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."
Hmmm, easy answer : back up your claims, show us the list.
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.
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
Who said anything about stealing? Check out this patent. Every operating system on the planet does that. It's a required part of loading every executable file format since the early 50s. It's really really easy for someone to violate a patent without even trying. You write code, you make up all your own ideas, but because someone had that idea 5 years before you and hired a lawyer he's gunna sue you.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Slashdotters, this is a very important discussion (the one on software patents), but let's start with accurate facts.
The 283 thing is old news and was just repeated by Mr Florian Müller (who is NOT a MySQL developer). See here:
http://news.com.com/Group:+Linux+potentially+infr
I quote from that article:
- - -
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.
Dan Ravicher, founder and executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, conducted the analysis for Open Source Risk Management. OSRM is like an insurance company, selling legal protection against Linux copyright-infringement claims. It plans to expand the program to patent protections.
- - -
So it seems that an important discussion has got onto the wrong track due to incorrect input information.
But let us discuss software patents! MySQL's official position can be found here:
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/patents.html
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
IANAL.
If you ship software that has code in it that is covered by a patent what does that mean?
Patents cover the manufacture, sale, and use of an item.
Can the owner of the patent hit the author up for money?
Yes, the author manufactured and sold it without a license to the patent. This is what patents mainly protect. What will be more likely that the patent holder will get an injunction saying that the author can no longer sell his product, and then seek damages.
Can they hit the users of the code up for money?
Yes, the user used it without a license. See cases involving geneticaly modified seeds.
Can the author say "you, the user, are responsible for getting licenses for any patents that cover this code" and pass the buck?
Yes and no. If they the author doesn't have permision to grant further licenses for use of the patent, then the users must get one themselves from the patent holder. But the author needs a license to produce and sell the item in the first place too.
Linux using patented ideas may or may be a great problem. Some of these patents are probably in code contributed by companies. When you open up code under the GPL, you are also saying you won't use those patents against derivatives of that code (that's part of the GPL). So 'violating' may be the wrong word in this case, becuase is (hopefully all) of the cases, they've been given to the Linux movement.
Besides, I'm sure Microsoft has looked into patents that Linux might violate, becuase they're looking to destroy Linux, and a legimate patent claim would certaintly help. If they had found something, I'm sure they would have used it by now.
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...)