Why Consider Linux Kernel Patent Risks?

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."

Comments

Has anyone audited non-free OS's for patents?

[ron_ivi]

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.

Re:Has anyone audited non-free OS's for patents?

[Bruce Perens]

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

It's a MAD World!!!

[grunt107]

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?

Re:So....

[sloanster]

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.

Maybe less dangerous than we think...

[earthforce_1]

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.

Re:An observation based on the SCO stupidity...

[flossie]

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.