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?"
Imminent Domain on Intellectual Property
Two words: "Plausible Deniability."
My little site.
AFAIK you can't sue the US government without its permission. At least not in US federal court. They do give their permission often however. But if they really wanted to they could violate GPLs and EULAs left and right and just not let anyone sue them for it.
I don't think it's anything to worry about though. The real worry is the government wasting taxpayer money on proprietary software and also using closed formats in an "open" government.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Parent means to write "eminent domain," which is the legal theory under which the government can condemn property and forcibly purchase it "for the common good."
n ame=ViewWeb&articleId=9237
So far, there is no such thing as eminent domain for intellectual property. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not break patents in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank (527 U.S. 627, 119 S.Ct. 2199)
That's not to say that that policy could change, however. This article explains: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&
Generally, it is a good idea to avoid picking fights with the people that control all the money, guns, courts, and jails, and are the also the only ones that are enforcing your "Intellectual Property Rights" in the first place. So when the judge tells you "Let's see, your asking me to rule in your favor on something that will cost the goverment billions... that would be the SAME government that is paying my salary?!?" you can pretty much predict what the outcome will be...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Regardless of whether the Goverments can be sued or not, in an instance such as this, particularly here in Australia I think they would be using the "we could be sued" line as an excuse not to migrate. Firstly, with the M$ propaganda they probably believe switching to OSS will cost more in the long run and secondly because they want to keep up appearences that they have shot themselves in the foot as much as they have the rest of the country by accepting the US IP laws as part of the "FTA."
I do believe that the Australian Capital Territory Govt has introduced legislation that calls for any new projects to look at OSS alternitives first in all territory related matters. However, being a territory and not a state, the federal government has the power to veto this law at any time.
It is a sad state of affairs that so much of the tax payers money is being used to pay for software licences, when there are free open alternatives. Particularly when in numerous cases they are using off the shelf products that aren't quite what they need but are the closest thing on offer, resulting in hacks and work arounds that are costing more money in govenment employee's wages.
But hey, it's only the tax payer and most of them think that Windows is the best, most secure and most cost effective operating system anyway, so what's the problem?!
Lets say that, with people being people, there would be just as much copying of code in both worlds (OSS and closed). But then, remind yourself of the fact that OSS is open; everybody can see what you used and how it's structured (look at the CherryOS debacle)...so OSS has quite a big, legit and pretty much unsurmountable reason to not be copying code.
/. the wrong question...the question you should be asking is 'why did I post a story on /. comparing OSS and closed software, with a question partaining to something (copyright infringment) OSS has inherently no problem with?'
/cows FUD?
Then look at closed source software; you can't see the code! So I'd say that almost per definition closed software has a greater amount of legal liability than OSS; OSS shows and bares all, closed doesn't. People being people, the guys who can hide will hide.
So it looks to me like you're asking
Are you feeding us
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
OSS has a wonderful resistance to lawsuits in redundancy - multiple items developed independently make it such that it is unlikely that ALL open-source solutions to an issue be susceptible to any given suit. Furthermore, the incomparable ingenuity and swiftness of the open-source community mean that any code found to be in violation has a relatively high probability of being quickly changed (one reason that SCO was so reluctant to identify the specific Linux source "in violation of" their copyright).
Also, should the government adopt OSS, it can always shrewdly deny software patents it believes might lead to legitimate suits against it.
Of course, as was pointed out by others above, it is doubtful that the government would adopt OSS in the forseeable future because... well... do any of us doubt that Micro$oft has the money to buy, among other things, our responsible civic representatives?
the one with more lawyers will win
The governments (US and AU) do not want to win. They do not want to use OSS. They want to keep funneling money from me, you, and every other citizen of the 52 states into the coffers of their friends and supporters.
There will be isolated areas where IT departments or individuals with a clue buck this trend, but the bulk of policymakers will always endeavor to support the deep pockets of those who finance their campaigns and employ them when they leave politics.
They will do this to ensure the pockets remain deep.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
mod this guy way up as the first comment. he's right. the US government has to waive its sovereign immunity before you can bring a lawsuit against it. so the only way that you can sue the government is if it wants you to sue it.
by the way, this also applies to state universities. which is why the **AA can't sue the university itself (believe you me, they would if they could) for contributory liability to copyright violations.
Not to mention the fact that it's hard to make cash off of litagation against a non-profit organisation .So they are less likely to sue .
Not that im calling companys who live on patent litegation thieving scum , but for legal reasons im on implying it.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though