Slashdot Mirror
CA Releases Patents to OSS
simonfairfax writes "ComputerWorld reports that Computer Associates International has released 14 patents to the opensource community, following IBM's lead. From the article: 'CA said it is joining IBM in encouraging other companies to create an industrywide "patent commons" in which patents are pledged royalty-free to further innovation in areas of broad interest to developers and users of IT.'"
I must admit that I have been watching this whole "released" patents thing with slight amusement. Doesn't it strikes to anyone that this movement essentially declares to do the same to innovation and market, what original patent system claimed (and actually did, too) to do.
What we have turned this system into, that we now engineer a ways around it now? (but at least it's actually pretty nice to see that needs and deeds of the smart remains the same over the time despite the corporate USA.)
they are not "owned" by the community. the community gets a free license to use them
This is a nice gesture, but it won't address the real problem, no matter how many companies "donate" patents.
A patent pool could possibly help if it is actively defensive. In other words, it has to be structured like the GPL -- allowing some patent-pool entity to retaliate when a patent abuser like Amazon sues to enforce One-Click BS.
It could work such that by joining the patent pool, you get the right to use all of its patents but in return you have to place all of your own patents in the pool. (Unfortunately, there are many loopholes in this system, like creating multiple corporations to bypass the responsibility provisions... Also, it does nothing to address the "patent factories" who churn out hundreds of patents on basic concepts while selling no actual product.)
Anyway, the ideal solution is to get rid of software patents entirely. There is no reason for them to exist, except to allow people to monopolize ideas and hinder true invention.
Lots of companies file patents they say are "defensive". That is, they say they won't prevent anyone else from developing the patented invention. They just need to fill the vacuum, getting a patent before someone else files an "offensive" patent which would be used to prevent others from developing that invention. But until the day comes when the "defensive" company changes its tune (maybe after changing ownership), we never can know whether the patent will be used offensively - and then it's too late.
What's wrong with releasing these patents into the public domain? We have a "fourth state", beyond the mysteriously dual states of "offensive" and "defensive" patents, and the vacuum of "no patent (yet)". Why do we need "an industrywide patent commons"? Why don't IBM and CA just release these patents into the public domain? They lose no more, and the "holding company" can't later be abused to control "submarine patents" that surface to catch entrapped users.
I'm sure that IBM's and CA's patent lawyers know more about the public domain than I do. They don't need me to think this up. But since we could get everything they're promising with a "public domain release", and they're not doing it, I suspect foul play.
--
make install -not war
What's wrong with releasing these patents into the public domain? We have a "fourth state", beyond the mysteriously dual states of "offensive" and "defensive" patents, and the vacuum of "no patent (yet)". Why do we need "an industrywide patent commons"? Why don't IBM and CA just release these patents into the public domain? They lose no more, and the "holding company" can't later be abused to control "submarine patents" that surface to catch entrapped users.
A very good point. Originally, it used to be that most research at colleges, universities, and any federal or state authorities was - by default - created as a public domain patent. But sadly this is now regarded as IP (Intellectual Property), and zealously guarded by those same institutions that used to have it be free.
Sure, open source could use the revenue - and there will be revenue - from such private patents, but if they were released into the public domain it would free up innovation.
And freeing up innovation and creation is the whole point behind having a patent process in the first place. At least in the USA when they were created as part of the Constitution.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
A bad idea is a bad idea and should be opposed even if there would be some short term benefits to "do as they do". Starting to use patents would give this particular bad idea legitimacy and would only start another arms race. And we've seen how good that works for solving any problems...
I think it's great that people have the guts, stamina and principles to do what they think is the long term right thing even though it's not the easy path.
Software patents simple is a horrible and flawed idea and so it should never be acknowledged as a viable way forward.
Spine World
The software companies are only doing this so software patents aren't eliminated completely. By pretending that their useless patents on XOR are helpful to the Free Software community (and thereby looking like the "good guys"), they keep the "good" patents to themselves. If they didn't give away their worthless ones, people would start questioning the software patenting process, and probably eliminate it.
Don't support this. Vote to abolish software patents completely! If mathematics can't be patented, why can algorithms!?
My other car is first.
- We must be consistent when we say software patents are bad.
- Patent law is not copyright law, and copyright is fairly universally accepted as applying to code.
- If you publish it correctly then your prior work invalidates future patents.
- You run the risk of turning the GPL into an unenforceable license
It's not that it's a bad idea. The problem is that it doesn't send a clear message and it just wouldn't work as well. It would be better to send the message that if you release software under the GPL you renounce the patent liability to those who make derivative works from that code. This doesn't force people to release their code, but it ensure that they are either working on a derivative (which would obviously have to be GPL), have a license from the patent holder, or are infringing if they use the patented process. This also deals with patents without supporting them in any way, and could even be combined with words that strongly state the framers' views on patents.If we accept them by trying to enforce them then we are sending a message that they should be enforced against us. This means that we're, to a degree, accepting the one click patent and others. Free software advocates accept this as well, because they know that the measures they use to keep software Free rely on copyright.
Free software advocates accept this as well, because they know that the measures they use to keep software Free rely on copyright. Patents must be obtained and this costs money, few companies would be willing to patent ideas put into free software anyhow. What they're doing now isn't quite the same, they're simply saying that they won't sue Free software developers for using their patents, and typically those are patents that aren't making them any money anyhow.
Why patent something when you'll have documented evidence of prior works? You're fronting money to try to avoid a lawsuit that shouldn't happen. If it's going to happen then you haven't saved yourself anything because they'll just try to invalidate the patent or license, or they'll claim that they had prior works of their own preceding yours.
The GPL is already questioned by some. We generally laugh these people away. However, the first time someone sues a software company that they must either release something as open source or be found guilty of patent infringement then the reasonability of the license will probably come into question. A couple bad judges and you may invalidate the license on a lot of works. If nothing else, the patent aspect may be found useless because it will probably be difficult or impossible to show that you actually incurred damages for software that is Free for all to use.
> But what if you are writing derived commercial applications?
:)
Assuming that by "commercial applications", you mean, "proprietary, non-free, closed-source, applications," then your situation is unchanged. You have no more rights to use those patents than you did yesterday, but nobody on slashdot gives a rat's ass about you anyway, so, so what?
(Actually, you are, I'm sure, perfectly welcome to negotiate a patent license with CA if you don't like the terms of their generous public donation. But I suppose it's more fun to whine on slashdot.)
Otherwise, the answer is, your commercial applications have to be free/libre/open-source commercial applications. Then there's no problem.
> any BSD or MIT license would be completely subverted
"Completely subverted?" What are you? The hyperbole fairy? Try "somewhat limited" and I might go along with you. I mean, when I've released code under BSD or MIT licenses, I've been assuming that it was so that anyone could benefit freely from the code. Not just people creating proprietary commercial derivatives. If I'd known it was just for propietary commercial derivatives, I probably wouldn't have bothered!
> The only way to clean up this mess is to overhaul the patent system (unlikely) or to release the patents to the public, *without* any restrictions.
Well, either, a) you're the kind of insane BSD fanatic who makes the Stallmanites look like moderates, or b) you're a greedy bastard who just wants other people to give him free money. I won't speculate which. But, needless to say, I disagree with you. Not that I'm not sympathetic to your point of view; but I still disagree.
The point about the impact of this (and IBM's patent grant) on BSD/MIT licenses is an important one, and I'm glad you raised the point. I just wish you hadn't resorted to such histrionics in doing so.