Slashdot Mirror
Patents Role in US/AU Gov't Use of Open Source?
An anonymous reader asks: "How do governments (esp. US and Australia) deal with possibility of a patent lawsuit from some company against a specific OSS product, which might be deployed by a given government department? Is there any danger for various (government or not for that matter) agencies being told 'not to use this or that software from now on' because some commercial company might be winning the patent battles in court against this particular piece of software?
I can see how a small business may take such a risk, but government agencies in the US and Australia could be put off by possibility, since the costs associated with migrating to open source and then back would be rather extreme (note that we are not talking about Europe which has different take on Software Patents and consequently Munich case is not really a strong example in the US/AU context). Personally I do not like software patents and think that they only inhibit software development processes, but how would Slashdot community reason for government-wide adoption of OSS in view of possible trouble with patents?"
...the one with more lawyers will win.
And the Government of the United States of America has a HELL of a lot more lawyers than any corporation.
The sooner they recognize that the same liability exists with closed source the sooner they will realize that the software patent system is at fault.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
Seriously, watch the armchair lawyers come out in droves with the "IANAL, but" posts.
Slashdot should leave the legal questions to real lawyers. Let this guy go talk to somebody who actually knows something, instead of some know-it-all schmuck on the Internet.
OSS has no greater chance of being the target of a patent, or copyright, lawsuit than closed source software. In fact, any organisation can view the source and make their own risk assessment; something you can't do with closed source software.
against either government?
If you're going to sue the govt, you'd better have a lot of money. If you're a competitor of open source bringing the suit, how does winning improve your chances of future business with the govt?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Software patents are a grave threat regardless of whether the software is Free or not.
The difference is that in the OSS case, the file format is open, so it's more likely that you can migrate to a different solution with less effort.
The only real difference is that a large company who is the target of a patent suit can usually buy enough lawyers to prevent a patent from actually taking effect. But there's no guarantee of that.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
They tell you this in high school criminal law. The US Government has immunity from lawsuits unless it waives its immunity. In other words, it's immune to lawsuits. Google, and paying attention in class, are your friends.
*De gozaru!*
The U.S. Government? Using Open Source Software? Umm...maybe you don't follow U.S. corpolitics?
Going back to school for entry-level jobs?
Not if the file format is what is patented
(GIF, JPEG)
Usually in these kind of lawsuits ... the one with more lawyers will win.
But when when governments are involved, it's irrelevant.
If a patent liability becomes a nuisance, governments everywhere (including those of the US and Australia) simply claim sovereignty as a means of giving someone abroad the finger, or they claim national interest as a means of silencing internal claims. The latter especially is extremely common.
Governments and politicians may be the scum of the earth, but in this case, patent holders claiming rights over ideas are the worse scum.
So far, there is no such thing as eminent domain for intellectual property
Which is bizarre, since the state can deprive a person of his home under the doctrine, but not IP, which can be duplicated.
I guess if you really think about it, it kind of makes sense though. People use their homes to live in, and if the state needs the land for a highway, they're supposed to pay a fair market price. The thing about "intellectual property" is the primary thing you do with it is sell it or license it's use. So I guess in theory rights to the "property" should be for sale, so the government could just buy them in some form if it needs them.
Of course, this ignores the phenomenon of the "technology firm", which sells nothing and makes money by suing.
Finally, "Intellectual Property" is one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" frame-the-debate terms. If an idea can be owned, then the government should pay for its use. But there is another view that patents are just monopolies granted on the exploitation of ideas for the public good -- like the monopolies granted to the water company or electric company. In that case, the government could simply exempt public uses of an idea from the patent monopoly.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
OSS is less exposed to IP claims risks than is proprietary source. Apart from their relative openness, they're equally likely to include proscribed code. But OSS code can be searched by anyone (including suspicious IP owners), and has better code "pedigree" records, also searchable by anyone. Patents are an old form of open source: patented devices are published in enough detail to allow anyone to be sure they're not infringing, before they use a design. OSS under licenses like the GPL are a decentralized version of that publication, without the restrictions on further using the protected property (except so far as to retain that viral, open license).
So a better question is "how does an org protect itself from IP interference with IP upon which it depends?", and a good answer is "use OSS instead of proprietary".
--
make install -not war