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.""

4 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Stop the infighting by Yo+Maing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's dissapointing to hear this event played up for the media's benefit. I read this article yesterday and while Perens' comments seem out of place, the open source community needs to work together instead of becoming splintered with bad press like this.

    1. Re:Stop the infighting by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 5, Interesting


      I agree.

      Perens is simply keeping his name in the press.

      While some of his remarks may be partially correct - namely, that it's not terribly useful to have a patent portfolio built from people who already support OSS - his primary mission here is simply to denigrate some useful work.

      Where are his solutions to the problem? I see lots of criticism and no ideas from him.

      Eben Moglen, at LinuxWorld this past week, outlined a program involving not merely the Patent Commons Project, but attempts to change patent laws and to actually reverse patents that are of particular threat to OSS.

      Perens concentrates only on the Patent Commons Project, and ignores the rest. This proves his only motive is to start a flame war.

      Nothing like handing Microsoft some talking points, Bruce. Way to go.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    2. 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.
  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?