing... by bani · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the rewards of 'enforcing' a patent against the linux kernel would have to outweigh the risks of being a permanent pariah.

    given the fact that so many patents are revoked upon challenge, the fact that many patents are trivially circumvented via minor changes, and the fact that attacking one company over a 'patent infringement' in kernel code is in effect attacking millions of end users worldwide, the risk is extremely high and the rewards extremely low.

    to me it seems rather unlikely any company would attempt this, unless they have nothing to lose (eg SCO).

  6. Maybe less dangerous than we think... by earthforce_1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The more patent heavy corporations that have vested interest in FOSS, the better. This way, if a FOSS unfriendly company decides to launch a patent attack that would be damaging to the bottom line of FOSS friendly companies (IBM, HP, Novell) then it is all the more likely that the attacker will be found in violation of somebody else's patents. We have a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) scenario, and the attacker will be forced to back down. Aside from a FOSS patent fund, the best defence is to have as many patent heavy corporate friends with a vested interest in the success of FOSS as possible.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  7. Re:An observation based on the SCO stupidity... by flossie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Couldn't this be a sign that attacking Linux on patents might therefore simply not be worth it based on the money & time that would be involved?

    Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that this is a sign that companies like Microsoft don't want to attack the competition with patents until they have succeeded in getting US-style patent law in force around the world.

    At the moment, it is very difficult to convince politicians how harmful software patents can be because most of the damage is theoretical. If Microsoft were to start suffocating Linux with patent threats prematurely, it would be much harder for them to get software patents introduced in Europe and Asia, thus reducing the effectiveness of their eventual attack.

    --
    flossie

    Write now. Defend liberty