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
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.
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?
'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!
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
Perhaps it would be wise to keep irrelevant mentions of associations out article copy.
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...)
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...)
I considered adding a paragraph about algorithms being the appropriate parallel in software, but pulled it out just because of what you said here...
I guess at that point, you'd have to also confirm it's a non-obvious method that is being patented. If someone invents a truly novel algorithm of encrypting communication that doesn't involve really big factorizations or something, that might warrant a patent. If someone develops an encryption algorithm though that just does different factorizations or longer keys than normal methods, while different, that algorithm isn't really novel.
So essentially, I guess algorithms could potentially be patented ethically, but it would more or less be a math patent, not a software patent. And i would take a good mathemetician to identify if it was obvious or not, because I know I certainly couldn't decide...
And even with all that, this is a gray area, which is largely why patent reform is necessary in the first place. Innovation is being hindered by these questions since some of the most innovation right now is coming out of software development.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
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.