Slashdot Mirror
Patent Concerns Unlikely To Nix Munich Linux Plan
MonkeyDev writes "Yahoo is reporting that Munich is ready to move forward with plans to 'abandon Microsoft Windows
in favor of upstart rival Linux. The council is expected to take a calculated risk and vote through the move, despite concerns about possible software patent infringements in the face of coming European Union legislation that caused months of delay.' Not everyone is excited about it. A software developer at MySQL claims 'Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond to these claims?" (Florian Mueller, the MySQL developer mentioned, isn't opposed to Munich using Linux, though -- just the opposite.) Update: 09/29 02:22 GMT by T : Marten Mickos of MySQL AB writes with a correction: "Florian Müller is an independent software developer and entrepreneur. He is ALSO an advisor to MySQL AB but he does not work for the company. He is presently engaged in coordinating opposition against software
patents in EU, and thereby doing all of us within free software and open
source a great favour."
A MySQL software developer? Hmm, it would seem that it dosen't bother MySQL AB too much, so why should it bother Munich.
Seriously, if a MySQL developer is worried about the legality of running Linux then maybe he has the wrong job ;)
This is not news until the vote actually occurs.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Hmmm, easy answer : back up your claims, show us the list.
If you ship software that has code in it that is covered by a patent what does that mean? Can the owner of the patent hit the author up for money? Can they hit the users of the code up for money? Can the author say "you, the user, are responsible for getting licenses for any patents that cover this code" and pass the buck?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Why would these guys in Munich be concerned with violating US software patents? Just as long as they don't become European software patents (although that doesn't look like happening).
Fascinating Entendre
I wish that developers would, instead of noting that such violations exist, correct them. Now... this is not always possible... for instance, I'm sure that a patent or copyright exists for "displaying multiple pages through the use of a clickable scroll bar" and undoubtedly, more than one OS has this functionality. Perhaps the issue will boil down to not whether or not parts of Linux violate copyrights but rather, whether or not said copyrights are even enforceable in the first place?
Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
The European parliament has twice rejected motions to allow software patents but the EU Council may still push a modified directive through.
At least they fought it off. Too bad our leaders were paid-off. At any rate, I do see MS ruling software since they own most patents and can crush anyone and we all get stale, buggy, insecure programs that won't run right since we don't have the encrypted product key.
I'd be hard to track down each person that put patented code into Linux.
Half Life 2 is EXPECTED to come out someday...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond
> to these claims?
I just don't care.
when does Linux stop being an "upstart" in the popular press? It's getting on to 15 years old, and it's quite prevalent already.
Seriously, blasting away figures without facts to back it up is...well..so Microsoft FUD and SCO-esk.
Well, he seems to know which ones since he has a specific number. I challenge him to list the 283 patents that Linux supposedly violates.
I also challenge him to reveal his bank transaction journal to see if any large sums have been deposited into his account sometime in the last year, perhaps from his 'consulting' work with Microsoft....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Please read the source text carefully!
Florian Müller is NOT a MySQL developer. He is an independent software developer who ALSO is an advisor to MySQL.
And when Florian mentiones the patents, he is only quoting another source.
Florian Müller is engaged (successfully, I might add) in opposing the legalisation of software patents in EU. By doing this, he is doing all of us within the free software and open source world an enormous favour.
I am afraid that many of the postings on this topic are based on erroneous input data. Hope this helps to set things straight.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
Google has over 82 million unique users a month and annual revenues of about three billion dollars. [2] And yet have you ever seen a Google ad? says the article.
/.). Well, they are the ads for google adsense but techincally thats still google right ?
Well I have seen google ads a lot of times (even on
Oh I love the mainstream media.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Linux has been around for 13 years, almost 14 years, and now they are just starting to worry about software patents. What is next copyright then the RIAA of Software gets into the mess. This is linux, not winux ( my new imaginary marketable overpriced OS, for point making purposes ). - Cyco(k)
:: Cyco(k) out
So lets see because MS has vioalte dPatens we shoudl ahem trust MS instead of Linux?
Note patent violatiosn are nto violatiosn until the court case is lost..
Has linux lost any patent cases yet? Of course the answer is no..
Is there court cases MS has lost that are patent violations, yes..and no not the current borwser one..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Incredible. Finally. So excited.
.8127Euro.
Munich. Linux.
" Thought should be free. "
Excuse me. Tears. Absorbant towels.
Last word: $1 =
And how many of those 283 patents are based upon other patents which have already expired or are really not unique? (Many of the patents being issued today are only extensions of pre-existing patents which is why there are these long lists of other patents being referenced.) This is not to dump on those truly unique patents - it is to dump on those (like the usage of a laser light as a cat toy) patents which, to programmers, are so obvious as to make you sick that the Patent Office could actually issue a patent on the invention. As per this other /. article - there are a lot of people saying the Patent System is broken and needs to be fixed.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
I think they are wise not to spend time investigating patents. Assuming that all the patents concerned are valid (actually many of them can probably be struck down, but at considerable cost of time and money), the situation may change from unknowningly infringement of 340 patents (57 undiscovered by that MySQL employee) to knowingly infringement of the uncorrectable 97 and unknowningly infringement of the undiscovered 57. Not a better situation IMHO, and a lot of time would have been spent in avoiding patents.
so what?
Contrary to what most US citizens seem to think, the US doesn't rule the world.
Did Munich realise the legal bind they got into for running illegal copies of Windows? All i can say is pwned!!
> A software developer at MySQL claims 'Linux
> violates 283 U.S. software patents.
Linux _may_ infringe some of 283 U.S. software patents. And MySQL? Are they willing to tell us how many they may be infringing? Do they know? You can be damn sure they are infringing some.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THREE????
So this MySQL developer pulls the number 283, implying +/- 1 patent violation accuracy, outta his ass and we're supposed to believe him?
Are you sure he's not a MSFT devloper? Both start with an "M" and have an "S" in their acronym and the technique has MSFT written all over it (FUD).
How about Math.
Please explain to me why a computer program is not simply a gigantic math problem?
Can it's processing not be broken down into nothing more than binary operations of a function. A formula that some determined individual may write out longhand?
Sure, that blackboard may stretch to the moon (and be made of carbon nanotubes), but it is an equation nonetheless.
is it not?
I mean, it takes input values, and returns output values.
It's just a really useful math problem.
When did we suddenly become able to patent Mathematics?
Don't forget the patent on swinging sideways on a swing and the patent on teh wheel...
Keep in mind software patents are by definition of what can and cannot be patented..... invalid.
you cannot patent abstract ideas and just what is it that you think software is... but abstraction...
The best way to deal with this is to realize the degradation fo the value of teh patent system due to its failure to follow its own basis.
Why don't we just say Linux violates the desires of corporations that prefer having control and ownership rights to thinking? (re: abstract ideas)
For good measure, they also will look for ways to invalidate your patents, likely by invoking prior art--IBM prior art. Filing IP lawsuits against IBM is a painful and risky strategy. SCOX has been a notable example of what to expect.
You seemed to be talking about copyrights, while he was talking about patents. They are different.
How many patents does microsoft windows violate? How about osx? solaris? aix? hp/ux? Probably tens of thousands.
We only know about the linux 'violations' because the code is open. I'm sure if someone were to evaluate "those other operating systems" we'd find far more -- because there is no open public oversight of their code. They operate in secret, who's the wiser if they were deliberately violating patents?
Also, do any of "those other companies" provide indemnification to end users? No, in fact microsoft's license is almost exclusively to provide microsoft with indemnification from end users.
Using microsoft or any other OS isn't likely any safer than using linux, when it comes to patent violations.
'Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond to these claims?'
You pulled 283 out of your ass. Those are just the ones you know about. You know why you pulled that number out of your ass? It's impossible to review the whole patent database and screen it against the whole of Linux. Humanly impossible. 283 is a made up number. May as well say 2,830 or 283,000.
An exact count of how many software patents are violated by Microsoft Windows, for instance, would be equally impossible - nay, more, because they keep their source code a secret; however, it is incontravertibly a similar if not higher number.
If you try to follow the U.S. software patent system you won't even be able to power a pocket calculator without a half-million dollars for attorneys and payoffs. Yes, you think I'm exaggerating, don't you.
That's why 100% of Americans ignore their own system. Everybody knows its ridiculous. Even SP's major proponents are afraid to use them because they fear the whole system will unravel if they test it, so all they do is occasionally shake people down, hit and run once and a while. They want to sue Linux over patents; they've been desperate to do it for years, and they're too scared of how badly it will backfire. They're probably right. So they're reduced to backdoors like SCO. And we see how well that cleverness works for them.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
You could read the OSRM report on the topic...
p /3 389071
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.ph
'Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond to these claims?"
Maybe it's not Linux which is what's wrong/broken. Fill in the rest.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Business folks might like the idea of Linux looking like a commercial product or business, but you may discover that the developers you need are going to be sitting on their hands when you start asking for help. If you come looking for me, I'll be over at FreeBSD. sorry.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
If some one said this to me, I would take the "Groklaw Approach". I would ask them first, what are the specific patents and second, how can he be sure that Linux violates all these patents. It would seem to me that to do a fair assessment of 283 patents would take a fair amount of time. So let's see the details.
My guess is that his answers would consist of words like "I", "don't", and "know".
HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
A working link:
3 389071
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/
I can think of two ways, of the top of my head. Note that the 'equation' is, as with mathematical desrciptions of relationships, just a method of formal statment, and need not 'look like' a typical mathematical equation.
The first, and probably the simplest, is to use a formal description of a state machine. Thus, the system is normally in the 'wait for input state', and then it branches to a state determined by the type of user input. This encapsulates the interactive element in a single part, and closely resembles the typical structure of most GUI systems (with callbacks etc).
The other method is to treat the system as a function of infinite arguments and use combinator logic. Curry all the arguments into the function, up to the latest existsing, then as each piece of new input occurs, add another argument, and curry it out. Something like an RDBMS is probably better suited to this sort of desription.
This is, I think, an impure calculus - currying is normally invoked to allow description of multiargument functions withing lambda calculus which requires single argument functions. Nevertheless, I can see no major hurdles to describing a program in such a manner.
Granted, I've not had the chance to express any non-trivial programs in either form as yet (lack of time), but I think that some programs are better suited to one representation that the other.
Worth noting that there is no change in the description if the input is known all a priori, and processed from a file, or if it's all garnered piecemeal. Consider a shell script for an example where this is obvious.
A mouse action is probably best represented by a tuple of tuples, giving button down and button up coordinates - thus ((10,10),(20,10)) represnts a mouse drag action, and clicks fall out as degenerate coordinates.
Alternativly, for another option, look at how a pure functional language does a GUI. For example, the wxHaskell bindings for, (unsurprisingly) Haskell. Haskell (a pure functional language with lazy evaluation) programs are just an implementation of a mathematical model of computation. Here, the description is effectivly as a set of functions, where the 'user input' determines which function to run [0]. Techincally, this is no longer a set of equations, however I can prove that this is equivelent to the state machine description above.
Any errors, feel free to correct - this is all a bit rough and ready. I just felt that it was worth pointing out that just because it might be absurb, doesn't make it impossible. For example, the halting problem seems absurb to everyone whose not studied it (because it's obvious if a program will finish).
[0] Or something close to that. I'm not intimatly familer with either the language or the bindings, so I might be a little of with the description.
That's only Munich's worry if Munich want to import the software into USA. Relatively unlikely, I would think. Publish the source and etablish prior art before Munich's country government takes money off anyone for grant of a patent.
I probably violate several patents just by existing. How do I respond to this? "So sue me."
The onus is on the patent owner to prove the violation, not anyone else. I doubt 1 legal entity owns all 283 patents, so you have +/- 283 companies suing someone... And who are they sueing anyway? Linus? Red Hat? It's open source, there's nobody out there to pay damages.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
hey, that's your foot america...what are you doing with that gun??!?
MonkeyDev writes "Yahoo announced that Monaco I gave Baviera is
ready to be saido ignition with the programs with 'abandon
Microsoft Windows for the Linux of the competition d'upstart.
S'attend, of the way this the advice unanimously makes the
examinación to a danger and, that it is calculates to him through the
movement, in spite of falsificazioni interesting of the possible
interest of software in the following shutdowns of the consideration
of the legislation of européia of the mayoralties that these months
they had caused of delay.' Everything is excited in him. Lotissor
of software to the objections 'Linux von a MySQL damages software
patents.' of the 283 United States; As one gave to the form to the
community of answers of Linux of this claims?" (Florian Mueller,
that one indicates the lotissor of MySQL, isn't that opposes if to
the use of Monaco I gave Baviera de Linux, exactly if -- l'opposé
only.) Modernization: 09/29 of a GMT of 02:22 for the T: Marder that
the Mickos de MySQL dampened with a correction: M_ller "Florian
is lotissor and constant-independent an external part of software. In
they councilman more with MySQL is an OUTSIDE, but it does not work
for l'azienda. L'opposition participates at the moment, this
is coordinated to satisfy to the licenses with software l'EU and
to do it everything to us to this fact in great free software and the
open source favour."
Where is Mr. Burns when you need him? All we'd have to do is trick him into backing some intellectual property infringement lawsuit against Microsoft... that'd solve all our problems!
So, I could see someone saying "Oh, Redhat violates x copyrights", but lumping all these distros together isn't fair. Seems to me, it's like saying that computers violate compyrights. I want to see a list, broken down into sections, by distro, by type, anything. As long as it's not all lumped together.
That's how the (software) patent game works. It's virtually impossible to avoid violating patents due to the very nature of software. When challenged, the big guns go through their patent portfolio and can usually find something that the challenger violates in some way. Then, a cross licensing agreement is hammered out. Thus, the big fish are protected, but any small fry can't compete.
So, yes, everyone is guilty, but the IBM's of this world can weather the war just fine, while everyone else gets wiped out. In fact, the war is already in full swing and has simply become part of doing business.
I think RMS covers this in his speech The dangers of software patents.
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
So su us.
It's interesting to note that patents apply to all sorts of unlikely things like software and business processes, but not to legal strategies, practices or processes. It seems as if the lawyers realized how badly that would muck them up and haven't applied the patent pricipals to their own field. I guess that there's lots of money to be made from messing up everyone else's business, but not their own.
It would be very bizarre to hear an objection to a legal argument because someone else owned the right to make arguments of they style that the motion used. Perhaps only Johny Cochraine could "play the race card" or something like that. Every other law firm might have to pay him a royalty to use the argument.
If someone could come up with a clear demonstration showing that software patents are as sensible as legal strategy patents, then I'll bet that the supreme court would overturn the current incarnation of the patent laws in a heart beat.
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
You are on your way to see the light of Lisp ;D
do you hear yourself?
god forbid a company bases decisions on revenue.
Anyone who starts talking about "copyrights" when the issue is patents isn't demonstrating any insight at all into IP issues as far as I can see. The two things a distinctly different.
On the upside with such a blurred understanding of IP there may well be a job offer from SCO coming your way!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I look at it like this... good patents cover the way something is accomplished and bad patents cover the accomplishment.
Algorithms are what is used to accomplish something on computers. At least in Europe, algorithms and mathematical methods are not (yet) (officially) patentable.
If patents would have covered things like sorting algorithms, heap and stack management, control flow structures etc., my guess is that we would not have computers today.
The text of your sig poped up as my login fortune for this session.....
Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
Patents are supposed to protect intellectual property rights. They should not be used for
the purpose of highjacking technological
development done by others. It becomes technology
terrorism when it is misused.
rotfl...
In some countries you can be imprisoned for possesion of certain large integer numbers, which happen to be bitmaps of illegal images, even if they were drawn from the imagination.
It doesn' matter. U.S. software patents violates E.U. laws. Indeed * software patents violates E.U. laws and we are talking about E.U.
FYI, among the patents violated is US patent 5443036, A way and method for excercising a buerocat by the use of a laser pointer.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Why don't they reduce the maximum length that software patents can expire. I saw somewhere in the thread that they can last 17 years. This is ridiculous in an industry that is only 50 years old.
1 or 2 years is all you would need to make a profit out of a good software idea. After that, the patent expires and everyone can use it.
True, the US patent system is badly broken and corrupted, but US patent law is not valid in Europe (yet).
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I'd put money on it that virtually any piece of software that anyone writes now violates one or more US patents.
It seems that the goal of introducing software patents was to give all software development to the big guys with patent portfolios of their own they can use for defence.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
They are waiting until Europe has approved software patents. It is no use to them to only destroy Linux in the USA, they need to destroy it wherever they can. If they were to do so now, the opponents of software patents in Europe would gain a powerful weapon. If they wait a while, until software patents have become a reality, they can strike and destroy Linux in two major markets.
Expect them to strike as soon as the future of software patents in Europe is known.
in that only a court can actually determine if you are violating a patent, not a developer at MySQL (at least here in the States). It also requires that the patent holder complain and many patents today are held entirely for defensive reasons.
And speaking of MySQL, I have to say that they really leave a bad taste in my mouth lately. Luckily, PostgreSQL runs on my Mac OS X box as well as MySQL does.
"We have about 30,000 software programers and of course we have a big interest in protecting what they develop," a Siemens R&D spokesman said. okay - can the same spokesman tell me what EXACTLY the patents cover? do they cover the idea of financial software (if that is what their busines is - I am not familiar with siemens) where we have a ledger and the typical acounts payable etc etc. or do they patent the actual code - where every if statement to me looks the same - so does that mean they will sue the GNUCash folks - please I wish they would clarify. software patents are just too vague and are not a good idea. If a company makes a good product and provides excellent support people will buy whether there is Open Source or not. If you don't - ya then you are going to rely on litigation for your business model. So please bring on Linux we all need a better os than microsoft. All this litigation crap was brought on by microsoft and sco and has done exactly what microsoft wanted and that was create fear/doubt/hesitation about people/companies switching to linux. I don't think companies like veritas, oracle, siemens, and peoplesoft are going to go under because someone adopts a better os. their business model will survive because they all provide a product that isn't TIED to a SPECIFIC OS and they in my experience have all provided above average or really good support (except I don't know about siemens). so to summarize the company that stands to loose the most is microsoft if everybody adopts linux and so they are the ones that started all this litigation fud and used sco as their pawns because the sco execs are basically greedy and they thought they saw a big payday. Good old Bill is sitting back and having a good laugh over this one. Linux will have the last laugh.
To Nix Munich Linux Plan
Try saying that fast for three times...
Hello,
I agree that even if you are going to have patents, 17 or 20 years is ridiculously long. However, that said, if you are going to have patents, you need them longer than 2 years. Why? Because it's very easy for a product or company to get tied up in litigation, or be delayed with coming to the market with their product for whatever reason, for 2 years, and then you have the situation where a patent can expire before a company could sell one licensed unit of the patented invention.
But, software patents are just a bad idea anyhow. The nature of software lends itself much better to copyrighting than to patenting. And, copyrights are way too long. In the software world, copyrights should only last for 5-7 years, IMHO.
And, in order to register the copyright, you should be required to submit the *entire* source code to US Copyright office (so that the source can eventually enter the public domain: currently we offer copyright protection to developers without requiring that the source for the software *EVER* enters the public domain, which is just assinine; often by the time the code would enter the public domain, it has long been lost). Currently, you only have to submit a portion, like 50 pages of code - which is itself a fungible kind of thing: If I put an excessive amount of comments and whitespace in the code, I could turn 25 pages into 50 pages, and avoid sumbitting hardly anything to the copyright office.
I can let OSRM pull it out of their ass.
Very funny.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
How about Math
Imagine the following concepts being patented:
Every single computer, algorithm, and computer program in the world would be infringing one of those patents!
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
It's getting old reading about how this or that patent is going to be the wrench in linux's works, or that such a feature was known long before it was patented, and the patent will never stand in up court. The real benefit, and also the real problem with free/open software, at least when it comes down to the issue of property rights, is that nobody owns them. That's why OSF, or some other similar organization should obtain patents, or at the very least file Statutory Invention Registrations with the USPTO on behalf of those working on the development of free/open products to ensure that the technology remains in the public domain. Ignoring the fact that property rights exist is simply inexcusable. To maintain the freedom of free software the players must learn to use the system just like everyone else.
Are they going to develop their own distro, and call it 'Munix'? That would be cool!
-berbo
Well, IANAL, but WHEREAS:
- as others have pointed out, this claim is almost certainly not original with Mr. Florian Muller but rather comes from OSRM; and
- therefore the claim is not "Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents", but rather "Linux potentially violates 283 patents, none of which have been tested in court"; and
- U.S. software patents are just so much toilet paper until they are tested in court, and approximately half fail the test;
THEREFORE, I respond with a resounding: So what?Points of interest from the OSRM news story: In the U.S., you apparently cannot be penalized for infringing on a software patent if you didn't know about it. Thus Linus recommends to all Linux engineers not to investigate any potential patent infringements, for legal safety. For this reason, OSRM is not releasing the list of its 283 patents, so it is futile to ask Florian or the OSRM what they are. Those who wish to know what the patents are will have to do their own research - but remember that doing this research exposes the researcher to legal liability in case of infringement!
"Linux potentially infringes 283 patents, including 27 held by Microsoft but none that have been validated by court judgments,according to a group that sells insurance to protect those using or selling Linux against intellectual-property litigation."
n gs.shtml)
EXACTLY. SPECIFICALLY from their own website:
(http://www.osriskmanagement.com/offeri
"...For those organizations threatened with legal action by SCO, the Legal Defense Center is the one, central source for objective information regarding common issues faced by all potential SCO defendants. Based in Washington DC and comprised of a carefully-selected Panel of highly-specialized Intellectual Property legal experts fully-briefed on the intricacies of the case, the Legal Defense Center provides unmatched legal and defense resources. Membership in the program is $100,000 annually and provides resources to its members that would cost in the millions if developed independently.
Linux Kernel Developers
Individual contributors to the Linux kernel gain access to the full resources of the Open Source Legal Defense Fund including guidance on how to best protect and defend their own intellectual property rights. They also receive $25,000 in legal protection from OSRM if they are named in future lawsuits involving their contributions to the Linux kernel. Membership for individuals is $250 annually.
Best Practice Protocols & Training Seminars
Organizations gauging the risks of Open Source software face a vacuum of clear information, making it difficult to discern between FUD and fact. OSRM fills that information void through its best practice protocols and National Seminar Series.
Developed with a working group of CIOs and legal counsels from Fortune 500 Linux users, OSRM's best practice protocols outline a set of industry-best standards for preserving the benefits of Open Source while mitigating legal risks. OSRM consultants customize these best practices protocols to individual organizations, and help clients achieve standards that minimize unnecessary legal risk.
OSRM's National Seminar Series, taught by recognized authorities in intellectual property (IP) risk management, details a set of Best Practice Protocols for Open Source usage and risk mitigation. The industry's only vendor-neutral provider of Open Source risk mitigation solutions, OSRM is uniquely qualified to help organizations learn how to preserve the benefits of Open Source while mitigating potential risks.
For more information about OSRM's National Seminar Series, click here.
Indemnification
OSRM is the first and only vendor-neutral provider of Open Source indemnification, offering extensive legal and financial backing for the use of Open Source Software based on the Linux Kernel (versions 2.4 and 2.6). Upon completion of a risk assessment and adoption of applicable best practices protocols, OSRM clients receive significant levels of legal and financial protection against future lawsuits. They also remain free to enjoy the full benefits of the Open Source model; including code modification, selection of support providers and use of hardware of their choice. In addition, indemnification clients have full access to the resources of the Open Source Legal Defense Center. Cost of indemnification varies by client with an average annual cost of 3% of maximum desired coverage. As an example, $1,000,000 in coverage would cost $30,000.
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/45882.htm
OSRM Claims Linux Infringes 283 Patents
August 9, 2004
-----------------
Open Source Risk Management claims the Linux kernel violates 283 patents - 27 of which belong to Microsoft, while a third belong to companies like IBM, Cisco, Red Hat, Novell, Intel, HP and Sony.
------------------
Management (OSRM), the wannabe insurance start-up, pulled the pin on a hand grenade and lobbed it at Linux users a few hours before LinuxWorld Convention & Expo opened its doors Monday morning. It claimed the Linux kernel treads on 283 patents.
You can bet the revelation brought a smile to SCO's lips.
None of these patents, nearly a third of which - 27 of them actually - belong to Linux' hereditary enemy, Microsoft, have been tested in the courts.
Another third of them belong to companies perceived to be friendly to Linux that have an interest in its broad adoption and shouldn't hassle it such as IBM, Cisco, Red Hat, Novell, Intel, HP and Sony.
The rest belong to people or shell companies OSRM believes have little to lose in threatening enterprise Linux users with litigation in hopes of winning a handsome settlement.
OSRM said patent attorney Dan Ravicher, a senior counsel for the Free Software Foundation, reviewed the patents.
The Free Software Foundation, which created the GPL license, opposes patents on principle.
Ravicher declined to identify the 283 patents arguing that to do so would make Linux users liable to charges of willful infringement and leave them open to triple damages. Knowledge, you see, is a dangerous thing.
OSRM, of course, stands to benefit from the findings its review produced since it's proposing to insure enterprise Linux users against the cost of defending themselves against an infringement suit.
For a $150,000 annual premium, an OSRM policy would cover $5 million in legal bills. Premiums would run 3% of the face value of the policy. Initially, companies won't be protected against any losses they might incur because they've been enjoined. OSRM plans to offer that rider some time down the line.
OSRM claimed that the results of its patent analysis are causing it to expand its risk mitigation and insurance offerings to cover the quantifiable risks identified in the study.
It plans to underwrite combined copyright and patent infringement insurance by the end of the year.
Ravicher denied that OSRM was fear mongering to drum up business.
OSRM founder and chairman Daniel Egger says clients could be protected against all patent assertions either solely through OSRM coverage or through a combination of patent licensing and OSRM insurance.
"What it boils down to is that Linux has patent risks but they can and will become conventional insured risks, just an everyday cost of doing business," Egger said.
Ravicher conceded that insurance fees would increase a user's TCO but claimed the total cost would still be lower than the cost of proprietary software.
OSRM's 12-man operation, whose own financial resources are a mystery, is also providing risk mitigation services to corporations seeking an assessment of their particular use of free or open source software. The start-up says it hasn't got any VC behind it.
IBM's public reaction to the threatening patent news was for its senior VP of technology and manufacturing Nick Donofrio, who used to run IBM Unix unit back in Unix' glory days, to assure the LinuxWorld crowd that IBM wouldn't think of pressing any patent against the "Linux kernel" - odd how he only said the Linux kernel - and open source advocate Bruce Perens, who is also on OSRM's broad, retorted that he would like to have that in writing since IBM was a big place and not everybody might feel the same way.
Donofrio also had the presumption - considering IBM's huge patent hoard and billions it's made off of it over the years - to challenge other companies to swear off making patent claims against Linux. Certainly that would be in IBM's best interests.
Marten, as you know, this is slashdot - home of techies, intellectuals and also a large collection of wannabes who never, EVER RTA.
Or in this case even the summary.
I'm afraid there's nothing you can do now - MySQL has just been branded the #1 enemy of open source software. (narrowly overtaking SCO and Microsoft put together) All those years of world class open source development and evangelism for nothing.
The "f" and "oo" is not accurate. Its covered under 35 USC Sec. 271(c) as a contributory infringer if the parts are specifically designed to be combined. Mea culpa.
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...