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.'"

Comments

Matter meets anti-matter

[Kosmatos]

Wait a minute... If the open-source community now "owns" patents, what happens when they start using that new version of the GPL that prohibits use by patent owners? They won't be able to use their own code!

Suckers :)

Re:Matter meets anti-matter

[jhoger]

The new GPL (which no one has seen) does not "prohibit use by (software) patent owners."

The only comment from fsf on this is is that you will lose your license to use a particular piece of software if you sue users/creators of that piece of software for patent infringement. Not scary at all.

Besides the comment is meaningless, since a license is for users and redistributors of your code not the creator of the code. You can't license yourself out of your own code unless you transfer ownership to another party in a contractually valid way, or release to the public domain.

-- John.

Yay

[PunkOfLinux]

Looking through here, it seems like these aren't CA's lame ducks either...
The actual list of patents can be found at CA's website

Oh dear...

[fracex]

I read that as "CA Patents OSS"

A long circle around

[KZigurs]

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.)

A nice gesture

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Public Domain: Ready and Waiting for Contributions

[Doc Ruby]

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.

The fourteen patents are:

[Anonymous Coward]

The patents are in alphabetical order:

1. renaming file names without a keyboard connected to a VT220 terminal
   
2. instructing your computer repair technician to print your invoice in duplicate
   
3. OS/2 uninstaller
   
4. OS/2 license perusal methodoly in high-altitude cargo airplanes
   
5. process to install Win95 front-end for OS/2
   
6. OPAL underlying infrastructure rejection process
   
7. Mystery patent from Wang Tech #1
   
8. Mystery patent from Wang Tech #2
   
9. process to determine the feasibility of releasing even-numbered patents from Wang Tech
   
10. The lithuanian translation process for the Magna Carta
    
11. process to determine if a beverage bottle has less than 23% of its contents
    
12. same as previous, but for 24%
    
13. regulations to automate the process of submitting patents in California after midnight
    
14. The user of the HTML tag, which expands HTML source by 2,543% which would be satisfied by simpler tags
    
15. process to spin the media in believing that worthless patents for OSS is a good thing
    
16. automating posts in Kuro5hin
    

General Patent License

[tyler_larson]

Actually, I see a real opportunity here. CA has granted you irrevocable license to use their patented software technology if (and only if) you release your implementation under an open source license.

It would be very cool to see another clause saying that organization wishing to take advantage of this patent protection must also license all of their software patents under the same (or compatible) terms.

Rather than taking RMS's short-sighted "no patents at all" approach, the GPL could use patent protection the same way it uses copyright protection to incentivise developers to open-source their software (and patents).

Such an apporach would give open-source software a huge advantage over its proprietary counterpart: not ony would OSS developers get access to a vast selection of source code, but they would have royalty-free access to use certain techniques that would otherwise not be allowed. This could have a very strong viral effect beyond the power that the GPL currently wields.

If RMS could have fought against copyright protection, he would have--after all, "information wants to be free," right? Lacking that option, he used his own copyright protection to force others to willingly give up their own. Software patents are a reality. Rather than fight impotently against the ideal, we ought to harness that protection to further the open-source cause. The earlier it takes hold, the more powerful the move will become.

I rather like the idea of the FSF patenting its more clever ideas to prevent them from being used by closed-source developers. Right now OSS makes it easier to develop open source, the effect would be better if they also made it harder to survive developing closed source software.

Re:General Patent License

[bedroll]

I've thought about this before (as I'm sure many others have). I came to the conclusion that it's wrong in a couple of different ways:

1. We must be consistent when we say software patents are bad.
   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.
2. Patent law is not copyright law, and copyright is fairly universally accepted as applying to code.
   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.
3. If you publish it correctly then your prior work invalidates future patents.
   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.
4. You run the risk of turning the GPL into an unenforceable license
   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.

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.

Arms race is not the answer

[Kristoffer Lunden]

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.