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..."
"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."
Do you work for SCO?
..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.
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.
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.
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
You know, THEM! Those folks. The ones that keep stealing your soda, paper clips and hiding your scissors. The ones that take your postit notes and hide them under your keyboard. THEM!!! The ones that email you about prescription drugs and penis enlargers. THEM!!!! The ones that dress your cat up in fancy lingerie when your off on business trips, drink your beer and hide the remote! THEM!!!!
Time for my medication already?
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
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
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.
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 ?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
In California, at least, if a city or some local government post a speed limit sign that says 10 MPH on an interstate freeway (for example), you don't have to follow it because the speed sign is not "reasonable" from an engineer/public safety perspective. All speed limit signs MUST be backed by engineering studies that says the proper speed limits should be set at x MPH for this stretch of road. If you get a ticket for speeding, and in court you demand the prosecutor providing engineering studies proof to back-up the vailidity of the speed limit, and they cannot, your case is then dismissed and you are free.
Therefore, even if the law is passed, it doesn't mean you should follow it blindly.
On another tangent, if the traffic is going 80 MPH, and you go 70 MPH on a 60 MPH highway it was possible to get a ticket for going too fast and too slow at the same time. Though usually the court will throw out one of the two.
"Patents can be used to sue people no matter how long they may have violated it with or without the knowledge of patent holder. and IANAL"
Not really true -- except maybe for the IANAL part, I don't have any info either way on that...
There is a concept in the law (U.S. law, at least) called laches -- basically, the law acknowledges that it is simply "unfair" for a patent holder (or any other rights holder, for that matter) to recognize that someone else is doing something wrong, and simply wait until the other guy has racked up damages, or whatever, before suing them. If a rights holder (such as a patent owner) waits too long to sue, he could lose the right to assert that patent against that particular infringer. The infringer could raise a laches defense, and if the court agreed that the patent owner "sat on his rights" for too long, the court could throw the case out.
Now, how long it too long? There isn't a set amount of time, it will depend on the overall "fairness" of the situation. It's not like a statute of limitations, where there is a hard line after which you can't take action -- rather, this is an "equitable" defense, where the court basically says, "yeah, Mr. Patent Holder, you do have a case here, but you waited way to long to bring it, and now it just wouldn't be fair to sue the defendant after all of this time."
An example would be holding a patent, seeing your competitor build an infringing product, and then waiting for 6 or 7 years for the product to take off in the marketplace, then suing once the company has made some money and racked up damages. That would be an example of where laches would come in -- if you wanted to protect your invention, you should have sued when you realized the infringing activity was taking place -- waiting for 6 or 7 years to rack up damages just wouldn't be "fair" to the other guy.
But again, that doesn't mean there is a statute of limitations are anything -- as long as the patent is still valid, you can sue someone who has been infringing for 10 years, as long as you only recently found out about the infringement. And even if you are barred by laches from asserting your patent against one guy, that doesn't mean your patent is invalid -- you can still go after other infringers.
This goes for patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc. It can also apply to torts, breaches of contract, really ANY type of court case -- but in most cases, the statute of limitations will kick in before enough time passes for a laches defense to be successfully raised. However, in certain types of cases, even a very short delay -- a couple of months even -- can be enough to raise a laches defense.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli