Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Perens Dismisses Torvald's Patent Pool

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the he-should-start-a-non-profit-asap dept.

ficken writes "Open source activist Bruce Perens has dismissed as inadequate a new IP initiative backed by Linus Torvalds. The Open Source Development Labs' (OSDL) patent commons project is intended to provide patent protection to open source developers. Perens, speaking at LinuxWorld, compared the patent pool to "spitting in the wind" -because the patents it contained come from "the wrong people.""

5 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. "Lloyd's taking on open source IP risk" by Quirk · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Reg has a pertinent piece on the venerable insurance company Lloyd's being close offering..."independent insurance protection worldwide against potential IP litigation involving Linux and open source software".

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
  2. What the article is about by Roland+Walter+Dutton · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oh Ghod, here we go again. Since the submitter hasn't given a remotely useful summary of what Bruce Perens' actual problem with the patent pool is, I will explain it here for those of you who won't RTFA.

    THE ARGUMENT ---

    There are two main types of possible patent agression: 1) from patent trolls and 2) from big companies with lots of software as well as lots of software patents. Let's see how our new patent pool does against each of them.

    Case 1:

    PATENT TROLL: Your software violates my patent on the letter 'g'. Pay me $40,000,000 to go away.

    LINUS: Your software violates several thousand patents in *our* patent arsenal.

    PATENT TROLL: I don't own any software; all I have is this portfolio of groundbreaking, original patents. Pony up.

    Now *nobody's* patent pool is useful in case 1 (unless it just happens to contain prior art on the troll's patent). Patent pools are generally for use in case 2.

    Case 2:

    MICROSOFT: Your software violates 42,000 of our finest patents. Go to jail.

    LINUS: Your software violates several thousand patents in *our* patent arsenal.

    MICROSOFT: Oh, that's too bad. Would those be the patents loaned to you by other major software companies? The same major software companies who have given us an unlimited, perpetual license to use all their software patents in exchange for a similar license from us? Yes? Gosh, now I'm scared.

    So if the Linux patent pool is no use in case 1, and no use in case 2, it's no use at all, correct?

    THE POINT ---

    Now I don't really know how correct Bruce Perens' position is, although on the face of it it does seem highly reasonable. What I do know is that whether you think Bruce Perens suX0r, or whether he founds too many nonprofits, or whether or not he could defeat the fscking Green Lantern, is *completely* *irrelevant* to the actual question, which is really pretty damned important. So: can we talk about the *actual* *issue* now, and not whether we like Bruce Perens?

  3. Re:Stop the infighting by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative
    I support Eben's efforts to change patent law. Daniel Ravicher has been successful at reversing a Microsoft patent, and we need to do a lot more of those. I don't support the pool at this time because I feel it can actually hurt the overall effort. Note that I am not alone in this, Florian of NoSoftwarePatents.org, an organization that has been incredibly effective in saving our butts in Europe, said the same thing.

    When OSDL has an effective patent pool, they will show us how it can be effective. Until then, I believe that belief in the pool only diverts people from solving the problem.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  4. If you think I'm wrong by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
    Folks,

    My office phone number is 510-526-1165 and it rings in my home too. I leave it off the hook when my family is asleep, so you don't run the risk of bothering us. If you feel I'm doing the wrong thing, call me and discuss it. I may convince you otherwise.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  5. Re:Stop the infighting by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
    if for example, the 500 patents IBM donated have in fact been transferred to the full ownership of the EFF?

    What we had from IBM was a covenant not to sue, not any sort of transfer. It was not useful for defensive purposes. And Stu's remarks in Business Week led me to believe that the 3000 patents were all that sort of covenant. I asked him to clear this up in email. He did not put anthing concrete in writing and offered to talk with me on the phone. That probably won't happen until late this week.

    I surmise that there is no strength to the pool at this time.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.