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..."
..but don't they lose the right to sue after it has infringed openly for some time? Linux is as open as it gets. And it's been here a while too. Hell, it might even count as previous art against some of the more frivolous (ie most) software patents.
Why did they bother writing it? There are neither examples, illustrations, nor case studies that show WHY Euro Linux or other open source projects will be severely hampered. I'm not disagreeing with him, but his statements have all the informative value of Microsoft FUD.
and see that if they suddenly killed off half of their software industry by allowing software patents that might have been used by EU software companies simply because they weren't patents in the EU at the time the software was written, that would be a really bad thing for Europe!
Surely the only solution is to ensure that at least all existing software is exempt from software patents.
Yes, basically the whole law is unworkable. If the EU kills off its quite healthy software development industry and hands it over to US companies (why else is Microsoft lobbying so hard?) then what has it gained? Thousands of out of work people that were previously high-paid, hence good tax earners.
Will this clown democracy be the one that sells out Europe for some personal gains?
Words from SCO or ... Microsoft?
Who else? Minor IP holders who lurk in the woodwork until something is making money before springing out and howling about how they've been wronged?
seriously, i expect i do see 'Mr.' bill working a penguin over with a blackjack
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's odd how every time a 'linux is on the edge of total destruction' article appears, it tends to come from a source that shuns it. I went to the downloads section and they have windows/mac/mobile sections. Could it be that ZDNet is about as interested in linux as microsoft is in making a better product for the sake of making a better product regardless of their development cost? My long time instinct is to say that ZDNet is so tightly focused on microsoft and mac they're pretty much against anything not 'mainstream'. Also, if there is 'no question' as to linux patent violations, why did the judge in the SCO v.s. IBM case stop short of directly accusing SCO of a dog and pony show and dismissing SCOs charges? Am I missing something, or is this another helping of FUD meant to feed the uninformed?
This story:
Software Patents Could Stop EU Linux Development
Two stories after this one:
Bill Gates to Receive Honorary UK Knighthood
--ken
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
I had an idea for this the other day. Impractical as it may be please hear me out! Basically, what you do is make a product that is extensible (ala Firefox). Have a mechanism where you can build a file sharing mechanism into it that is totally decentralised (like Gnutella). Make your products so componentised and extensible that every bit of functionality can be installed with a click of a button (like firefoxes extensions). However, the catch is that the click of the button compiles the module from source. Then, make the components that have patents on them and test them, release them as an extension and never note who created the product, then release this into the Gnutella style file sharing network. Hook up the extension manager to the Gnutella network and have people download the extensions and also share it (you'd need a way of making them share extensions).
Why is this a good idea? Two reasons:
1. The packages are all in source code. Anyone with knowledge can find bugs and release it as a different package after fixing the bugs.
2. Once in the file sharing network, companies would find it impossible to track down the original author. Hence they can't sue them. If you have 20 million users, then they would have to sue each of the 20 millions users. They couldn't sue the original author of the highly extensible software package that brings it all together because they haven't done anything wrong. And they don't provide a service where people upload their files to a centralised file server.
There are some challenges here:
1. a revision control system that could work over a distributed network. A distributed and decentralised CVS would be needed, if you will. This would be needed because otherwise you'd never know which revision to download (no revision numbers would work).
2. the data would need to go over a well known port that isn't easy to block, like port 80. Otherwise network admins would work out ways of stopping this data from getting around the Internet.
3. A way of signing code to make sure it isn't malicious and won't break underlying systems (like delete files, etc). I see that you would need some sort of sandbox to run it in. Don't know how you'd get around that one.
Anyway, that's my random thought. Seems wacky to me, and probably not doable: but imagine if it could be done? Say bye bye software patents! Basically, it would change the very face of the industry: if software patents are published fully and people can write extensions for existing software, but these extensions are dispersed widely and in source code where fixes and enhancements could be made anonymously: well, how are you going to enforce software patents?
The only ones who couldn't do these types of things are corporations, as they can't be seen to do dodgy or illegal things. Even then they may still be able to use patented software, as they haven't done anything wrong! But it would be a boon for consumers.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Also, does the FOSS comunity actively seek out new patents? That is, do FOSS developers patent those innovations that they produce with the intent of using them in a counter-suit? Even if the individual developers did (we're not talking the likes of IBM, and Novell, but rather Linus et al.), is there some way that the collection of patents could be transfered to such individuals for use in countersuits? Without a large patent portfolio, such small developers are easy pickens. The entire system is unbalanced and corrupt.
I would be shocked if there were not hundreds of patent violations in the Linux kernel.
Shocked.
The only reason it's slipped by is because there is no incentive to sue... If you win, the GPL stops the kernel from distributing the software, so you can't profit, but you're guaranteed a legal battle.
Add to this that nowadays, interested parties will open up their patent warchest and attack you.
On that note, does anything prevent a malicious company from seeking cash from BSD users?
Also, if you bothered to RTFA, you'll see that this idiot (Jeremy Mark Malcolm) who's being quoted offers ZERO proof that there is, as he claims:
In other words, he pulled his factoids out of someone's ass (probably McBride's or Gates - oops "Sir" Gates to us peons).If you do a google for this guy, you'll see that he's no "legal expert", he's just some part-time (very part-time) lawyer trying to drum up a name for himself down under. His day job (for the last 7 years) is "Manager of Terminus Network Services" here.
The nazguls would eat him before breakfast w/o working up a sweat [tt].If you really want to laugh, here's a google cache of his home page.
I mean, come on, you want expert advice from someone who describes themselves like this:bwaahahahahaha - gee, too bad that the VAST MAJORITY of geniuses aren't stupid enough or insecure enough to pay for the "privilege" of belonging to Mensa.Anyone stupid enough to get suckered into paying some other group to say "Hey, they think I'm smart" is White House Press Corps "lob-a-softball-question-for-George" material.
Well, first, at least in the US...the speed limits were never dropped to 55 for safety reasons....was due to the gas crunch of the 70's.
That being said, from what I read...the raising of the limits back to 70 or so....have NOT increased the number of accidents. Grant it...injury will be greater at greater speeds, but, just driving faster does not of itself present a greater risk of having an accident. Depends a great deal on the car you drive, and the driving conditions of the area you are in. I've got a high performace car, that is very comfy going 100+....it has the brakes, engine, and suspension to do this with no problem. I don't wind it out that fast in crosstown traffic, but, why not on open stretches of highway with no other traffic for miles?
A radar detector helps immensely....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yes. And anyway, unless patent applications *and* enforcement become a lot less expensive than they are now, as someone else has pointed out, only the bigger companies will be able to benefit from them. The smaller ones will die. If there is a law meant to protect, then it should at least guarantee that everyone can be protected. This is clearly not the case with patents. What can of constitution would permit a law that can protect only a small category - and a category that needs the less protection? This is my take on patents, software or otherwise.
That being said, anyone who actually knows something about software development will know that software cannot be patented. This is absurd. Its very nature makes it too abstract and general to patent it. Why not patent sentences, while we are at it? Thus, writers would get sued for using certain sentences or expressions in their books. This is exactly the same thing, only even more frightening.
I think either patents or closed source software should be outlawed. After all what is the point of hiding the source if your methods are protected by patents and of what use are patents if everyone with enough money to make sueing worthwhile hides their code?
Linux is not Windows
How about we insist on forced open source as a price for patents?
I mean:
* You can't determine prior art if all the software is closed source.
* You can't defend against patents if your prevented from showing the prior art.
Therefore in exchange for patents, all software must be open source. Not just the patented bits (because unpatented bits may be prior art for future patents) - all of it.
That would fit with the Vacuum cleaner/Steam engine model, since as soon a Dyson puts out a new Vacuum cleaner its obvious from looking at it how it works. So it would put software in the same position.
Quite right. A good example being Microsoft, who once went out of their way to avoid infringing any known compression patents of a particular type but got caught out anyway:
m l
http://www.ross.net/compression/introduction.ht
If Microsoft, with their ample legal resources, can't write software without unwittingly infringing software patents, who can?
Applying that to this situation, you'd need to have a few "obvious" software patents that they would simply have to attack. They would have no choice. You don't care about sacrificing those patents - in fact, the only way to really win IS to lose them - what you care about is setting a precedent that blunts or even disembowels their own patents.
One thing American culture isn't too good on is that sometimes the best way to win is to lose. You just have to lose the right way. Precisely because that is a weakness in American culture, it is very unlikely American businesses would know how to deal with it. They'd be far more likely to win first and understand the consequences later.
Those more into Doctor Who, in particular the story The Five Doctors, will recognize this strategy as the one Rassilon uses. To Win Is To Lose, and He Who Loses Shall Win.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There is a huge difference between the US and the proposed EU patent system. While in the US "prior art" is all that practically matters, in the EU a patent is described as being "a significant advancement to the state of the art in that field". This means that for something to be patentable, it must be non-obvious. This is clearly open to interpretation and in any case of patent infringment one could claim that said patent is invalid because it is not really state of the art.
Another point to remember is that patents DO expire (well, at least in my country). I'd bet that in any reasonable patent scheme the Windows 95 patents should have expired by now (which is a reasonable time frame for any company selling software, after all MS no longer supports Win 95!!).
P.