Slashdot Mirror
Software Patents Could Stop EU Linux Development
sebFlyte writes "An expert in computer and Internet law has advised that if the CIID is passed in europe (which looks likely but is not certain) then the threat of patent litigation could bring European Linux development to a grinding halt." From the article: "There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged. There is more danger that those potential violations will be litigated..."
More FUD!
Go see http://www.groklaw.com.
It's pretty much like the speed limit, one can argue all day that doing 70mph is as safe as 60mph, but if the law is passed, and the limit is set at 60mph, everybody just have to slow down even your "common sense" says otherwise.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Given the US has stupid patents already and the Linux development still continues there... I am not convinced how expert this "expert" is.
-ben
It is impossible to stop the development of software against someones will. It may have to get developed under certain restrictions, but it is impossible to stop because of the inevitable communication through the internet. This is how software is so easily outsourced and it is the same reason development for linux cannot be stifled through litigation, but rather only through disinterest. my take
Math
Why does everything has to be patented?? Does anyone have an answer?
Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.
The EPO has already illegally granted over 30,000 software patents in Europe. Because these patents are illegal they cannot be enforced in court. But this means that the european software industry doesn't care about these illegal patents.
If software patents are legalized, these illegal patents suddenly can be enforced in court.
It is likely that the european software industry will come to a standstill for years after software patents have been legalized, as they have to spend their resources fighting in court instead of doing research and innovation.
I will then own the rights to ever have an information page on any patent stored electronically. This is called legislating yourself back to the stone age but is theoretically possible in the age of free-for-all software patents.
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
IANAL:
"..but don't they lose the right to sue after it has infringed openly for some time?"
In a word, no. Patent violations are given no free pass if the holder chooses to ignore the violation up until the last hour.
"Hell, it might even count as previous art against some of the more frivolous (ie most) software patents."
It is true that Linux MAY contain prior art for some patents. But the costs of defending against a patent attack run at least $500,000. That's a pretty big chance to take for individual developers. Now companies like IBM, might take a different view.
Cheers,
Slak
"There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged. There is more danger that those potential violations will be litigated..."
.....
There is also "no doubt" that Microsoft Windows and every other operating system has patent violations.
Hmmm, Sue all Windowws users
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Most Europeans(according to recent polls ~85%) are against software patents. The representatives of the EU are supposed to represent the people and the will of the people.
=> If there is actually democracy in Europe there will be no software patents.
There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged.
This looks to me like the FUD we have been hearing for a while now. This kind of repetitive rhetoric (argumentum ad nauseum) serves one purpose: to instill in the minds of decision makes in the IT industry (those who hold the strings of the pruse, or those who recommend purchases to them) that they are at risk if they chose Linux.
If there are violations let us see them! Show us!
The worse that can happen is those portions will be recoded to be patent free in days or weeks.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
According to an IP lawyer I once had beer with, and since confirmed numerous times in the press, most large software companies have violated each others' patents - numerous times. But since everyone has "injured" everyone, most no one sues - since they will simply get counter-sued on a different patent.
That said, it seems obvious that the MS kernel, like probably all other kernels, contains IP violations. The difference is that only the FOSS kernels are open to public scrutiny.
So commerical companies can keep their IP violations largely secret, while FOSS ones get vetted publicly. Anyone wanna bet whether a closed kernel or open kernel has more IP violations? Does anyone believe that the MS kernel is completely free of IP violations? Anyone wanna buy a bridge?
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
that this couldn't read "Software Patents Could Stop EU Mircosoft Development"
When we focus on the damage software patents can do, haven't we forgotten about the other nasty in that wording: patenting of business processes?
I mean fluff like Amazons one click ordering and shopping lists and all the other stuff of a non-technical nature that can be patented under that wording, just as long as its implemented in software...
This was another nasty hole the Commissions/BSA wording had in it that the Parliament tackled.
After all a patent were never intended to protect 5 minute non technical ideas!
It might be easier to explain *that* problem to the Commission even if you can't get them to understand the problem with Software patents.
It was already discussed before, there are numerous patents the kernel could be infringing upon, no secrecy or suprise here. The SCO-thing is about copyrights which is something different. Afaik we have well enough copyright-laws around here.
then the threat of patent litigation could bring European Linux development to a grinding halt
Threats of patents hasn't seemed to slow US Linux development, so why would it have any affect on EU Linux development?
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
That's what is wrong with "justice" nowadays:
It costs money.
If this law passes, I will be the first one to patent boolean logic :).
Osho
The problem here is (or at least this is the belief held by many) that it's nearly impossible to write software without unknowingly violating a patent. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that Linux, Windows and every other large software package probably violates various patents.
You can slow down the development of open content but you cannot stop it.
Believe me, there's a live after patents even if it may not happen for the next hundred years but it will happen for sure. In the past there were dark ages from time to time but all have gone.
At this time, many lawyers have advised their clients to postpone litigation at this point pending the CIID passing in Europe.
They understand that sueing open source projects at this point would:
* Scare away the Europeans from adopting software patents and turn them into an open source safe-haven by creating a good public case against software patents.
* Have no financial benefit whatsoever.
If Linux/Open Source projects/foundations haven't been sued yet, it's because it is currently being stalked by a hungry pride of lions who want to gaurantee they capture their prey.
Antelopes are skittish for a reason.
I've been Googling for acknowledgement of Linux kernel patent violations. Other than statements by SCO, I haven't found any.
Does anyone know what Jeremy Mark Malcolm was talking about when he wrote: "There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged."?
He is described as "an information technology lawyer specialising in Internet-related law...". Could this just be twisty English, saying that: Some open source software is acknowledged as having patent violations and that The linux kernel is an example of open source ?
It seams that as each person quotes the other: "expert" to ZDNET to /. each quoter wants to out dramatise the previous one.
You know someone is talking shit when they apply three dilutions "may", "perhaps" and "some" in a single statement.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The big players are protecting themsleves against people playing them for patents that they make use of. The lawyers are coming in and seeking to provide revenue for greedy people, and the smaller players are hoping to not get noticed.
I think that a compromise should be sought; the litigation-crazy equivalents of the ambulance chasers need to be eliminated from this game because they do not add value to the computer industry when they sue. The interests of the small players need to be defended against this; the larger players are large because they have defended themselves and the need to defend the money-making side of research in the computer industry will remain.
I suggest a middle ground for patents that reflects the speed of progress in information technology: a three year patent without protection while it is being assessed and which can only be defended by its owners if a product making use of that development is on sale. This supports the people who want to innovate to sell products without being too restrictive on the people who can't afford to protect their developments with extensive litigation.
A more wacky alternative: to include in patent specification that an example of the computer code required to perform the patented task be made available under a free-as-in-both license after a protected period of three or five years.
Why was this story, with zero facts and only the opionions of some lawyer posted. We have Groklaw to tell us the status of the EU software patent wars, and that source will also more realistically what it all means without the FUD.
To reduce crime, make fewer things against the law.
That said, the patentability of the majority of the technologies used by the Linux kernel itself strikes me as difficult, given the fundamental design is based upon techniques, systems, and even languages that are mostly more than twenty years old (18-20 being about the valid length of a patent.) In practical terms, it's easy to see a potential violation being dealt with by removing code, I doubt that anything that's so integral to the kernel it would cause problems if removed is patented.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
First, to date, there has never been a successful prosecution for patent infringment against Linux, or in fact, any attempt, and until the patents are litigated we don't know if Linux infringes any valid patents or not. Second, as many posters have mentioned, the US has the most abused patent system in the world, and FOSS developers continue to develop. The Free Software Foundation is based in the US, and so is OSDL and Linus himself. Lastly, the expert 'admits' to being against software patents, but then asserts that the uncertainty in the EU is worse than a definitve resolution. This is sheer nonsense. If you are a FOSS developer, surely the current situation is better than a definitive resolution for software patents. Either this is a Microsoft FUD piece or the expert was seriously misquoted.
of specifically which patents the Linux kernel violates?
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
If making millions of pounds a year profit is classed as failure, I would love to see your idea of success.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Copyright is a legal idea that says the author of a creative work (much more applicable to software) has the right to control who may or may not copy or distribute that work for a limited time. It sets limits on what others may do, but allows copyright holders to grant additional rights if they choose. The GPL is an example of authors choosing to grant rights that copyright normally restricts, in exchange for any improvements to the original work.
Of course, since copyright is extended every time certain works reach an age where they are perilously close to becoming public domain, the "limited time" portion of the definition (in the US, anyway) is a bit of a farce.
Anybody with a better handle on this, feel free to correct me.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Yeah, tens of thousands of software engineers will probably lose their jobs.
But who cares about sleazy people like them? They only research and innovate instead of doing something productive.
The good thing is that we will get a lot of new jobs because of this. Thousands of fine patent lawyers will get new jobs.
</SARCASM>
There is a reason that 47% of the swpat-positive replies to the hearing that the European Commission held were from patent lawyers and patent offices.
Patents have always existed. In the old old days it was just called "the King". Didn't matter what it was - if the king wanted it, then you were in violation of the patent.
In todays world like at that time, there is a need to treat intangibles as real estate. It is of course - all about money. Or is it? Today it seems to be increasingly about control specifically about control of further development. Obviously next to having a pile of it, the best thing would be if you can keep anybody else from also getting a pile of it.
I think there is a fine line between being able to capitalize on your investments and to assert control of future developments. And we have long ago crossed this line.
I think that hefty taxes should be asserted by the state to maintain copyrights and patents. A yearly 2% of estimated value would be sufficient. Too many companies are just sitting back not doing anything except capitalizing on litigation. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. Littigation is very effective business weapon which can drain any competitor given enough money. And the only way this machine can be effective is when enough laws and patents are available. It is my opinion that these laws are benefitting very few by selling out on basic human rights. In particular the right to earn a living.
"There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there -- such as the Linux kernel itself -- has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged."
Say it often enough and people will believe that it's true.
very soon the distribution of Free software will be illegal
Fine by me. Linux, FOSS and the GPL are revolutionary acts, by opposing Hypercapitalist ownership philosophy in the rapidly Fascist-izing system of the West. By definition, these elements will be illegalized, since no legal system authorizes its own overthrow (particularly one of such profound unfairness as is being strongly promoted in America).
When Linux is essentially made illegal, We The People will have to pass it around covertly then, like we do with pirated DVDs now. It'll be slow, but it'll be freedom.
Either that, or the People will finally take populist control of their governments. (Fat chance of that happening.)
We have tolerated too long the concept of passing laws that men cannot or will not obey, hence we have tolerated the rise of a general contempt for the law. We wanted this to happen. Lacking popular will, we wanted to produce a criminal society.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
1) All useful things that can be done with a computer are patented, some more than once.
2) The Linux kernel does useful things with a computer
3) The Linux kernel infringes patents. QED.
Now, those patents may very well be BS, but Linux still infringes them and they are valid patents until someone challenges them in court, which is expensive.
It doesn't MATTER if 95% of the software patents issued in the US have prior art or are just blindingly obvious. Nobody has enough money to challenge all of them. Therefore they are effectively valid.
is a great example of why people don't bother to RTFA anymore. This is as bad as the post last week that "Apple was backing away from firewire."
For example, tabs are patented in Europe, and they are useless unless displayed in the user interface. And a shopping basket cannot be hidden in closed source either.
just one more columnist clamoring for attention. all this talk of linux infringing patents and yet no one is yet to show actual code. he shows his true colours by claiming it's acknowledged yet doesn't say by who.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Seems reasonable. If you can patent "IsNot" and XOR, then I imagine there are hundreds of other stupid patent violations peppered throughout the kernel source.
he is a Debian Developer.
Sounds like he's an active Free Software participant. Bonus points for that.
I spent all day in Fremantle today on location for the shooting of a new local independent feature film, Fisheye Stiller.
He also has interests outside his mom's basement. More bonus points.
What would you consider to be acceptable pasttimes? Making clocks? Working puzzles? Building Lego kits? Is there anything he could have put on there that you wouldn't be making fun of?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Your right but not one of the patents is court validated, and until they are it is really he said, she said. I have a feeling that when these patent violations are filed we'll see a lot of overturned patents, and if enough are overturned a review of software patents in general.
My major problem is one cannot contest a patent without being charged with violating it. What kind of system is that?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.